Thursday, January 14, 2010
This is such a nourishing piece and discussion!
"The boundary of the universe was in its centre" ... Just what might this "centre" mean? And might finding this "centre" then have something to do with touching or reaching first into the depths of each our own souls?
What an encouraging while challenging surprise to see in words as from Rumi that this as part and parcel to actual world peace and individual contentment. To some this may be an apparently impossible or frightening task while to others this may have become natural and necessary. Yet all who go this deep inside know there will be the occasional dark nights of the soul and the nights we wrestle with angels. Then there will be the many timeless moments of a great serenity and sometimes the feeling of Love as warm liquid gold.
For those to whom such exploration is new - take heart - as we are not all gifted exactly alike - there are many from whom we might learn this oft missing ingredient- their voices living from the past and in our present.
And there are ways we can learn to journey to the depths with discernment and wisdom...
So of course all the language and mediation experts of Rumi's time and ours can't resolve inner or outer conflict if there is a "fight makes right" approach like the four with the grapes. Listening is key yet by itself it's mechanical and empty if we skip practicing the deeply-rooted change needed within each soul.
Again I hear echoing as the most startling line in this portion for me: "will you also find the time to create something in the depths of your soul?".
This sounds like it's from the Divine voice to us today. This question's tone feels like an INVITATION without force - a supplication and reminder there is a needed and complementary addition to the other freedoms: the freedom of democracy; the freedom from slavery; freedom from oppressive control or misguided direction from clergy - of all faiths; even complete freedom to create and produce many wondrous things; and of course freedom from greed.
Despite the universal message that what it takes to be happy is more money even when we have enough, here Rumi through Shafique Sahib teaches us that not even "all the wealth in the world could be sufficient for a heart unless it learns to be content by itself." Yes, even if wealth is shared and we function as co-creators on earth -- still this is NOT ENOUGH. ALL these many freedoms are yet not enough for peace nor are they even possible without inner peace. And not only inner peace alone but also the practice of creating.
"Will you also find the time to create something in the depths of your soul?" For me this is a confirmation of the place from where my fulfillment comes along with my best actions and decisions - a reminder I sorely need when so often a nagging voice says I'm wasting time to do so. When so much in our daily lives says there's no time for such pastime maybe we can hear the still small voice anew?
I look forward to seeing how in the revision of the next sections we find the guidelines for this inner journey and then outward again.
One last item, did you notice the great mystery hinted to above with the term "it"? "...it never happened in history. Can it happen now?" Can you and I make this "it" happen? I am needing more understanding and am quite curious.
What a deep feast we are all sharing here.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Literature may be redefined as a demonstration of the life of the collective ego with the aid of language. This collective ego is what Sir Syed Ahmad Khan described as "the spirit of all human beings" in his short story 'Time Bygone'. Later, Iqbal stated in his paper 'The Muslim Community' that concepts like Zietgiest, collective consciousness, etc, are nothing more than faint and incomplete hints in guessing at this "collective ego" which is therefore different, and much bigger, than what is implied in any of the concepts of modern philosophy or psychology.
I hope to add more in this post. But basically I wanted to propose this definition for discussion (and it can be transferred to the SOIS Blog later): Literature is a demonstration of the life of the collective ego with the aid of language.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
In a recent meeting, we discussed the foundations of the Society of Iqbal Sciences. Here is what I want to share on this subject as follow-up (with you also, Ahmad Bhai).
Iqbal Sciences is the name we have given to the study of Iqbal's work on his own terms, and the study of related disciplines in the light of conclusions drawn from this. As such this is different from and possibly a branch of Iqbal Studies where the scope of study is not so well-defined.
To begin with, there are the following major areas of study in Iqbal Sciences:
- Literature, etc
- History and Politics
- Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah
- Liaquat Ali Khan
- Regional Studies
- Personal narratives
Each of these areas is there for a purpose, and has been defined in the light of the works of Iqbal or findings from those works (I have been using these nine areas as tags on my RR Blog for some time now).
Friday, September 4, 2009
IQBAL does not stand for himself or Muslims only. He also stands for SHAKESPEARE, GOETHE, and much good that was coming from the West, and which was acknowledged with gratitude by Iqbal and his predecessors Jauhar and Sir Syed. These positive trends were thwarted in the West itself.
The process through which a minority of self-destructive intellectual elite suppressed the voices of Western masses is worthy of your consideration. I have already explained it in The Beast and the Lion. Here are a few points which may have been missed there:
- In 1857, the French Poet Baudelaire described "hypocrisy" as a literary ideal. Hypocrisy is nothing more than an annoying immaturity in everyday English language as compared to the initial verses of 'The Cow' (the 2nd Chapter of the Quran) where hypocrites are introduced as those "who say that we believe but actually they do not". There, hypocrisy is a "disease of the soul" which increases itself because hypocrites consider themselves to be morally superior than the rest of the group whom they claim to represent - "When they are asked, why dont you believe the way others have come to believe, they say, Shall we become like the ignorant fools?"
- The emotion of Baudelaire was developed into a philosophy of literature by Matthew Arnold and later perpetuated by Yeats and Eliot. By the end of the First World War, this school was completely in charge of the literary and academic scene in Europe and UK. In America, Fitzgerald was not strong enough to check the onslaught of this school and the Russian immigrant Ayn Rand, whose insight into these matters was nothing less than visionary, was unfortunately entangled in her own aristocratic biases which led her into worshipping the same idols by other names.
If you look at the writings of these decadent writers, you will find that they denounce Shakespeare, Wordsworth and Goethe in one way or another. These writers are nothing less than suicide attackers on the intellectual fronts of the modern world - they want to destroy the best of their own culture. Unfortunately, this school has had an unrestrained dictatorship on the letters of West, and through the West on the East.
Iqbal was the only person whose literary merit as well as standing in the masses of a significant society was big enough to check this assault. He did that for the MASSES of his own community: the people of Pakistan (and to a lesser extent the Muslims of India even after 1947) have never rallied around decadent literature even though some of the decadent poets claimed to be speaking for the people and tried to lure the masses with socialist messages.
Unfortunately, the intellectual elite in Pakistan also went the way of their Western bosses - and the loss was not of Pakistan alone. Just at a moment when healthy messages from East could have repaid the debt of West for giving us Shakespeare and Goethe, and creating a lasting bridge for taking the world forward, these Pakistani academics and intellectual elite imported anti-Western and anti-human poison from West itself.
I call this an "anti-Shakespeare Revolution" which started in the West in 1857, and an "anti-Iqbal Revolution" which started in Indo-Pakistan in 1936. Here, I use Iqbal and Shakespeare as metaphors for one and the same thing: the best of the East and the West, which may need not be different at the deepest level of soul, even if different in terms of its more practical and immediate applications in various culture.
In Pakistan, our academia has "jailed" Iqbal. In the West, they have done the same to Shakespeare and Goethe. Briging out even one of them, in either society, could bring about a healthy shift in thought, the results of which may be greater than expected.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
What about you?
Maybe this could be a small beginning as we show our writing to one another and ask questions about things deep and matters less serious or even entertaining?
Another idea I'd love to discuss with you is the impact of metaphor on cross-cultural dialogue and literature.