According To Rumi And Other Philosophers Covered In This Class, What Is

ACCORDING TO RUMI AND OTHER PHILOSOPHERS COVERED IN THIS CLASS, WHAT IS THE GRIEF? WHAT IS THE LOVE? AND WHAT ARE THE NEW DISGUISES?9

AccordingTo Rumi And Other Philosophers Covered In This Class, What Is TheGrief? What Is The Love and What Are The New Disguises?

InstitutionAffiliation

AccordingTo Rumi And Other Philosophers Covered In This Class, What Is TheGrief? What Is The Love and What Are The New Disguises?

TheGrief

Rumiwasandcontinuesto be one of thegreatestwritersof alltime.His workhas andcontinuesto transformtheworldin waysthat cannot beeasilyexplained.In one of his works“theEssential Rumi”, Rumi says,&quotWhoever findslovebeneath hurtandgriefdisappearsinto emptinesswith a thousand newdisguises.&quotAll thethree attributesare challengingto explainto anyone whodoesnot possessbroadknowledgeof Rumi’s work.Rumi’s worksandthoseof others bringout thesethree attributesproperly,sothattheyare easilyperceivableandunderstandable.Rumi is one philosopherwhofoundloveunder themostgrievouscircumstances.His experiencewith deeplovecameunder muchunexpectedcircumstances.Rumi hadspentseveralyearsby himself without anyclosefriendsorsomeone to love(platoniclove)until hemetShams. Thiscouldbeattributedto thefactthathewastheonlychildof his parentsthat survivedto adulthood becauseall therestdiedat earlyages(Surtees, 2014). Thenatureof their relationshipisnot explicitly understoodgiventhatRumi wasof a highersocialstandingthan Shams.

Cordner(2011) writesabout two conceptionsof loveaccordingto philosophicalthought.Thetwo kindsof lovearedefinedas Christian andplatonic.Boththoughtsof lovehavegiventwo richestformulations thattheycan affordanditis upon theseformulationsthat writerslike Cordner (2011) havebased on to givedifferences.Thedifferencesbetween thetwo thoughtsof lovehaveinfluencedandchangedour societiesin waysthat cannot be imagined.Surtees (2014) insiststhatthenatureof therelationship(love)between Shams andRumi is questionableorratherunknown,something that has madeitraisequestionsabout Rumi’s sexualorientation.Somethinkhewasgaygiventhatnothingout of theordinarymakesthetwo to be soclose.Eitherway,Rumi suffereda longtimebefore finallymeetingandmakingfriendsout of Shams. Hevaluedtherelationshipsomuchthattheybecamegreatfriends.Thetwo friendshada lotthat wasuncommonbetween them. Forinstance,Shams wasa personwhoneverhadanypermanentresidence.Hewasalwayson themoveandneversettledin one place.Healwaysjourneyedto faraway placesforseveralweeksbefore returning.

EventhoughRumi hadmorecompatiblepeoplehecould easilyforma friendshipbondwith, heneverdid.His loveforShams could beseenas formedout of hurtandgrief.Thesamethingcan besaidabout themouseandthefrogin Lao Tzu’s The Tao Te Ching translatedby Stephen Mitchell (2009). Themousebefriendsthefrogwith whomtheyhavenothingin common.Themousedoesnot naturallyhaveanything in commonwith thefrog,butforthesakeof their friendship,itmovesto livecloseto thepondjustto be near thefrog.Thefroglikewisemovesoutsidethewaterto be with its friend,themouse.Inthecontextof Cordner’s (2011) platoniclove,themouseandRumi werebothlackingin a friend(good)which theymadetheir aspirationto pursueandfindin orderforthem to be satisfiedin life.Themousegoesthrough thehassleof movingnear thepond,which is against its naturejustto be with a frienditwasin searchfor.Once thefriendwasfound,itstoppedlackingbecauseithadfoundthegoodthatitlacked.Thegriefin bothcasesemanatesfrom thehardshipthecharactersgetin forgingfriendship.Lookingat therelationshipbetween themouseandRumi andthefriendstheywerelookingforfrom theperspectiveof Christian love,a slightlydifferentmeaningcomesout. TheChristian meaningdefineslovein termsof God’s perspective.Loveis from GodandHe onlycan author it.Loveis an attributeof God thatin a sensedefinesGod Himself. Like God, Christian loveis boundlesswithout a beginningoran endandknowsnoreason.

Pascal(1932) statesthatlike Christians cannot beblamedforhavingmuchfaithin God that theycannot defineby reason.Rather,theybelieveblindlyandmaintainstrongfaithin something theycannot explain.Thelovebetween Rumi andShams andthemouseandfrogcannot beexplainedeither.Thesecharactersfallin lovebeyond theobviousboundariesthat definetheir verynature.Thatcan be furtherprovenby theoptimismthatthegaycommunityholdregardingthenatureof Rumi’s relationshipwith Shams. Thegaycommunityhopesthatsince there wasnoreasonforthetwo to be in a relationship,therelationshipwasmotivatedby sexualreasons(Cordner, 2011). Theymay be wrongafter all.Thefrogrealizingthateventhoughithadpersonaldifferenceswith themouse,itstillneededitas a friend.Ithadto giveup thegrudgeto findone thingthat itevendidnot realizeitlacked.TheLove

Thissectionisstronglylinkedto thepreviousoneby thenatureofrelationshipbetween thecharactersin Rumi’s book“The Essential Rumi” andLao Tzu’s “The Tao Te Ching.” Thelovein thetwo piecesof literaturetraversedboundariesandwasconfinedby nolimits.Forinstance,themousewentbeyond thenaturalphysicaldifferencesthat differentiateditfrom thefrog.Thetextindicatesthatthetwo animalswereenemiesanddidnot like eachother.Themouseis a mammalthat givesbirthto youngonesandsucklesthem whilea frogis an amphibian that layseggsandnevertendsto its youngones.

Additionally,othermajordifferencesbetween thetwo animalsincludephysicaldifferencesin movement,appearance,placeof living,andfeedingcharacteristics.There are morereasonsforthetwo animalsnot to friendsthan there are to be friends.However,despite ofthat,theyare friendsthat cannot be separatedby anything, nothingat all.Thiskindof loveis whatCordner (2011) definesas Christian loveLove thatdoesnot needreasonto exist.Itoccursnaturally,butthetwo partiesseekeachotherandwhentheydofindeachother,theyneverletgo.As Rumi saysin his work,peoplethat aremeantforeachotherdonot needto meetforthem to be together,theyare alwayswith eachother.Theybeareachotherwith them everywheretheygo(Goodreads.inc, 2015,).

Accordingto theliteraturewrittenby Rumi (year),realhumanityresultsfrom thelovehumanshaveforGod, whocreatedus. Whenhumansrealizetherealhumanitythat God sensed andplacedin us, allbadhabitslike grudgesaredestroyed,leavinga cleansedandspirituallyraisedbody(Humayoun &amp Danial, 2007). Manypoets and writers in different religions have explained the love ofGod that exists here.Suzuki (2013, buddhaspace.blogspot.com) in thebook“An Introduction to Zen Buddhism” explainslovenot as a divineemotionthatnoonecan explain,butcan onlybefelt.Thelovebroughtout in Rumi’s workandthoseof otherphilosophersis incomparableandnot easilyfound.Itis uniquein its owncapacityandlike in thecaseof Rumi andhis friendShams, itmakespeoplejealous.Thestudentsof Rumi andhis sonwerealwaysjealousof therelationshipRumi hadwith Shams. Theycould not explainorcomprehendit.As itis rumored, Rumi’s ownsongetstoojealousto restrainhimself andgoesaheadto killShams. Thejealousexhibitedby Rumi’s childrenwasbecauseRumi hada strongerrelationshipwith Shams than hedidwith anyof them. Theythoughtthatbeingmorelikerumortheycould attracthis favorandbe his friendsmorethan Shams. One thingtheyfailedto understandis thatRumi hadlongbeenwaitingfora friendlike Shams whenhefinallycame.Shams enlightenedRumi from a placeof darknessandsethim on thepath.Heis thoughtto be themainsourceof Rumi’s aspirationto write.His deathdidnot bringabout a changeof feelings,butratherstrengthenedandinspiredhim more.Itwasas a resultof thegreatfriendshipandlovethat Rumi wasinspiredto base his entireoeuvre on love.All his workin literaturetalksof loveandhowpeoplecan achieveit.Clearly,thisemanatesfrom thegreatloveShams andRumi shared.Suchlovecan onlybefoundfrom God thefather.

God,the father, existsin Buddhism andin thatreligionaccordingto Suzuki (1991), He is givena lotof powerover peopleandallcreationforHim to control.By doingnothingandhavingnobeginningorend,He is thefatherof allthings.Hecommandseverything by recognizingsimplethingsthat humanityfailto understand.GodtheFather is adequatein allthingsandpeoplehavefaithin Him without questioningorreason.However,giventhenatureof peoplein currenttimes,everyone is seekingforsomething morethan faithas iffaithitself is easyto attain.Noonewantsto considerfaithfirstbefore lookingbeyond.Itis thisgreatdesireformorein termsof materialandearthlythingsthat makepeopleincapableof love.Theycannot believeandhencecannot possessthegreatunconditionallovethat Rumi andtheotherphilosophersenvisioned. However,there is stilla chanceat suchgreatloveto thosewhohopeandare willingto nurtureit,sothatitcan growto becomethegreatestemotionpeoplehavebeyond themanythat existin thehumanbody.ForRumi saysthatthehumanbodyis a cityof manyattributesandonlytheonethat is allowedto growcan exceedall theothers. Rumi andthemouseunderstoodthisloveandhencealloweditto growbeyond anyphysicalboundariesto becomethemostprominentattributeinthem. By sodoing,theypossesslovefortheir friendsbeyond measure(Suzuki, 1964).

Accordingto Rumi, there is nothing more that one should give up life for. Hebelieves that having a love that crosses the lines is all thatmatters in life. He goes ahead to state that one should not careabout what other people think or say about them. One should do theirduties and leave it at that. Life is way too short to waste one’stime caring about critics because critics never stop talking. Inconclusion, from Rumi’s point of view, have a love that crosses thelines like the one he had with Shams is much better. He never caredabout what his students or sons said about his relationship withShams.TheNew Disguises

Thenewdisguisesthat Rumi talksabout are thosethatone acquiresto surviveandfitinto thesociety.Lookingat thelifeof thefrogandRumi, a lotof disguisescan be noticedto sufficethisdiscussion.Thesetwo charactersputon a layerof disguisesothattheycan beacceptedin thesociety.Theydosoto foolothers andto adaptto thesituation(Stanton, 1993). Forinstance,after Rumi loseshis onlyfriendSham, hemakesa coupleof othernewfriendsforpurposesof convenience.Disguisesinvolvesassuminga formlessformwhereone stopsbeingpredictablebutassumesa flexibleidentity.One pretendsto be someone elsesothatothers can findan easytimerelatingto you.One wearsmasksthatsuit,blend,orgowellwith thesituation(Kierkegaard &amp Hannay, 1985). Themasksare changedas frequentas thesituation,implyingthatone putson a newmaskthat suitsthenewsituationsothattheyremaineasyto relatewith.By beingformlesslike water,one can assumeanyformandhavea thousand newdisguises.Rumi assumesa newformby acceptingSaladin Zarkub as a newfriendafter Shams disappearsneverto return.Thischaracterneverappearsuntil theuntimelydisappearanceof Shams. Hebecomessoprominentin Rumi’s life.Saladin Zarkun’s functionin Rumi’s lifeis thatof a bestfriend.Thenatureof thefriendshipis thatwhatCordner (2011) describedas platonicin thatthere is noaffinitybetween thetwo peopleinvolved.Thetwo friendsjustworkto relatewellwith one another,butfailto developa relationshipthat is meaningfulandas deepas thatof Rumi andShams. Thesamethingcan perhapsbesaidof themouseandthefrog.Eventhoughthemouseandthefroghada badrelationshipbefore,theymanageto developa goodrelationshipafter themousebefriendsthefrog.I feellike thefrogonlyacceptedtherelationshipfollowingthepersistenceof themouse.Itwastryingto disguiseitself andlivebehind a maskas a wayof makingiteasyforothers (mouse)to relateto it.

Finally,theyhavea relationshipout ofneedforeachother.In thesameway,Rumi makesanothernewfriendcalledHusam Chelebi. Chelebiis thethirdandfinalfriendRumi makeout of convenience.Chelebiwasone of Rumi’s friendsandthisrelationshipwasratherexpected.OtherpeopleandevenRumi’s studentsthemselves expectedhim to becomefriendswith allof them orat leastone of them, andsureenough,hedid.Since peoplealreadyexpectedthisfriendshipto occuralready,itwaseasierforRumi to fulfillpeople’sexpectations. Theauthorsaysthatthereasonsforwhich Rumi becamefriendswith Chelebiare unclear, implyingthatthere wasnoaffinityoranything specialbetween thetwo. I saythisafter consideringthefactthatthetwo wereof thesamesocialclassandhencethem beingfriendsandgreatcompanionscamenot as a surprise.Therelationshipwasbasedoncommonnessof thetwo friends(Bookrags.com, 2015).

References

Ankita,S. (2015). The Essential Rumi. Accessed 19/6/15 fromhttp://ankita-s.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-essential-rumi.html

BlaisePascal, Pens´ees(trans.John Warrington), London: Dent (Everyman’s Library No. 874) 1932.

Bookrags.(2015). The Essential Rumi Characters. Accessed 19/6/15 fromhttp://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-the-essential-rumi/#gsc.tab=0

Cordner,C. (2011). Two conceptions of love in philosophical thought. Sophia,50(3),315-329.

D.T.Suzuki, An Introduction to Zen Buddhism (New York: Grove Press, 1964)

Goodreads.inc.(2015). Rumi Quotes. Accessed 19/6/15 fromhttp://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/875661.Rumi

Granger,I. (n.d). Whoever Finds Love. Accessed 19/6/15 fromhttp://www.poetry-chaikhana.com/blog/2012/11/02/mevlana-jelaluddin-rumi-whoever-finds-love/

Humayoun,A. and Danial, M. (2007) Fundamentals of Rumi’s Thought. Accessed19/6/15 fromhttp://www.rumiforum.pk/rumi-thought/pages/Salvation.html

Kierkegaard,S., &amp Hannay, A. (1985). Fearand trembling: Dialectical lyric by Johannes de silentio.Penguin UK.

LaoTzu, Tao Te Ching, translated by Stephen Mitchell (London: FrancesLincoln, 2009).

Stanton,E. C. (1993). Thewoman`s Bible.Upne.

Surtees,K. (2014). Rumi: poetry’s healing powers. Accessed 19/6/15 fromhttp://www.wellbeing.com.au/article/Features/Wisdom/Rumi:-poetry%E2%80%99s-healing-powers_1416

Suzuki,D. T. (1991). Anintroduction to Zen Buddhism.Grove Press.