The Poetic Landscape of Rumi

Inside this new love, die.
Your way begins on the other side.
Become the sky.
Take an axe to the prison wall.
Escape.
Walk out like someone suddenly born into colour.
Do it now!
You’re covered with thick cloud.
Slide out the side. Die,
And be quiet. Quietness is the surest sign
That you’ve died.
Your old life was a frantic running
From silence.

I died several years ago now. I gave up on struggling to impress an insatiable world that is never satisfied, devoting hours of my attention to futile hopes or participating in trivial social games that deceived others and myself alike all for the sake of a fleeting, transient applaud or pat on the back. I decided to become myself and for a time I hid away, closed the door as I despairingly heard the loud screams echo within that silence, the pangs of conscience merely an anxious symptom of the withdrawal from a false reality that I feverishly believed to be real. It took time, slowly but surely the sounds softened and a quietness brought within me a sense of calm that I began to actually hear myself, the still waters glistened as the sun rose over the horizon and bred warmth into my bones. A real peace came over me and with it a real happiness where I could see as things were, that I could feel as I should and no longer sensed tension against my own nature. I found the balance from within and my happiness was no longer dependent on others. I found the love for me through my love for God. The silence became music.

I have long had some trouble with poetry. When Plutarch published Quomodo Adolescens Poetas Audire Debeat where he cautioned that “[m]any the lies the poets tell” the idea that poetry used as a tool to corrupt the truth certainly resonated. Indeed, there are many from personal experience who have attained the skills of rhyme, verse and form and speak of love and wisdom, but they themselves are far from being wise or loving people as they borrow and adorn themselves with fake poetic trinkets. Language is weak from protecting itself from such corruption. However, as we filter through and separate the greats, we do find ourselves holding the works of Robert Frost, Alexander Pushkin and Rumi who use parables within their poetry, where the fictitious prose exposes a moral truth and enables one to makes sense of and reason their own subjectivity. They provide access through ones own imagination en-route toward this repository of emotions and feelings that previously never had a language.

There is no doubt that poetry is embedded in Persian culture and indeed the tradition dates back centuries, remaining a powerful influence both socially and politically that provides insight into how such symbolic allusions and mystical allegories express a unique interpretation of meaning and identity. While the influence of poetry in the region dates back to the pre-Islamic era, a cultural revival during the Seljuq Empire – while short-lived – managed to revive Persian poetry that flourished in the region for centuries to come. Works by philosopher and theologian Al-Ghazali and vizier Nizam al-Mulk set the stage for this revivification that continued into the Ottoman Empire. Nasir ibn Khusraw as well as early mystics of the Sufi order Abdullah Ansari of Herat and Baba Taher of Hamadan introduced what later became a prominent method to interpret the mystical experience and unity with God that simple language could not correctly allude to. Indeed, the great poet and writer Nizami Ganjavi wrote epic love tales including Khosrow and Shirin about the love of King Khosrow with the Princess Shirin of Armenia, but also Layla and Majnun or what has become famously known as Romeo and Juliet in the west. Such epic tales of love and tragedy was already entrenched in Persian culture at the time but became further popularised and exercised considerable influence on later poets. While I could easily add a very long list of famed poets from the region, there is no doubt that Jalaluddin Rumi stands at the forefront in popularity.

When I remember your love,
I weep, and when I hear people
Talking of you,
Something in my chest,
Where nothing much happens now,
Moves as in sleep.

All our lives we’ve looked
Into each other’s faces.
That was the case today too.

How do we keep our love-secret?
We speak from brow to brow
And hear with our eyes.

In the early thirteenth century, Rumi was born to a well-respected and privileged family of theologians and became a student to one of his own father’ disciples Sayyed Termazi that gave him learned access to the Qur’anic traditions and spiritual landscape of Sufism. While he became a scholar and teacher of Islamic jurisprudence at a very young age, it was not until his meeting with the wandering dervish Shamsuddin of Tabriz (known as Shams) that he experienced the spiritual epiphany that awoken the deeper repository of aesthetic expression in the forms of poetry. Their friendship was very unique and indeed the brotherly love, the difficulties, and even the tragedy between them inspired Rumi to write a great deal dedicated to Shams, including his masterpiece Diwan-e Shams-e Tabrizi. It is clear that this deep, spiritual awakening led Rumi to understand the universality of love, a grace given by God and this ecstasy and wonderment of the experience made him express his deep appreciation for Shams by providing with the wisdom and insight to enable access. There are layers that describe various expressions of love in objective forms that explore the ultimate union with the external world, that brotherly love, erotic love, and familial love merely deliver this euphoric power as fragments of the love of God, the very Form of Love itself, as within the first Kalima of Islam that writes ‘there is no reality but God.’

Hail Love, hail Love, because Love is divine
It is tender, it is beautiful and benign
What passion, what passion, we are burning like the sun
It is hidden and obscure, it is an obvious sign.
We’ve fallen, we’ve fallen, it is hard to rise up
We know not, we know not, this complex chaotic design.

Thus everything comes from this reality or Zikr where we remember the love of God by the variety of forms that we express one to another. While the love that is formed in friendship initiates the removal of the infantile ego and commences the conscious experience of caring for and loving someone external to oneself and to thus start experiencing reality, this capacity is clearly fortified when one experiences the longing founded in erotic love. This feverishly impassioned experience between two people solidified by the admiration for one another and a longing to unite with them inspires a state of real happiness that brings us closer to this ultimate reality where everything is God. This genuine engagement between two lovers can be seen in Rumi’ fascination for the love between Queen of Sheba and King Solomon, of how the virgin Queen changed the heart of a man who had many lovers and to finally see what genuine love meant. King Solomon represented a man of wisdom and of high intelligence, but his life had slipped as he fell victim to a world of beautiful yet intellectually lacking women that he soon gave up on his own mental gifts. Queen of Sheba’s dedication to wisdom was clear when she came to test him and they both glimpsed within one another a mirror of themselves that awoken the inspiration for this euphoric feeling in love. If a person is a book, locked away and hidden, it is clear that the genuine union between the love of two people supplants a wholeness and a euphoric happiness as though one is finally seen, unlocked and read by another.

I’ve come to take you
With me
Even if I must drag you along
But first must steal your heart
Then settle you in my soul

I’ve come as a spring
To lay beside your blossoms
To feel the glory of happiness
And spread your flowers around

I’ve come to show you off
As the adornment of my house
And elevate you to the heavens
As the prayers of those in love

I’ve come to take
A kiss you stole away from me
Either return it with grace
Or I must take it by force

You’re my life
You’re my soul
Please be my last prayer
My heart must hold you forever

For Rumi, the ultimate panegyric is reaching this honesty and awareness, to break free from the encapsulated smallness of a mind that follows convention. If I were to eliminate such environmental and epistemic influences over my thoughts and emotions, what would ‘I’ have left but a brain, which is merely a tool that vehicle my rather fleeting existence. His work Masnavi narrates powerful rhyming couplets of a spiritual and religious nature that attempts to illustrate the attainment of the love of God or the Divine, to feel the existence of God by embracing the didactic that we are inherently evil. We must overcome this immorality by welcoming the theistic wisdom founded with in the scriptures through the denial of the carnal and material in praise of moral reflection that enables one to reveal our very nature and the ecstasy that one can attain when reaching this state of wholeness with God. Whether this experience is entirely mystical is challenging as this inspiration could merely be an innate awareness that recognises our own state of nature, to transcend externally influenced perceptions and become conscious of our own capacity to think independent of material considerations.

If you want what visible reality
Can give, you’re an employee.
 
If you want the unseen world,
You’re not living your truth.

Both wishes are foolish,
But you’ll be forgiven for forgetting
That what you really want is
Love’s confusing joy.

Gamble everything for love,
If you’re a true human being.
If not, leave
This gathering.

Half-heartedness doesn’t reach
Into majesty. You set out
To find God, but then you keep
Stopping for long periods
At mean-spirited roadhouses.

While there are a number of verse forms used including Masnavi, Ruba’i, Qazal and Qasideh, it would be unreasonable to categorise Rumi as a poet of forms, indeed he transcends such distinctive rules and uses poetry as a way to express the subject or content of his feelings rather than making any calculable effort. For instance, Ruba’i are quatrains or stanzas using a particular meter that nevertheless can alternate rhythmically, the Ruba’iyyat by famed Persian poet Omar Khayyam resonates with his philosophical and mathematical background. Khayyam, rather conversely to Rumi, had a very logical approach to reality perhaps owing to his mathematical and philosophical nature where the content of his poetry takes a more material and existential approach to reality and the disillusionment wrought by the futility of existence, parallel to Epicurean thought and the poetry of Lucretius. Rumi, on the other hand, could be clearly seen as a deist and describes the importance of removing oneself from the material world. Indeed, for Rumi, freedom requires the courage to let go of all worldly attachments and become one not only with reality – reality being Nature – but by becoming one with yourself, to lose all the mental and emotional dictates that one believes is reality and to become absorbed in the nature of our very being.

Birds make great sky-circles
Of their freedom.
How do they learn it?

They fall, and falling,
They’re given wings.

Thus the use of the aesthetic is coming from an embedded song that sings the movement of his emotions, the words and meters merely the rhythm and the harmony that enables a voice and language for such feelings. It is why there is much debate and controversy relating to the translations of his poetry by Coleman Banks – author of numerous books on Rumi including The Essential Rumi – and that while having popularised Rumi to the western world, he appears to take his own subjective interpretation of this content and form it into a translation. It is difficult to ascertain whether this is merely a form of Orientalism as expressed by Edward Said where the West culturally misrepresents the Middle East. For instance, Bernard Lewis who – having the title of scholar and historian of the Middle East whereby historians require a strong understanding of culture and beliefs – has never, in fact, stepped foot into the Middle East; he has even gone so far as to advise the Bush Administration related to foreign policy in the region. It is highly unusual to read the translations by Banks for this reason as it cannot interpret the peculiarities of both the Persian language and the special use of imagery specific to the culture. Visiting a tomb in Konya or watching the Whirling Dervishes would not enable one to embrace the allusions and references to the Qu’ran, Sufism and other imagery embedded into the Persian language that provokes an emotional effect that other languages are unqualified to translate. Whatever the case, Rumi remains a poetic giant in the landscape of theistic devotion and the subject of love.

On The Identity Of The Soul: Do ‘I’ Exist?

What does it mean to have a soul? Is the soul an immortal bridge that enables passage between the material realm of space and time toward an eternal life, or as said by Homer: “[m]any a brave soul did it send hurrying down to Hades, and many a hero did it yield a prey to dogs and vultures.” Or is it a part of the fabric of consciousness that vehicles experience beyond passive observations, the very terrain that uniquely identifies ‘you’ aside from the social and environmental influences that determine your character? Does the soul actually exist within an indefinite continuum where the death of our bodies is merely transiently corporeal, or is it an epistemic system that attempts to articulate a criterion that draws a singularity to the fundamental question of being?

It raises a number of questions about individuality contained within a complex nucleus and temporal situatedness of an external world. Socrates believed the soul itself is cyclical and demonstrated by an immortality where the very ‘I’ in individuality or the consciousness remains despite re-embodying to a new material form; knowledge can awaken as though we are recollecting a pre-existing intelligence. Socrates assumes that knowledge precedes sense-perception, whereby in the Republic he elucidates two types of a singular mind when discussing Beauty,[1] an ambiguity in our perceptions of the external world that stands midway between being and non-being where the purity of the phenomena exists but impossible to firmly conceive. This absolute reality, the Forms of Beauty or Good, existed prior to knowledge that we perceive and discover an understanding of through objects in the external world and as such, “discovering that it existed before and is ours, and we compare these things with it, then, just as they exist, so our soul must exist before we are born.”[2] We recollect the Form of Beauty or Good through appearances of sensual experience and thus the knowledge of them already existed, but further to this, the Forms are absolute reality, divine and non-composite.[3] This reality is impenetrable by our senses and if we suppose that somehow we could be free from our bodies and thus from the limitations of sense-experience, we could access this imperceptible realm through our mind or ‘soul’. That while we have a singular mind or a singular identity, our understanding of reality is divided into a schism between consciousness or ‘being’ and sense-experience or ‘not-being’[4].

This dualism was furthered by Descartes where the soul itself is separate to the body, a substance that the cogito – the epistemic ‘I think, therefore I am’ – demonstrates since if ever in doubt of reality, this doubt itself proves that one is thinking and therefore the mind must exist. But if an ‘evil demon’[5] is tricking us into believing that the material world actually exists, the external world can be doubted and therefore both the mind and the body are distinct from one another. As we are capable of imagining ourselves existing without a body, knowledge is attained by both sense-experience and the mind as two separate yet interconnected substances, but the mind is indivisible as it does not contain any physical properties unlike the material world. Imagining ourselves in these Cartesian thought experiment could nevertheless be considered psychological and therefore while we can see or imagine such realities, it does not necessarily imply that these realities actually exist as mind-independent properties; thus imagination is not a process of logic. Indeed, is intentionality – the very nature of our mental states – contingent upon physical properties that exist independent of the mind and therefore relational to objects of the external world, or does it merely require a reference to content and that knowledge does not necessarily require existence but exists within the mind?

Thus when a person experiences a loss such as a death or a detachment from someone that they love, they are forced to reconcile with the detachment of this loved person and this very detachment arouses unconscious opposition that seeks a substitution to avoid confronting the painful sensation of the experience, so much so that the individual turns away from reality and transfers into a neurotic reality or an unreal reality, a type of disassociation.

An example of this can be whether fictional characters exist; is it an illusion that drives the cognitive mechanism to engage with the external world and though the content is not actually real nonetheless enables real experiences? I am moved with horror and fear when I watch a movie like Irreversible where a woman is brutally beaten and raped, emotions clearly exhibited by the shock, the tears, the physical anxiety and shaking; while aware that the movie is not real and that the woman is in fact an actor, my experience of these emotions show that I must nevertheless believe that her rape actually happened and therefore my mind referenced the content rather than physical properties. The question is, was I moved by such emotional responses because I engaged in a fictional scenario that logically exists or is it merely psychological where I knowingly enabled my imagination to temporarily allow the fictional characters to exist?

Or are our emotional responses also fiction?

If we are moved by an emotional response that is subject to illusory content rather than physical properties, it may well be psychological. Indeed, consider the psychological disorder of hysteria or other somatoform disorders; a person experiencing such symptoms are capable of causing temporary blindness, paralysis and other physical ailments that are inconsistent with any medical or even neurological diagnosis. The physical ailment is apparent, the person is actually experiencing blindness or paralysis, but for no causal reason. It led Freud to discover the unconscious mind and psychoanalytic theory, indeed in his paper Mourning and Melancholia explained how the mind can establish with certainty a fictional reality.[6] “This opposition can be so intense that a turning away from reality takes place and a clinging to the object through the medium of a hallucinatory wishful psychosis.”[7] Mourning the loss of a loved one, such as when a parent dies, involves sensations that are natural, however melancholia is caused by strong feelings of painful dejection that interest in the world around them along with a capacity to feel or experience happiness is disturbed, destructive to the activity of a healthy ego. Thus when a person experiences a loss that needn’t be a death but could be a detachment from someone that they love, they are forced to reconcile with the detachment of this loved person and this very detachment arouses unconscious opposition that seeks a substitution to avoid confronting the painful sensation of the experience, so much so that the individual turns away from reality and transfers into a neurotic reality or an unreal reality, a type of disassociation. The condition becomes pathological and they disassociate from their own identity and self-image and while they actually experience and believe their reality to be authentic, their identity is merely simulating a false reality.

Franz Brentano wrote, “[e]very mental phenomenon includes something as object within itself, although they do not do so in the same way. In presentation, something is presented, in judgment something is affirmed or denied, in love loved, in hate hated, in desire desired and so on. This intentional inexistence is characteristic exclusively of mental phenomena. No physical phenomenon exhibits anything like it. We can, therefore, define mental phenomena by saying that they are those phenomena which contain an object intentionally within themselves.”[8] This ‘intentional inexistence’ purports that the relation between the mind and experience relies on the internal structure of the mind and does not necessarily rely on physical or objective targets. An emotional response needn’t require any relation to real-world characters when all one would need to do is believe in the fictional representation and therefore our imagination is psychological. If we were to deconstruct our mental state to try and ascertain the very essence of these mental acts, would the complete elimination of these illusory presuppositions enable us to distinguish between what is real and what is fictitious? And while postulating this ontological problem, would that be characteristic of an authentic and conscious experience of reality by the soul or one’s very being? If we are unable to obtain actual knowledge of concepts like the soul neither experience actual reality, we become doomed to the limitations of our cognitive processes and language.

Indeed, Kant’ views on the soul and transcendental psychology purport that while we are unable to attain actual knowledge of concepts like the soul, we can rely only on faith. Similar to the Cartesian ‘I think therefore I am,’ epistemologically we reveal that we are or that there is substance to this ‘I’ and this substance is our soul. It is distinct and indivisible, what marks an autonomous identity, but this very ‘I’ is transcendentally illusory. To become cognisant of the object of this ‘I’ it must be done in the absence of intuition, that is, intuitions are sensual representations experienced with objects that enable cognition as said by Kant, “Objects are therefore given to us by means of sensibility, and it alone affords us intuitions.[9] The illusion, however, is that when we think of this ‘I’ it is not cognition but mere a concept and separate from our sense-experiences. It is impossible to intuit the ‘I’ and therefore the Cartesian proposition of I think therefore I am is impossible as is knowledge of the nature of our soul. We have left with rational psychology.

‘We’ are forever doomed to the epistemic limitations that articulates ‘reality’ as we see it and no ‘I’ exists.

[1] 479a-c
[2] (76d-e)
[3] 78c-79a
[4] 479c
[5] See The Philosophical Writings of Descartes: Volume 3, The Correspondence By René Descartes, p 316
[6] Freud, S. (1917). Mourning and Melancholia. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume XIV (1914-1916): On the History of the Psycho-Analytic Movement, Papers on Metapsychology and Other Works, 237-258
[7] Ibid.
[8] Bryce Huebner, Distributing Cognition: A Defense of Collective Mentality, p133
[9] A 19/B 33, see Paralogisms of Pure Reason