The book Maqasid al-Sa'irin (The Stations of the Wayfarers), an eternal masterpiece by Khwajah Abdullah Ansari, acts as an intricate map, illuminating the path of mystical ascension for the wayfarers on the journey of divine knowledge. This work elucidates the various stages of the mystical journey, from its initial steps to the highest peaks of truth, serving as an unparalleled guide towards the attainment of the Divine. The lecture from session 429, which forms the core of this paper, scrutinizes the Third Station of Intimacy, with particular emphasis on the Disappearance in the Witnessing of the Presence (Idgham fi Shahud al-Hadra), and offers a direct critique of the commentary by Abd al-Razzaq Kashani, highlighting his erroneous reference to a saying attributed to Amir al-Muminin (peace be upon him). This critique stresses the incongruity of the concept of Kashf Sabhat al-Jalal (the unveiling of the splendours of majesty) with the Station of Intimacy and underscores the necessity of a methodical approach in interpreting mystical texts.
The lecture begins with a reference to the noble verse, Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim (In the name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate, translation by Fouladwand), and introduces the third station of intimacy as Idgham fi Shahud al-Hadra. However, it immediately critiques the commentator, Abd al-Razzaq Kashani, for his misattribution of a saying to Amir al-Muminin (peace be upon him), in which the notion of Kashf Sabhat al-Jalal is discussed. This concept is related to the Station of Truth (Station 300) and has no connection to the Station of Intimacy (Stations 130-140). This critique is like a light that dispels the darkness caused by the confusion of stations in the mystical journey and emphasizes the necessity of coherence and methodology in the interpretation of mystical teachings.
This critique acts as a correction to a map that points to the wrong destination, leading the wayfarer astray. Intimacy, like a delicate flower, blooms through love and nearness, whereas truth is akin to a lofty peak where the majesty and grandeur of the Divine are revealed.
The lecture stresses the importance of a scientific methodology in studying and interpreting mystical texts. Disjointed and unreferenced interpretations are like an incomplete puzzle, where the pieces do not fit together correctly. A scientific approach, emphasizing authenticity, coherence, and the distinction of the stations of the journey, prevents the mixing of concepts and improper references. This approach acts like a strong dam, protecting against the inundation of errors in mysticism.
Nature of Intimacy in the Mystical Journey The Station of Intimacy is a delicate stage in the early stages of the mystical journey (Stations 130-140), characterized by divine love, nearness, and tranquility. This station is like a gentle breeze that soothes the heart of the wayfarer, freeing them from the turmoil of the soul. The lecture likens intimacy to comforting a child with a pacifier or milk; an act that brings peace and comfort to the heart.
Intimacy is like a lush garden, where the wayfarer enjoys the shade of divine love. This station serves as a prelude to entering deeper stages of the mystical journey, such as remembrance (dhikr), poverty (faqr), and annihilation (fana). Nature of Truth and Majesty Truth, on the other hand, is a high station in the final stages of the mystical journey (Station 300), characterized by the unveiling of the splendours of majesty and the annihilation of illusions. This station is like facing the awe-inspiring presence of a towering peak, where the wayfarer is humbled by the grandeur of the Divine. The lecture likens it to encountering a lionjust as a driver quivers in fear when near a lion, the wayfarer becomes lost in the majesty of God. Truth is like a blazing fire that consumes all that is not of the Divine, guiding the wayfarer to unity with the Truth. This station is incompatible with the delicacy of intimacy, and hence the reference to Kashf Sabhat al-Jalal in the context of intimacy is a grave error.
The Text of the Attributed Saying The lecture presents the saying attributed to Amir al-Muminin (peace be upon him): In the explanation of truth, the unveiling of the splendours of majesty is without indication, for there is no limit to it that can be pointed to, and its essence cannot be comprehended, for when it appears, nothing remains except it.
This saying is in response to the question of Kamil ibn Ziyad regarding the truth, and it refers to the station of witnessing the Divine Majesty. It is a light that illuminates the truth of the Divine essence, but due to the absence of limits or essence, it lies beyond rational or sensory indication.
Analysis of the Dialogue between Amir al-Muminin and Kamil The lecture refers to the dialogue between Amir al-Muminin (peace be upon him) and Kamil ibn Ziyad. Kamil asks: What is the truth?
and the Imam responds: What do you have to do with truth?
Kamil, as a special disciple, insists: Am I not your confidant?
The Imam replies: Yes, but what overflows from me is what reaches you.
He then describes the truth as: Erasure of the illusion with forgetfulness of the known, tearing the veil due to the dominance of the secret, and a light that shines from the dawn of eternity and manifests its traces on the pillars of monotheism.
This dialogue demonstrates the grandeur of the truth and the limitations of the wayfarer. Despite all his greatness, Kamil only receives the overflow of the Imams knowledge, not the essence of truth.
Critique of the Attribution's Authenticity The lecture criticizes the authenticity of the attributed saying. It is not found in authentic sources of hadith and only appears in Majalis al-Muminin by Qazi Nurallah Shushtari, which is not a reliable textual source. This critique acts as a warning against referencing non-authentic sources in mysticism. Unreferenced attributions are like fragile structures that collapse at the slightest tremor. The lecture stresses the need for care in the sources used in mystical studies.
The lecture refers to Abd al-Razzaq Kashani as a "scholar clinging" to mysticism, a learned man who, unlike Khwaja Abdullah Ansari (the distilled mystic), has fallen into numerous interpretative errors. The former, through direct and divine witnessing, has meticulously elucidated the stages of spiritual progression, whereas the latter, relying on acquired knowledge, has conflated these stages in his interpretations.
These errors are likened to sowing seeds in unsuitable soil, which, instead of bearing fruit, lead to misguidance. The distilled mysticism of Khwaja is like a crystal-clear spring that flows from direct witnessing, whereas the mysticism of the commentator is like a murky stream that distorts the truth.
Khwaja Abdullah, through divine witnessing, has precisely articulated the stages of spiritual progression. However, the commentator, with acquired knowledge, has confused these stages and provided a misguided interpretation.
The commentators method has been critiqued for its lack of coherence and the conflation of spiritual stages. This conflation is compared to the blending of colours in painting, which, instead of creating a beautiful piece, results in a confused and muddied image. By emphasising these errors, the lecture calls for a systematic reconstruction of mysticism.
The lecture reviews the stages of spiritual progression as a hierarchical sequence: beginning with resolve, will, etiquette, and certainty, and culminating in remembrance, poverty, annihilation, states, perfection, knowledge, insight, wisdom, reverence, inspiration, tranquillity, serenity, and ultimately the valleys, realization, embodiment, existence, abstraction, differentiation, union, and divine oneness. Union occurs in the earlier stages (130-140), whereas truth reaches its full realization in the final stages (300). This hierarchical structure is likened to a ladder that guides the seeker step by step toward the summit of knowledge. Union is like the initial rungs of this ladder, preparing the heart of the seeker for ascent, while truth is the summit, only accessible after completing all the stages.
Union is placed within the earlier stages (130-140) and is defined by love and proximity, while truth occupies the final stages (300) and is accompanied by the discovery of divine majesty (jalal).
Union is likened to a garden where the seeker, like a flower, is nourished by the divine breeze of love. This station is associated with delicacy and serenity, preparing the seeker for the more difficult stages, such as poverty and annihilation. The lecture illustrates this delicacy by comparing it to soothing a child: just as a pacifier or breastmilk calms a child, union similarly soothes the heart of the seeker with divine love.
The lecture provides tangible examples to explain the inherent incompatibility between union and majesty. Union, like a childs soothing, is a form of comfort and calm, whereas majesty, like facing a lion, evokes fear and awe. This analogy acts as a mirror reflecting the intrinsic differences between these two stations. For example, a driver who initially fears driving next to a lion eventually overcomes the fear and becomes skilled. This awe is incompatible with the delicacy of union, and thus, referencing *Kashf Subhat al-Jalal* (the unveiling of the divine majesty) in the context of union is an evident mistake.
Union is a station of delicacy and love, akin to soothing a child. Majesty, on the other hand, is a station of awe and revelation, much like the encounter with a lion, and is incompatible with union.
The lecture uses the analogy of a driver and a lion to describe the awe of majesty. Initially, the driver is afraid, but with courage, they gain skill. This analogy represents the awe of majesty and the necessity of overcoming fear to reach the truth. However, in the station of union, there is no place for such awe, as union is defined by serenity and love.
The lecture critiques mystical texts as being fraught with errors and confusion of stages. These errors are likened to weeds growing in the garden of knowledge, which distort the truth. Unsubstantiated references, scattered interpretations, and the mixing of spiritual stages are common problems in these texts. For example, referencing statements attributed to Amir al-Muminin in *Majalis al-Muminin* without valid citations diminishes the text's mystical credibility. This critique serves as a warning for researchers to re-examine the scholarly foundations of mystical writings.
Mystical texts, due to their unsubstantiated references and confusion of stages, are riddled with errors and require systematic and scientific re-evaluation.
The lecture underscores the need to rebuild mystical texts with a scientific approach. This reconstruction is akin to restoring an ancient building, preserving its authenticity while safeguarding it from deterioration. The scientific method, with an emphasis on validity, coherence, and clear distinctions of stages, can transform mystical texts into reliable and useful sources for researchers.
To elucidate the truth and the absence of limitations in the divine essence, one may reference the verse "There is nothing like Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing." (Quran 42:11). This verse, like a mirror, reflects the lack of any definable essence of the divine, emphasizing the absence of limits and likeness to Him. This verse describes the truth as an unlimited light, which, upon manifesting, causes everything else to vanish. This concept is inherently incompatible with the delicacy of union, and thus, referencing it in the context of union is a clear error.
The verse "There is nothing like Him" illustrates the indefinable essence of the divine, which is incompatible with the station of union.
The lecture critiques the use of unsubstantiated references, noting that quoting a statement attributed to Amir al-Muminin without a valid citation is like building on unstable ground. Such references fail to garner scholarly trust and undermine the credibility of mystical interpretations.
The lecture critiques the mixing of spiritual stages as one of the main errors of the commentator. Union, placed in the early stages, is defined by love and proximity, while truth, placed in the later stages, is accompanied by the revelation of divine majesty. This confusion is akin to mixing the steps of building a structure, ultimately leading to its collapse. For instance, the commentator, by using *batalan* instead of *idhamal*, has conveyed the idea of destruction rather than the dissolution of created attributes, and by citing *Hadrat al-Ahadiyya*, has mistakenly placed a station beyond union.
The commentator, by confusing the stages of union and truth, has provided an incorrect interpretation that leads the seeker astray.
The lecture, through its critique of mystical texts, calls for the scientific reconstruction of valiant mysticism. This reconstruction, like the renovation of an ancient city, preserves authenticity while enhancing its efficacy and beauty. The scientific method, focusing on validity, coherence, and distinct stages, can purify mystical texts from errors and make them valuable sources for researchers.
The 42nd lecture of *Mazanil al-Sairin* provides a sharp critique of Abd al-Razzaq Kashanis commentary and his misinterpretation of statements attributed to Amir al-Muminin. It emphasizes the inherent incompatibility between *Kashf Subhat al-Jalal* and the station of union. Union is a delicate station based on love and proximity, while truth is a lofty station accompanied by the unveiling of divine majesty. The commentators errors, such as using *batalan* instead of *idhamal* and citing *Hadrat al-Ahadiyya*, result from the absence of divine witnessing and an over-reliance on acquired knowledge. This lecture, through its critique of mystical texts and call for scholarly precision, offers a framework for the reconstruction of valiant mysticism.
