/

Individual and Community – SEYRUSULÛK – II

Assumption (الظَّنَّ) does not avail anything against the Truth (Necm, 28/

32 mins read
Francisco de Goya - Escena de Inquisición

On the basis of seyrusulûk, we distinguished between tariqa and congregation in the previous essay. We enlarged the concept of a congregation beyond what is typically done, which is just an organization with religious content, and defined the congregation based on seyrusuluk. As a result, even if they lack religious substance or speech, communities or persons that stray beyond the bounds defined by seyrusuluk and exhibit qualities that come under the definition of a congregation are congregations as well. Commercial groupings, political organizations, ideological organizations, ethnic clusters, and even clusters of objects in scientific-looking object theories that have been communalized in terms of their facility, for example, are all communities, albeit with varying qualifiers.

Communities of all kinds aim at self-sustainability and survival, compete, and aspire to power.

In this context, we said that what the community is against is “unity”.

The individual is not the real opposite of community, and community is not just the idea of a community. What the community is really against is “unity”.

Whether with the community or the individual, the path to “unity” is seyrusuluk. In this respect, seyrusuluk is the way out of any kind of community. It is also seyrusuluk that distinguishes the tariqa from the community.

We will talk about what are the conditions for seyr and süluk to fulfill these meanings later.

In this article, we will briefly elaborate on some of the implications of putting the individual at the center and of the journey of the traveler and the guide together, and we will try to explain a little more the difference between them and the congregation in these respects.

Let us remind you again that the pilgrimage is centered on the individual and let us continue from there.

Let’s start with this point right away. Putting the individual at the center does not mean excluding the community. However, putting the individual at the center has an obligation in terms of the perception of unity. Because the individual, the thing, cannot get out from under the sway of the community without realizing the sentence as unity in itself and appearing in a single form.

Realizing unity, which is thought of as multiplicity, and unity at the same time harbors difficult contradictions. To be able to form unity and oneness, and the contradictory states in this context, in a way that eliminates contradiction and falsehood, is achieved through a work that starts from the individual. For this reason, seyrusuluk starts from the individual.

This point of departure does not fundamentally eliminate the community. But if one takes action by putting the community at the center, unfortunately, one ends up irreversibly destroying the individual, except for the loss of the individual and the necessity to break the community. In other words, putting the community at the center results in destroying the individual; if one day the individual realizes that he must not consent to this outcome, he will be forced to break the community. Thus, putting the community at the center creates a compelling justification for the destruction of the community. However, by putting the individual at the center, it is possible to save both the individual and the community.

We say possibility because putting the individual at the center may not always result in saving both the individual and the community. In other words, it cannot be said that every individual-centered approach achieves a genuine, justified and successful outcome.

The reason for this complex situation is the very difficult, very harsh and impossibility-laden challenges posed by the fact that the ultimate condition for establishing both the individual and the community in a genuine, just and successful way is that “unity” and “oneness” must be simultaneously valid.

First of all, this point must never be forgotten. No matter what happens, no matter what the situation has become, what must be sought in every situation and condition is the truth.

The path that does not lead to the truth is mired in darkness. He who does not wear the cloak of truth, wears the sword of oppression.

However, without achieving “unity” and “oneness”, it is impossible to attain the truth.

But how can both “unity” and “oneness” be achieved at the same time?

It is necessary to see the points that make this point protracted.

Because unity expresses both “multiplicity” and “non-disparity”, that is, “samiyyah”. “Uniqueness”, on the other hand, expresses both “one” and “dissimilarity”.

In this respect, the formation of unity and uniqueness is surrounded by difficulties.

In order to get a historical idea of the difficulty of constituting both unity and uniqueness, it may be sufficient to look at, for example, first-year philosophy and theology texts. Because the history of philosophy and theology is, unfortunately, a history of crawling and crawling in the face of this difficulty.

There have been those in human history who have solved this difficult problem. These are the fathers or saints or masters of the community.

Community fathers, saints or masters create a false “unity” and a false “oneness” by transforming unity into unity and oneness into fragmentation; by covering the paths to unity and oneness.

The father of the congregation here is the “pillar” in the definition of congregation that we insisted on in the previous article.

The father of the congregation does not necessarily have to appear in a religious discourse or product. In general, it is the father and fathers of the congregation who are the religion and the faith of the congregation, what it thinks and what it clings to; in every guise, in every form, and everywhere. Therefore, the father, saint or master here can also appear as a chairman, head, manager, teacher and so on. The congregation can also be an institution, such as an organization, an organization, a company, and so on. These latter are sometimes more perfect than the former and sometimes more imperfect.

Read:  Iris Apfel: American fashion designer dies at 102

Not every institution, or every community, or every father, or every president, is of course a congregation and a father of a congregation. But these kinds of organizations that are an obstacle to the journey and süluka, and that are ready to enter the definition of a congregation, constitute an obstacle and are also candidates to become a congregation.

A congregation is essentially built on a foundation. The pillar is the father (Father) who brings that community together.

This father is himself a slave. He has enslaved himself to his own desire, his own neurosis, his own dreams, his own narrow experiences. In this respect, the religion and faith of the community is the religion of the bondage, the faith of the imprisonment of this desire, neurosis, dreams and these narrow experiences.

Those who are integrated into the sect are, for this reason, enslaved, forced to crawl.

Many brilliant thinkers and artists in history who tried to deal with the issue of unity and uniqueness wanted to resist the community, but were helpless to find a solution.

That is why many people try to deal with such difficult issues by believing in a community, by relying on what a community gives. But it is impossible to resolve this issue through faith and blind reliance.

This impossibility that we have said about belief also applies to thinking. In other words, this issue cannot be resolved by thinking, by immersing oneself in thought, by progressing on the basis of thought, by investigating, examining, scrutinizing.

Unfortunately, it is still not widely realized that the issue of unity and oneness cannot be solved by thinking alone. Those who think that what cannot be solved through thinking can be solved through belief, and those who try to solve it through thinking, have this in common: helplessness.

The simplest way to understand through thought that it is impossible to resolve them through thinking is to see that thinking is active in a way that is after “unity”. We are not going into this.

Similarly, to see that this issue cannot be resolved through faith, we need to look at the nature of faith.

Just believing is nothing.

Just believing, we think, is not something that anyone does. When one believes, there are some things that lead one to believe.

By the way, let us state the following: What is called “justified belief” has no meaning on its own without a thorough understanding of what it means. Because what constitutes the “justification” in “justified belief” is decisive for the legitimacy of the “belief” in question. If the “justification” in question is not of a “suitable” nature and “adequate” for a certain “belief”, the “justified belief” becomes an “inadequate” and “inappropriate” belief in terms of its “justifications”.

“Justified belief” determines “belief” according to its “justification”. What is important in this respect is what the “justification” is, i.e. the basis on which it is based, and then how the judgment expressing “belief” is determined by this justification.

So the real issue is that the “justification” in “justified belief” is “Truth”. And what constitutes the truth, in terms of the reality of each thing, is not something that can be determined in a cursory manner. The justification itself must first be based on “Truth”; a justification that is not based on “Truth” renders the “belief” based on that justification untrue.

So, for example, in the issue of unity and uniqueness, what is the “justification”, that is, in this sense, what is the “basis”, that is, the “Truth”? This is the problem.

Believing in unity and oneness, or denying them, or believing in the congregation, or denying the congregation, these alone mean nothing.

On what basis do all these provisions arise? How are they made? This is what needs to be understood.

Neither through thought alone, nor through faith alone, is it possible to find answers.

This impossibility is also the cause of the “impossibilities” mentioned at the beginning of the previous article.

First of all, to define human beings fundamentally in terms of thinking, perceiving and believing, that is, to be content with definitions such as human beings are thinking, perceiving and believing beings, is to give fundamental approval to condemning human beings to these impossibilities and impossibilities. This is what has been done for centuries.

Once such a definition has been made, it is futile to discuss whether one can add qualifications such as soul, essence, intuition, transcendence to human beings.

While spending time on these futile endeavors, turning to the problems of whether man was an individual or a social being at the time, how to achieve being an individual, how to establish society, will not and has not yield meaningful and justified results.

Without unity and oneness at the same time, there can be no talk of freedom and truth; there can be no talk of the individual and society at all.

Thinking and believing alone cannot bring unity and oneness. Those who cannot achieve unity and oneness are unprotected against the hunting weapons of communities, and are likely to be hunted down.

Achieving unity and oneness is possible by embarking on a journey and süluka. Therefore, seyrusuluk is a basic Human behavior, a basic Human need. This is what we are saying.

Seyrusüluk makes possible what the community rejects and what thinking finds impossible.

It is on the basis of this need that we need to deal with the wayfaring and the tariqa on this basis. The rest is empty work.

Trying to understand why the issue is centered on the individual is also evident from these perspectives.

As we said in the previous article, seyrusüluk moves by putting the individual at the center, and makes many things that seem impossible to thought possible; moreover, it fundamentally abolishes the sovereignty of the community.

The individual here is the individual who is traveling and the individual who is süluk, that is, the sâlik. Sâlik means a traveler. Therefore, it is the traveler who is centered.

Read:  Maksim Gorky: The Soviet Tragedy of an Idealist Writer

The seyr and süluk, which is valid for each of the individuals centered in the tariqa, is a unique journey for each of them.

This journey, one by one, is towards unity. But let’s say it again right away, the sects that are becoming very common today, which have a different basis and purpose other than the path in this sense, and which neglect the journey and the asylum, which has to be one by one, are not sects in this sense, no matter what their name, no matter what their reputation, no matter what their fame, no matter what their name is. Because its path is not a path.

Putting the individual at the center means putting a human life at the center. This lifespan, to put it in a nutshell, is full of thoughts, beliefs, dreams, judgments, fights, pains, pleasures, wounds, injuries, blood, appetite, pain, hurt, resentment, longing, regret, fatigue, in other words, many conditions, many troubles.

The traveler, the guide, who guides the traveler on the journey, while taking that one individual to the center, also takes all these aspects of that individual to the center, puts all these aspects at the center of the whole path. The whole world, the whole universe, is established on this basis, it comes to be navigated on this basis. And the thing to behold is the “Truth”.

Everything will unfold in such a relationship between these two travelers, centering on these and more aspects, and it will be a journey that leads to unity and oneness. Otherwise, we cannot talk about the individual being centered here.

In this respect alone, it is possible to understand that what is meant by putting the individual at the center is not simply a matter of holding on to an individualist idea. If we take into account these meanings of putting the individual at the center, we can see that before putting the individual at the center, it is necessary to take the risk of putting the individual at the center. Putting the individual at the center in this sense is more delicate, more unsettling, more demanding than signing an investment, deciding on a marriage, subscribing to a belief, taking political or military action, and many steps beyond.

This is one of the reasons for the prevalence of not putting the individual at the center.

Centering all aspects of the individual in these meanings therefore requires knowledge. Without knowledge, there can be no guidance.

This knowledge must encompass the fundamentals of the individual.

By fundamentals we mean general fundamentals, which every individual has.

Therefore, navigation is a science.

Ignorance does not lead to Truth.

Individuals who embark on the journey ascend to the realization of unity and oneness, turning away from ignorance. Congregations, on the other hand, face division without unity, multiplicity without oneness, and fall into ignorance. Thus, they essentially destroy both the individual and society.

However, the perception of unity and the centering of unity encompasses both the individual and the community. Any kind of community is opposed to this encirclement. Otherwise, the community must be destroyed.

Because of this necessity, it is inconceivable that seyrusüluk, which focuses on the individual, forms a community out of the individuals it centers on.

Sameness and difference are not concepts exclusive to the congregation. Both sameness and difference exist in some form in both the congregation and the sect based on unity. The distinction between them is based on reality and falsity.

The congregation falsifies what the truth on the basis of “unity” and the tariqa or the people of seyrusüluk in this center originally constituted.

What remains the same in the community is slavery; it is the slaves who make the difference.

However, it is the free essence that remains the same in the course of travel, and it is the free ones who realize, appearing suddenly in unexpected forms, everywhere, in every era.

For this reason, although community commonly emerges through uniformization, this is not necessarily the case. There can be congregations that are ostensibly made up of individuals of many types, varieties and choices. What remains the same in these multi-type, multi-variety, and multi-choice individuals is slavery.

Without turning to general principles, it is not possible to see the distinctions between them.

Those who wish to turn to general principles must carefully understand, comprehend and know the “places” of the individual, that is, what he or she is made of.

It is not possible to distinguish between truth and falsehood and to have furqan without knowing where it is and what it is like.

The place of unity and oneness is not the same as the place of unity and fragmentation. Similarly, the place of the tariqa and the salik in the tariqa is not the same as the place of the congregation and the ascetics in the congregation. The follower of the congregation lives in a relative place in the human being, and the salik in a different place; this place is not relative. The place in the salik is essentially the place in the congregation. Otherwise we cannot talk about unity. But the congregation occupies this place in its adherent with itself, the congregation.

The salik follows the path in the place of unity. The place of unity is the place of freedom.

The locus of freedom is the heart.

The congregation prevents the one who is attached to the congregation from unity and makes him reluctant. Thus, it makes him a slave to the congregation.

Slavery is created by the closing of the heart. Once the heart is closed, the diversity of those who close the heart is ultimately indistinguishable in terms of the closure of the heart. However, their diversity is important for understanding that the essence of the apparent diversity is the same, and for differentiating those who are closed off and opening the path to the heart one by one.

Read:  Iris Apfel: American fashion designer dies at 102

The congregation closes the place of freedom in its adherent by destroying it.

Thus, the congregation ruins both worlds by destroying hearts.

Without knowing the general principles, and without understanding the individual in terms of these general principles, it is impossible to see what these matters mean in terms of their essence. For example, it is impossible to think of a being without thinking of a “topos”. By “topos” here, we do not mean the ideas of “location”, “location” and in this sense “space”. By “place (topos)” we mean the conception of “existential ground”. Existential ground means the ground to which something owes its existence. For example, in the case of the annulment of that thing, the existence in question also disappears. Whatever the essence of that thing is, this is the essence of the being that depends on that thing, and it cannot transcend this essence by its own means. In this respect, existence has to depend on its basis. In this sense, the existential basis is the “place” specific to the thing.

The difference in terms of places gives the difference in terms of the essence of things. Diversity or changes that do not differ in terms of places are not essentially a difference, not essentially a change. Therefore, congregations based on the same place, i.e. the destruction of the heart, whether religiously, irreligiously or otherwise, are no different from one another. Similarly, the followers of congregations are the same as each other, they have the same characteristics; it doesn’t matter if they clash with each other as much as they want, if they advocate different things as much as they want.

The members of all congregations that appear to be different are, in terms of being slaves, the same, they are beings of the same world. This slavery is categorical. No matter how free he is, no matter how arbitrarily he acts, he who is dependent in terms of his ground is a slave.

What is meant by the ground here is the addiction that holds the door that closes the heart.

For these reasons, congregations are no different from each other. However, the path of the people of the way of the wayfarer is different.

We have to determine a real difference and what the nature of a thing really is only in terms of its location.

There is a difference between the “place” of the congregation and the “place” of the people of the journey. Those who differ in their “place” also differ in their essence.

The heart is the place where seyrusüluk is based on the individual. The tariqa walks to the provinces of life through the levels of the soul that this place encompasses, depending on who its travelers are. The provinces of life are united in the country of the heart. In this country, the First and the Last come to “realization” “again” and “without repetition”.

The community denies the heart in the individual. Therefore, the community encircles the individual through denial and condemns the individual to an immortal life and a lifeless death between the repression of the ego and the repression of the ego.

The life that begins without beginning is driven to an end that has no end, and neither the “first” nor the “last” comes to realization. The human being, who is capable of being reborn every time, is put into the tomb of repetition.

These two points express the two differences between the people of seysuluk and the people of congregation.

The differences between them in terms of localities, i.e. places, are the differences in terms of the pillars of the pillars of the pillars of the wilayat and the congregation. The determination in the previous article that the congregation has no real basis is relevant to this.

The difference in terms of repetition and repetitiveness, i.e. the difference in time and dem, is the difference in roof.

This is the meaning of what we referred to in the previous article as the difference between the ground and the roof, but from a slightly different perspective.

Of these, the difference in location takes precedence over the difference in the roof, so this point should be paid more attention.

There is an order of importance between the ground and the roof. The ground, the floor, comes before the roof. A change in the ground, and a destruction of the ground, brings about a change in the roof and a destruction of the roof.

The building is the unified manifestation of the ground and the roof; it reveals the unity of the ground and the roof. By looking at the building, in what is revealed, what is revealed comes into view; that is, the essentials.

If there is one thing that the congregation has revealed, it is slavery, bondage, loss.

What Seyrusüluk reveals is the sentence truths in the individual Human being.

This architecture, which reveals the truths of the sentence by way of navigation, has two aspects, two essential elements. One of them is the traveler and the other is the traveler showing the way. These two become one and pave the way. So that the human being can be liberated from the dungeon in which he was shot.

In the next article, we will continue to talk about some things in the context of these two elements, and we will continue to talk about the wayfaring.

Repetition of the note from the previous article: We are indebted to Prof. Dr. Yalçın Koç for the entire conceptual framework of ecclesia.

author’s previous postThe difference between tariqat and congregation (ecclesia) -Chapter One-

Ahmet Turan Esin

-He is interested in theology, mysticism and philosophy. He publishes his writings on fikrikadim.com. He gives seminars and lectures.

-İlahiyat, tasavvuf ve felsefeyle ilgilenir. Yazılarını fikrikadim.com'da yayınlar. Seminer ve dersler verir.-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.