Soon you were immersed in the sea, water came to your throat
Do not aspire like a madman, O wretch, know that you have sunk
-Yunus Emre-
This article is a preliminary attempt to give a description and inversion, in our context, of the two essential elements of the building of seyrusüluk /navigation. (The term “seyrusüluk” will be translated as “navigation”.)
In the previous two articles, we have tried to explain our context. In the first article, we mentioned the problems of “time”, “firstness” and “lastness” and tried to show that seyr and süluk is an art and science of people who act to solve these problems. In this context, we had to make a distinction between tariqa and congregation, and we distinguished the two by defining them, in order to clearly see that the distinction has become a necessity and that seyrusüluk is a pure human duty and need.
We have said that the basis that distinguishes the tariqa from the congregation is seyr and süluk, and in this respect, we have insisted that individuality comes to the fore and that it is necessary to be a “traveler”.
In order to better understand the definitions of congregation and tariqa given in this article, we wrote a second article in which we touched extensively on the issue of “individual and community”. Accordingly, we tried to see that a congregation can sometimes be formed in the form of a “community” and sometimes in the form of an “individual”. This result also showed that the “individuality” in seyrusulq and the “unity” of the sentence existence, and the “oneness” in these two essentials, are not based simply on the idea or belief of “individualism”. However, this result also showed that the naive approach that “individuality” can be achieved by rejecting the idea of “community” in every sense is irrelevant to such a serious and heavy task as navigation. Moreover, since it should not be ignored that “unity”, which expresses “multiplicity”, must be established at the same time as “unity”, which expresses “individuality”, it has been insistently emphasized that an approach such as the mere rejection of “community” not only does not allow for the salutary establishment of neither the individual nor the society, but is also contrary to “unity”.
Community is not simply the idea of a community. The individual is not simply the idea of an individual. The ideas of “individual” and “community”, which are used to distinguish between the community and the individual, are only steps, stages. The wandering on the basis of the individual encompasses both the idea of the individual and the idea of the community. This is because the Individual, the “individual substance”, embodies and constitutes both unity and oneness in itself. The Community, on the other hand, encloses and imprisons the individual and the community in order to deny the Individuality based on unity and oneness. In these respects, the conclusion is this:
Not every community is anti-individual, but every community is anti-individual. In order to see the difference, it is necessary to open up the multiplicity, the “places” in the “individual”, that is, the essence. Otherwise, there is no possibility of understanding this work.
In this sense, opening the individual, that is, the individual substance, is only possible through wandering. Thought and thought-based paths, such as philosophy, science and theology, can only partially open this aspect to the extent permitted by the nature of thought, and then only if they have something coming to them from the individual substance.
If the individual substance were based on thought, that is, if it were established and existed in terms of thought, and if its primary act were thought, then “thought” and thought-based sciences would be sufficient to open the individual substance. However, this is not the case. The individual substance is transcendent to thought to the extent that it cannot be compared or explained in any way. On the contrary, the act of thought and all sciences based on thought are formed and function on the basis of the individual substance, using the possibilities provided by the individual substance. That is, the individual substance is prior to the act of thinking. At any moment when a person starts thinking, the individual substance precedes this act. So whenever we think, the individual substance is already prior to us. In other words, we have started thinking on the basis of the individual substance, because of this substance. Since this is the case, it is impossible to talk about the act of thinking and a cognition whose essence consists of thought being capable of opening and examining the individual substance. Thought can open and examine the things that are based on thought, but it cannot examine the things on which it is based. Because it cannot perceive. How can it examine what it cannot perceive?
Thought, which cannot examine what it cannot perceive, cannot describe what it cannot perceive either as existing or as non-existing. It is absurd to form a judgment about something that has not been perceived, in terms of the place of perception.
However, thought is not a substance in itself, nor is it a self-subsistent foundation, that is, it is not an entity in itself. Therefore, it is also unacceptable for thought to take itself as a “foundation” or a “basis”. Since thought is not a principle in itself, there must be principles specific to thought that make it possible to think. Since these principles predate the act of thought, it is impossible for them to be “personally” perceived by the act of thought. It is also impossible for the “antecedents”, which are impossible to be perceived personally, to be judged “personally” by thought.
In these respects, it is impossible to open and examine the individual substance “in person” through thought. What thought can do is to try to recognize and describe the individual substance in thought through the material given to it by the perceiver of the individual substance.
Without recognizing the individual substance, the problems inherent in individual and collective thought will not be solved. More importantly, the individual and society will not be able to know and accept their own truth. Since it is not possible to be “happy” where one does not know one’s own truth, happiness, that is, bliss, will never be Human in itself. Because knowledge of the truth is also happiness. Knowing one’s own truth depends on recognizing the individual substance. Because without recognizing the individual substance, one cannot talk about beginning to know the truths of the Human being. Without knowing the truths pertaining to human beings, the truths pertaining to the universe cannot be known. In this sense, the absence of “knowledge” allows for “ignorance”. And where ignorance arises, the Jamaat finds an opportunity to pursue the cause of “jahiliyya” that it has been pursuing since ancient times. And so, by denying the Individual, it enslaves the individual and the community, and the servant becomes a slave to the servant.
The captive here is the heart, burning with longing for its Owner and Lover. In this respect, the primary activity of the community is to disrupt the house of the heart, to destroy the house of the heart. Otherwise, it would not be possible for it to maintain its sovereignty over the servants.
The Individual Human Being is a threat to the sultanate of the community. Because the Individual Human Being has the “knowledge” and “power” to resist every trick, every betrayal, every plot of the community. In this respect, the Individual Human Being is not only a threat to the community, but also a terror.
The horrors of the individual substance are also seen by the traveler. For this reason, some of the travelers can and have left clear traces of their encounters with these horrors.
The people of the Wayfarer are the only people on earth who dare to recognize the Individual Human Being, and they are the greatest exception. Therefore, it is necessary to understand this work by looking at them.
As a result, the individual human being, the individual substance, can be recognized and studied through a special journey called seyrusulq. For this reason, without taking the journey as a basis, the individual substance cannot be found and it is not possible to resist the domination of jahiliyyah.
What we mean by seyrusuluk is the path and the process of realization that a human being embarks upon in order to be able to identify and form the sentence truths that are unique to him/her. It is also possible to give it different names and characterizations. However, we find it more accurate to use this term in many respects.
When the aim is for the human being to identify and comprehend the truths that are unique to him or her, the task can become very difficult depending on the state of the relationship between the person and the truth. To be able to explain something that is so difficult in itself, in the form of words and in a way that also appeals to thought, may therefore require giving up ease. For this reason, we ask for patience with difficult expressions and approaches.
First of all, it is necessary to underline this point very strongly: Seyrusuluk is the profession of the Prophets. Therefore, it is a matter of “Revelation”, that is, the “Word of Allah”. Since it is related to the “Word of Allah”, there is nothing joking about it.
It is important to think about this point, and to understand what the Jama’at is against, in order to recognize the Jama’at and to counter its plots.
The above will be better understood from this perspective.
Secondly, we would like to emphasize that seyrusüluk is a kind of “master and apprentice” relationship. Therefore, there are two essential elements to the building of seyrusuluk. The master, in this context, is referred to as the “passenger showing the way” and the apprentice is referred to as the “passenger traveling the way.” What they both have in common is that they are “passengers.” The difference between the one who “shows” the Way and the one who “travels” the Way is that he knows the Way, that is, he is “originally a traveler”. For this reason, navigation is a science, and it is an art in the sense that it makes the traveler a traveler. This art reveals the Way as a work of architecture and emerges as a hope of salvation to remind the enslaved Man of his original homeland.
The guiding traveler has many names in our language. The most common is “Pir (sheikh)” or “Hace (murshid)”.
The wayfarer is also referred to in our language with adjectives such as “dervish”, “fakir”, “muksit”, “murid”, “son”, “talib”.
Let’s say this in general, without making many distinctions.
Let us now begin to unpack these points in their context below and build our preparation.
Let us repeat: seyrusuluk is a journey between the traveler who is traveling and the traveler who is guiding the way.
The path comes from the source to the traveler and opens in the traveler.
Because it opens in the traveler, the path is in a “place” specific to the traveler. This “place” also determines the nature of the journey.
Seyr and the place, the “places of seyr”, apply to each and every person. In general, everyone watches from somewhere.
However, what is different for the people of seyrusüluk is to open and realize the “places” in oneself, to travel through what is realized, and to navigate in each place in a way that is appropriate for that place.
In this respect, what needs to be taken into account are the “places” in the individual and those who “travel” in these places.
For this, it must be understood that by the concept of “seyr” we mean “realization”. If it is understood that by ‘seyr’ we mean ‘realization’, then it will also be understood that everyone who realizes is actually traveling. From this point on, the distinctions to be made and the difference between the people of seyrusuluk can be better seen.
Every realizer is actually on a journey.
The same person, in different places of perception, sees the same thing in different essences.
The traveler comes to the path by opening the same thing in different places of perception, in his course.
The same thing, for example, the mote contains the sphere within it. In the mote, the traveler watches the sphere, and in the sphere, the traveler watches the mote.
He who touches with his hand is traveling with his hand. He who sees with his eye is traveling with his eye. What is touched with the hand and what is seen with the eye are the same thing. In the same thing, different things are brought to watch.
If the hand of the one touched by his hand is outside of himself, the one touched by his hand is traveling outside of himself; it is the same for the one who sees with his eyes.
For example, since this person’s hand is on the outside, there is also an inside that is a place of observation in relation to this outside. In other words, what he finds on the outside, he watches from this inside. This perception, which is found in the exterior and is a watching in the interior, is called “perception”. In this sense, the inside and outside of the one who watches by perceiving are “separate”.
But watching depends on becoming “one”. Nothing can be watched without becoming “one” and “unity”.
However, the way of viewing what is actually separate as “one” can be realized by covering up the separateness of what is separate. Because of this concealment, the one who watches what he actually finds outside of him inside, pretends that there is no distinction between inside and outside, and judges that he is watching “one”. Because without covering the distinction between inside and outside, he cannot watch as “one”, in short, he cannot watch.
Because navigation depends on “one” and on “unity”.
The difference of what is viewed as “one” in terms of the distinction between the “outer place” and the “inner place” secretly disrupts the unity of the viewing. The most obvious way of recognizing this disruption is by looking at the times of these separate places.
We can illustrate this point with some examples.
The time of the “outer place” seems to flow continuously, that is, as if there is no “moment” but only a process without a moment. The time of the “inner place”, on the other hand, seems to flow “moment by moment”.
For example, let’s think of a ripe Amasya apple. Let this Amasya apple be rotting over time. So let us assume that we perceive the decay of a ripe Amasya apple over time. In the inner place, this apple is the same apple at every moment, remembered at every moment; whereas in the outer place, it is either this or that. In other words, at one time it is a ripe, fresh apple, and at another time it has rotted away.
This rotting Amasya apple is present in the inner cognition in its ripe state and in its rotten state. If we think of it in its ripe state, the rotten Amasya apple is present in the inner being in its unrotten state.
In the time of the outer place, the same thing decays, while in the inner place, its decay and its pre-decay remain the same.
In this respect, the “being” of the Amasya apple is also divided into two due to this internal and external distinction.
If the time of the inner place were not “separate” and “different” from the time of the outer place, the existence of the Amasya apple would not be divided into two.
In the inner place, the same apple does not disappear as long as it is not forgotten. Whereas in the outer space, it can disappear from our hands, from our eyes.
So does this Amasya apple exist or not? How would it be possible to “watch one”, that is, to “watch one”, for example, its existence, something that does not exist in our outer space but exists in our inner space, that is, something that exists and does not exist at the same time? How can something that exists in one place and does not exist in another be “one”.
Is this disjuncture in the view of the Amasya apple the Amasya apple or the state of the viewer?
How would the apple of Amasya be perceived if there was no separation of inside and outside? In other words, what would be the course of the apple?
While subject to the separation of the inside and the outside, the heedless, who pretends that this separation does not exist, may for a while perceive the Amasya apple as “one” in his perception. Then this unity in the form of “existence” is destroyed by the apple’s decomposition outside in some way. For the unaware, this disintegration of unity is unremarkable, relative to their narrow need or understanding of the Amasya apple. But if this disintegration of unity about the apple were vital, this arbitrary separation and merging would be taken seriously.
However, all the deeds of the heedless are frivolous, even those they pretend to be the most serious. If this were not the case, they would probably already be worried that an Amasya apple might one day ask for its due in this caliber.
Every object, every being is serious for the people of seyrusüluk. Because in every being there is a truth waiting to be known. That truth is also the truth of süluk.
Let’s do this example now, centering on something internal. Let us imagine an Amasya apple. This imaginary apple exists in the interior. However, it does not exist in the outer space, that is, neither in the hand nor in the eye.
This apple of Amasya, which exists in the inner place but not in the outer place, is not “on course” on the basis of “one” and “unity” due to the separateness of perception. Because of not being on such a course, its existence and non-existence are “discrete”. Nevertheless, it is one and unity only in terms of its inner perception. This state of oneness and unity is one and unity relative to the negation of the external. However, although the exterior cannot be ignored, in terms of the unity of the course as a whole, the unity within is only a relative individuation activity specific to one aspect of the course. Because even though it is individuated in the interior, what is not present in the exterior does not exist as one in the totality of the course, which is divided into interior and exterior.
For example, the apple in this example, according to the dreamer, somehow exists. Otherwise, he would not be able to form any kind of internal cognition, a judgment, an assumption, anything about this thing. However he does it, he has created a being in the inner place, that is, within himself. But this being in the interior does not exist in the exterior. Therefore, for example, he cannot show an external person the Amasya apple in the interior in the exterior. If he wants to show it, he has to describe this imaginary inner being in such a way that an external person can picture it in his imagination; this picture cannot be formed in the external world by merely describing it. So, for example, he cannot even show this picture to his own hand, his own eye, which he holds in the outside. Without both his own hand and, let’s say, the hand of another person outside, being able to perceive, through the hand, the existence of the imagined Amasya apple inside. As a result, the outer hand cannot say “there is” what it cannot perceive. The Amasya apple in the interior has been created only for the imagination in the interior, while it is left non-existent in the exterior.
How many are the things that the heedless give the hope of existence, only to be destroyed. Let us not go into this subject.
The person in this example has found a presence within and absence without.
Because in this example, the external absence does not “touch” the internal presence, and the internal presence does not “touch” the external absence. This “non-contact” is what we call “separateness”, “dissociation”.
The non-existence of the inner being in the outer being is a crucial matter of truth that cannot be skipped, cannot be left aside, for the people of seyrusüluk.
It’s not just whether dreams, ideals, exist externally or not, it’s something more subtle, namely the realization of the state of “separation” here. Why is there separation, why is there dissociation? This is what raises the issue. Because the observer sees that there is also a false “unity” here that hides the disunity; and a hidden “disunity” that hides the real “unity”. Otherwise, it is not a matter of first making real what you imagine. The issue for the person of the pilgrimage is to wake up to the separation that gives false unity in the first place. Otherwise, even the imagination of the people of the wayfarer is already the truth, and it really has to be “one” and “unity”. They do not know what a lie is, what an empty imagination is. They do not leave something between existence and non-existence and violate its right.
As can be understood from these examples, the “dissimilarity” in the “outer place” and the “inner place” in the course indicates that the unity of the course is distorted. In other words, that what is actually corrupt is deceived as if it were not corrupt.
The traveler, realizing that he has been “deceived” in his journey in terms of his “place”, takes action in order for his journey to reach the truth. Of course, this movement means leaving the “place” where he was deceived.
For these reasons, the path begins with abandonment and is finally sealed with abandonment.
Between these two abandonments, “heads are torn from their necks”, “hearts are in their mouths”, “children turn into old men”… the sky splits, the stars fall, the sun and moon are rolled up like a towel. This point is not included in any language, in any narrative, except by Allah…
Let’s leave it at that.
What the traveler realizes is a prelude to more realizations to come.
The realization and traversing of these places began with seeing “the one who shows the way on the ground”.
Because without the one who shows the way on the ground, that is, the one who knows the work in its essence, the way cannot be seen, the way cannot be found.
Let us elaborate on this point briefly and in this context.
The one who shows the Way usually appears, as in the example above, for example, from the “outer place”. He appears to the would-be traveler in the “outer place” and speaks from the outer place. That is, for example, he appears in a bazaar, a market, a hankah, a school, a coffee house or somewhere similar. He speaks and addresses with various specialties, tastes, interests and human languages. The place of address, such as the bazaar and the market and the language spoken, is external to the candidate traveler, that is, it appears external.
In terms of appearing externally, “the one who shows the way” has entered into the “outward” course of the “candidate traveler” in the broad sense of “outside.” In other words, like the colors, objects, people, structures that he perceived in the “outward course” before, “the one who shows the way” has also entered into the outward course.
If you look well, in general, some of those who enter the outer course have a voice and some have an intelligible language and language, and some even address the prospective traveler with these voices and language.
But not every sound and every image that is seen from the outside is language.
Things that enter the outer course have a “place” in the inner course, that is, in the inner course. Without this place, the outer course cannot “merge” with the inner course and emerge as a course. We have said this above. Let us remember this again.
Now, every sound and every image that comes to the view from the outside, in terms of being only sound and only image, to which place in the interior is it reserved? This question should be paid attention to.
Without the internal fulfillment of what is to be viewed externally, we cannot talk about what is being viewed externally. Sound and image alone are not a “meaning”, a “sense” in themselves. Therefore, the mere navigation of sound and image is not a navigation in the sense of cognition. Sound and image phrases and similar things, such as touch phrases, must somehow come to “language” in order to be “meaning” and “mana”. That is, they must “come to language.”
The person in the audience observes only sound, image and touch on the outside, but on the inside, with a kind of “language”. In other words, all these things come to the “language” of the beholder inside and find “meaning” there; in other words, they become language.
However, the situation changes when what is seen outside comes to be seen with a “language” independent of the language inside. For these things are no longer dependent on speaking only in the inner language of the beholder, but are things that speak with languages of their own. Therefore, for example, it becomes necessary to “understand” what these perceived things “mean”, what and who they are, not only in relation to the inner “place of meaning” of the beholder, but also in relation to the way they themselves explain themselves, introduce themselves. This point is also the beginning of the confusion.
What will the onlookers, who have an external “language”, say? And what will the beholder say to them?
This point constitutes one of the most ambivalent, most troublesome aspects of the journey, which no one but the experts of navigation can overcome. Everyone experiences the daily dilemmas of the subject at different levels every day. Feelings of insecurity, being surprised by events, and being wrong are ordinary consequences. And the philosophers, scientists and theologians who have set out to get the job done have already messed it up to the point where no one can handle it anymore. What they have been trained in is volumes and volumes of how to make things even more complicated. In the end, the fundamental problems on which centuries have been spent remain there like a block of concrete.
We have examined these issues in other articles in terms of the helplessness of philosophy and theology. Let us not dwell on this helplessness here. Let us bring it back to the realization of the wayfarer.
The wayfarer comes to the journey from outside, in an external place, and with an external language. The would-be traveler recognizes the “guide”, generally speaking, in this state. But this realization is not yet at the level of realizing who He is. It is only an “encounter”. This encounter is also the “first contact” in terms of this external, localized address to show the way.
All those issues that are like concrete blocks will be resolved with this first contact. But there is more to this contact than that.
The “first contact” could be about one or more of a wide range of topics, a wide range of emotions. For example, the need for a glass of water or a meal, an intellectual problem, seeking treatment for a disease, or in a state of shopping. While having fun in a place of entertainment, while feeling sad in a deserted place, while following an issue on what is called social media out of curiosity, while looking for medicine, while trading, while looking for a job or a worker, perhaps even while looking for a partner for a game… it doesn’t matter. It can happen in any form, in any environment. What remains the same in these changing forms and environments are only the “states” that will be the source of the “first contact” between the guiding traveler and the prospective traveler, that’s all.
The “states” that will be the source of the “first contact” are the unique seeking states of the would-be traveler that call out to the guide. In other words, it is a state of the would-be traveler that draws attention to itself, that is found somewhere in itself. This state, as a call to contact with the guide, also makes “first contact” possible.
The place where the state originates is a place where the guide is also present. In other words, it is a place of previous contact with the guide.
The state is in this place of prior contact. The “first contact” that comes in the form of an external encounter is a consequence of this.
This prior contact invites “first contact”.
This prior contact, therefore, precedes the “first contact”.
Because it precedes the “first contact”, the contact that comes into being through the state is the place of “primary contact”.
It is, therefore, the “primary contact” that makes the “first contact” between the traveler who leads and the traveler who will be led.
Without “primary contact” there would be no “first contact”.
In other words, the “primary contact” has come first in terms of being the “first” of the “first contact”. This first contact constitutes the “call” between the guide and the traveler.
Because the “guide”, like the “would-be traveler”, is in a “search”. This “search” is “heard” in the original place. And those who hear it become ready for the “first contact”.
Since the call in what is heard is in the “original place” of the hearer, when the would-be traveler is veiled from this place, that is, when he is veiled from the very nature of his state, his call may not be in the realization, that is, in his perception in its relative nature. However, in terms of the “guide”, in terms of the “call to seek”, this place is “in perception”. The guide knows this essential place. He sees it in the would-be traveler. What he sees is in a place in himself.
“First contact” takes place in a contextual and contingent neighborhood. Therefore, it can take place in one of many different subjects, many different languages, many different places. It can take any form.
However, the “original contact” takes place in a place transcending these contexts and conditions, in a place where there are only those that are unique to it. What happens in “primary contact” is therefore also the cause of the acquaintance in “first contact”.
“The contextual and conditional things, let’s say professions, adjectives, persons, image and sound phrases, that is, in short, the world the prospective traveler perceives and the components within that world are relative to the “inner language” of the “first contact”.
All kinds of speech, actions, structures and the like that the prospective traveler encounters in the “first contact” are not the things that make this contact “first contact”. What makes this encounter a “first contact” is only and exclusively the language of the “guide (murshid)” encountered.
This language is not a language that has been encountered before, a language known in the previous world. It is the language of “original contact”, coming from a place of “original contact”.
The “language of the original contact”, as a call to the state of the would-be traveler, has awakened in the would-be traveler. In the thing encountered in the “first contact”, the thing to be awakened has come itself.
The place that “brings them together” is “originally” another place, and “first” another place. These two places are “intertwined” in this encounter, standing together.
If it were not for “language” at the place of “primary contact”, the contact in the encounter would not be a “first contact”.
The first contact is a beginning in terms of what precedes this contact. That is, the beginning of the architectural work called seyrusüluk. And what starts this beginning is the “language”, which is external in the course, but in fact cannot be external. In other words, it is the language of Murshid. To put it more clearly, it is the first time that the world outside the separated world “really comes to the tongue”.
For the first time, because what comes into language is the language of the “original contact”.
The essential contact is not in the separated outside and the separated inside. The place of primary contact is in the undifferentiated interior. Therefore, what makes the contact “first” is that something that comes to travel in the exterior comes to travel in the original interior, which transcends the separation of exterior and interior.
As soon as the pilgrim candidate, in his/her course so far, that is, in his/her divergent course, sees the “original inside” of himself/herself for the “first time”, that is, for the first time, with this “first contact”, he/she recognizes it and begins to feel what it will show him/her. Therefore, the world before this encounter is on one side, and the one he encounters is now somewhere else.
The “first contact” is a hope of the essential contact, as the beginning of the journey of the would-be traveler, of the arrival on the path and of the work on the path.
Therefore, whatever the contextual characteristic, the most obvious thing to be seen within the externally seen murshid is hope. In the eye of the murshid, therefore, there is hope. That hope is the disciple himself.
From this point of view, one steps into the building of seyrusüluk with the besmel of hope, and with the first contact everything begins with the name of Allah.
– will continue
translated from the author’s website / https://ahmetturanesin.com/
