Thirteenth Assembly (Khwan-Pur-Nemat)
Thirteenth Assembly (Khwan-Pur-Nemat)
Sheikh Sharfuddin Yahya Maneri
MORE BYSheikh Sharfuddin Yahya Maneri
Sheikh Ahmad said: During this life the body executes the commands of the soul, but in the next life, after a man dies, does his soul remain in the condition it was previously in? The Venerable Master replied: Yes, the soul remains as it was. Afterwards he said: Before death the relationship of the soul to the body is like that of an artisan to an instrument. The relationship of an artisan to an instrument is no more. For example, it does not mean that, if the instrument does not perdure, the death of the artisan takes place. The same is true for the soul: the soul has no dependence on the body for its continued existence. It is no more than this: the soul operates through the instrumentality of this body. Through the instrumentality of the tongue, it speaks; through that of the feet, it walks; while eyes enable it to see.
Here the Helpless One asked: Is the body the place where the commands of the soul are manifested? He replied: Yes, in this visible world, but by the will of God. Afterwards he added: Just as the activities of the soul in this visible and tangible world make their appearance in the body, so too the commands of God Most High from the 'greater world' are made manifest in the soul. Again, he said: When the soul operates through the body, the latter is ignorant of the former. It does not know what has come into existence through the soul as its origin. Does the same apply to the soul in so far as it perceives the manifestation of the commands of God? He replied: The soul does become aware of this and perceives that the commands of God make their appearance within it. The soul bears witness to that. The soul is aware, and know- ledge is one of its qualities, but the body is inert, so what can it know about the soul?
Again, he asked: Do all souls enjoy this knowledge and perception, namely both those of believers and infidels? He
replied: Yes, in this affair it does not matter whether a person is a believer or an infidel.
Again, he asked: Since the souls of infidels experience
this knowledge and perception, where do they derive their infidelity and rejection from, for rejection and acceptance come from the soul. All should have accepted. He replied: Before souls were sent into this world, they were absolutely pure. After they became related to the world of the body two things were acquired by them: one, the acquisition of good; and the other, the acquisition of evil. In so far as they acquire evil, to that same extent a stain causes a blemish in their purity. Thus, it is that they do not remain spotlessly pure as they were when they came. On account of this stain, they are deceived and end up in rejection. Afterwards he added: Because he has been stained by the acquisition of evil such a one will be burnt tomorrow in the fire until his stain is far removed from him, for it is said: 'Whoever cleanses himself today in the fire of struggle with self and austerities will leave nothing within him- self for the fire of tomorrow.
I find it astonishing that, among lovers, Ardor does not set their clothes ablaze.
Sheikh Muizzuddin asked the meaning of the following couplet:
It behaves You that, at every twinkle of an eye, No one would remain alive for a moment.
He replied: One will understand by this 'twinkling' that, 'faced with the awareness of Your lordship, it is not proper for anyone to remain alive. Another will think thus: 'In the face of the wonders of Your power and Your command. A third will think: 'Faced with Your wrath and glory, it is fitting that no one should remain alive.
Where in the world is a wise-hearted cock which, though trussed, would not offer its life for You?
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. The word is 'Rooh' not 'Nafs' and refers to the life-giving principle in man. Sharfuddin's views on the soul become apparent from the text (and from letter 71 in The Hundred Letters).
2. Sharfuddin is clearly at home in a voluntaristic understanding of creation. This is a statement, not a criticism, for it would be unfair that he was a blind voluntarist. For him, creatures have their clearly defined status and inherent composition but precisely because they are in existence as willed by God, it is the will of God (Mashiyat-e-Haq) which is of overriding importance for him.
3. He switches to 'Jaan' here.
4. 'Rooh' is found here, but he then reverts to 'Jaan'. Both are used in this whole discussion to refer to the soul. There is a definite Platonic, rather than Aristotelean stamp to Sharfuddin's concept of the soul.
5. Sharfuddin is extraordinarily catholic in his spiritual outlook. This same trait is also found in some of the great English mystics of the fourteenth century but is in sharp contrast to the prevailing religious perspective in either of the two great revelatory religions.
6. This statement is definitely Platonic.
Sheikh Ahmad said: During this life the body executes the commands of the soul, but in the next life, after a man dies, does his soul remain in the condition it was previously in? The Venerable Master replied: Yes, the soul remains as it was. Afterwards he said: Before death the relationship of the soul to the body is like that of an artisan to an instrument. The relationship of an artisan to an instrument is no more. For example, it does not mean that, if the instrument does not perdure, the death of the artisan takes place. The same is true for the soul: the soul has no dependence on the body for its continued existence. It is no more than this: the soul operates through the instrumentality of this body. Through the instrumentality of the tongue, it speaks; through that of the feet, it walks; while eyes enable it to see.
Here the Helpless One asked: Is the body the place where the commands of the soul are manifested? He replied: Yes, in this visible world, but by the will of God. Afterwards he added: Just as the activities of the soul in this visible and tangible world make their appearance in the body, so too the commands of God Most High from the 'greater world' are made manifest in the soul. Again, he said: When the soul operates through the body, the latter is ignorant of the former. It does not know what has come into existence through the soul as its origin. Does the same apply to the soul in so far as it perceives the manifestation of the commands of God? He replied: The soul does become aware of this and perceives that the commands of God make their appearance within it. The soul bears witness to that. The soul is aware, and know- ledge is one of its qualities, but the body is inert, so what can it know about the soul?
Again, he asked: Do all souls enjoy this knowledge and perception, namely both those of believers and infidels? He
replied: Yes, in this affair it does not matter whether a person is a believer or an infidel.
Again, he asked: Since the souls of infidels experience
this knowledge and perception, where do they derive their infidelity and rejection from, for rejection and acceptance come from the soul. All should have accepted. He replied: Before souls were sent into this world, they were absolutely pure. After they became related to the world of the body two things were acquired by them: one, the acquisition of good; and the other, the acquisition of evil. In so far as they acquire evil, to that same extent a stain causes a blemish in their purity. Thus, it is that they do not remain spotlessly pure as they were when they came. On account of this stain, they are deceived and end up in rejection. Afterwards he added: Because he has been stained by the acquisition of evil such a one will be burnt tomorrow in the fire until his stain is far removed from him, for it is said: 'Whoever cleanses himself today in the fire of struggle with self and austerities will leave nothing within him- self for the fire of tomorrow.
I find it astonishing that, among lovers, Ardor does not set their clothes ablaze.
Sheikh Muizzuddin asked the meaning of the following couplet:
It behaves You that, at every twinkle of an eye, No one would remain alive for a moment.
He replied: One will understand by this 'twinkling' that, 'faced with the awareness of Your lordship, it is not proper for anyone to remain alive. Another will think thus: 'In the face of the wonders of Your power and Your command. A third will think: 'Faced with Your wrath and glory, it is fitting that no one should remain alive.
Where in the world is a wise-hearted cock which, though trussed, would not offer its life for You?
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. The word is 'Rooh' not 'Nafs' and refers to the life-giving principle in man. Sharfuddin's views on the soul become apparent from the text (and from letter 71 in The Hundred Letters).
2. Sharfuddin is clearly at home in a voluntaristic understanding of creation. This is a statement, not a criticism, for it would be unfair that he was a blind voluntarist. For him, creatures have their clearly defined status and inherent composition but precisely because they are in existence as willed by God, it is the will of God (Mashiyat-e-Haq) which is of overriding importance for him.
3. He switches to 'Jaan' here.
4. 'Rooh' is found here, but he then reverts to 'Jaan'. Both are used in this whole discussion to refer to the soul. There is a definite Platonic, rather than Aristotelean stamp to Sharfuddin's concept of the soul.
5. Sharfuddin is extraordinarily catholic in his spiritual outlook. This same trait is also found in some of the great English mystics of the fourteenth century but is in sharp contrast to the prevailing religious perspective in either of the two great revelatory religions.
6. This statement is definitely Platonic.
Additional information available
Click on the INTERESTING button to view additional information associated with this sher.
About this sher
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Morbi volutpat porttitor tortor, varius dignissim.
rare Unpublished content
This ghazal contains ashaar not published in the public domain. These are marked by a red line on the left.
