Lectures & Talks
Love and Knowledge
By Bulent Rauf
First of all is the general idea, that according to:
1. “I was (like) a hidden treasure and I loved to be known…”
all at Beshara are toiling with the quest of Knowing the “I”. This therefore presumes the Knowledge of the “I”, which may be The I or the personal I. In the case of the latter, again, Knowledge has its primordial place, for:
2. “He who knows himself (i.e. the truth about the personal I) surely knows God.”
Therefore at Beshara, the primordial place should be given to the acquisition of Knowledge. In the quote (1) the initial I is the state of the First Gnosis. Gnosis is knowledge, First Knowledge in this case is what we in the East call the First Ta’ayyun, i.e. the first Self-identification. What happens is as follows:
There is for ever and always the One Absolute Essence which is unqualifiable, unknowable except by Its own Self; but containing in Himself already all Knowledge, all the potentialities and all ‘eventual’ possibilities of all the infinite states of existence in any sphere or domain.
That is why all these potentialities, pre-known (pre- because before they will happen in time, with all the choices they will make etc.) are called the Ayan-i-Thabita, meaning the established (rather than ‘fixed’ as in the translations) potentialities. So, in the state of the First Cognition (gnosis, cognosis, cognition etc.), the first Ta’ayyun, the first Self-identification, all the potentialities are already contained in the knowledge of Himself. In that case, what is the difference one might say, between the unknowable (by any but Himself) state and the state of the first Self-identification?
The difference is as follows:
In the latter case, that which causes His Unknowable-ness is transformed into Knowable-ness by the utterance of the first I of the quote (1). This is an exhalation, the first expiration so to speak, the primordial outflow of the Breath of I. Because, you will notice, there is no manifestation as yet. It is like coming into awakening of a dormant state. This is the state known as the Second stage of identity, and this is the state of Hu. This state is describable as someone knowing himself to be, but has just now only said it for the first time for all to know, that he has been in his own knowledge. Now however, He has said it (though only) to Himself, affirmed it to Himself, since there is no such thing, as yet, as ‘all’. Therefore, this Ta’ayyun is the first saying, confirmation of Being to oneself – whether it is to oneself or to others and all, a confirmation requires a subject and an object. It follows, therefore, that He is the Subject of this state and the Object of it. However, the fact that He is also the Object of Himself, immediately, presumes in mind, brings into being, as a thought the consequent state of Ta’ayyun – which will unfold as manifestation, as the manifested Being etc. Hence the next stage is the state of Godhead etc. and all manifestation as archetypes, then the fourth stage comes devolving from this, and then the fifth stage which is the immanent world etc. which is known in the East as “Kevn”, which means “the things that have been caused to be, tangibly, or materially to happen”. “Kevn” is the singular form, or a generic form, and “Mukevvinat” is the plural form, but used to mean almost the same thing. (Inn-el Kevn-u hayal-un ve huvel Hakk u fil Hakika: meaning: Kevn, the material world is an illusion; but also it is the Truth in the truth).
But enough of diversions;
So, Beshara, which is under the sign of Hu, which is the sound for the second stage, and which again, is the state of the First Cognition depends primordially on Knowledge. It can only come to life through Knowledge.
Then where is Love? The sentence says: “I loved to be Known”?
Love is the prime motive of all unfoldment. (The motive of manifestation is the realisation, fully of Love, - hence the first I of quote (1) in its first outward expiration is the Breath of Rahma, including both Rahman and Rahim, which pervades all with its essence, and without Rahma there is no Love). So Love is founded on Rahma; since the I is both the object and the subject in this case and is also the realisation of Love which demands by its nature an object. And, unless one knows this, one does not know the direction of Love. So Love is a matter for sentiment, therefore feeling, or “knowing with one’s heart”.
But, therefore, also beware, that Love alone without knowledge, remains unfocused, unaimed, undirected. The consequence of such a love is pointless, (though better than nothing at all), and leads to a confused state of perpetual Hallelujah, comparable to the simpleton’s constant grin, or the village-idiot’s perpetual good-humour. This state then, should be avoided at all cost, and an anchoring of this joy, humour, grin, bliss is performed through the “drug” or “medicine” of Knowledge, so that Love is directed, fixed inalienably with the Subject of all Love which is He Himself, as indicated in the sentence(1). So the knowledge of “I” with the acquisition of Knowledge with the motivation of Love proceeds until the recognition (cognition, cognosis etc.) of the Subject-Object “I” and consequently the recognition (cognito, cognosis, gnosis etc.) of the personal I becomes no other.