Lectures & Talks
On the Relation of Ibn 'Arabi to Rumi
A Note on Bülent Rauf's 'Turkey Notes'
The two earliest accounts of Mevlana's life, which were written within two generations of his death, differ markedly in their portrayal of the link between Ibn 'Arabi and Rumi. Sipahsalar affirms in his risâla that, as well as spending time with Ibn 'Arabi in Damascus, Rumi did embrace the teachings of the Shaykh al-Akbar without reservation. Aflaki's manâqib al-'ârifîn, on the other hand, is more ambiguous about the matter, for although it acknowledges the friendship of Sadruddin Konevi and Rumi, it does not say anything which indicates that they shared a spiritual kinship and, at times, it even criticizes Konevi's manner. In fact, these two accounts define the amplitude of opinion that has been expressed in this regard since Rumi's day to the present, which ranges from discipleship to the complete denial of any discourse. The latter view is more frequently promoted by Iranian scholars who, one suspects, were keen to keep Rumi free of any 'Arab influence'.
While the difference between these two accounts may be explained in terms of the affinities of their authors, or of those who had commissioned them, this approach will be deeply unsatisfying since it ignores the fact that both were published in a context which was entirely receptive to the himma of Mevlana. Moreover, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Rumi himself displayed a similar ambiguity towards Ibn 'Arabi, because unlike his manner with regard to other Saints he had met, he does not mention him in his own writings at all. The same also applies to Konevi, whom he insisted should lead his funeral rites, even though, as address 29 in Rumi's fihi ma fihi demonstrates, he also accepted the claim of a Christian that some of Shaykh Sadruddin's disciples had confessed "Jesus is God as you assert". It is also noteworthy that in the following centuries the teachings of the Shaykh al-Akbar did become a cornerstone of the studies within the Mevlevi Order.
According to Bülent Rauf, Rumi is a Spiritual Pole, "whose domain and responsibility is more in the overall spirituality of the universal trends and knowledge, as well as the effects" that manifest this knowledge as a constituent of "the overall esoteric enlightenment of man and his progress towards a universal esoteric platform." Now, since a Pole is a Saint around whose reality a realm of existence revolves, his domain of responsibility is always infused by his uniqueness. In this respect, then, the Pole's domain is his, and his alone, and no other Saint will claim any part in it, unless he happens to be a direct heir of the Pole. From this perspective the ambiguity mentioned above can be seen as the direct result of a supreme adab, since on the one hand it affirms Rumi's uniqueness as a Pole, while on the other it acknowledges the reality of Ibn 'Arabi as the Seal of Muhammedian Sainthood. It is even possible to conclude that if it were not for their supreme closeness – as Poles whose concern is "the overall esoteric enlightenment of man" – this ambiguity would not have been necessary in the first place.
Concerning this closeness, Bülent Rauf adds that Rumi directs what was brought by Ibn 'Arabi "in its spiritual context more towards the line of a sainthood which is Christ-like." Although some have seen this to be a statement classifying Rumi as an 'îsawî Saint, this cannot be the case, because he also advises the student that "God alone knows what [the Saints] know and in what way they know it, and that is why we say 'God sanctified their secret'." As it is unlikely that he should ignore such an advice, "sainthood which is Christ-like" cannot refer to Jesus as an Envoy – from which reality 'îsawî inheritance derives – but to Christ's role as the Seal of Universal Sainthood, which is to be actualized on his Second Coming and coincide with the culmination of the preparation of "universal esoteric platform." These two faces seem to echo Ibn 'Arabi's exposition concerning the reality and function of a Seal: for inasmuch as his reality, or station, implies the completion of a perfection, the return of Jesus as a Saint manifests the most explicit example of the perfectibility of mankind, while inasmuch as the function of a Seal relates to the withdrawal of types of spiritual realisation from the relative domain, the platform in question is esoteric in the sense that it excludes realisation through common exoteric precepts and stresses the universal way, or the way which is private and unique to each individual. Accordingly, the full amplitude – both esoteric and exoteric – of the Perfection of Man which has been expressed by Ibn 'Arabi acquires in Rumi a universal esoteric stress, whereby it is possible to conclude that, in this respect, it is no coincidence that Mevlana's invitation "Come, come whoever you are" is so prominent in the manner his teachings are perceived today.