“코로나 시기는 소태산 교화법 ‘일상속 상시훈련’ 안성맞춤이죠” : 조현이만난사람 : 휴심정 : 뉴스 : 한겨레

“코로나 시기는 소태산 교화법 ‘일상속 상시훈련’ 안성맞춤이죠” : 조현이만난사람 : 휴심정 : 뉴스 : 한겨레
“코로나 시기는 소태산 교화법 ‘일상속 상시훈련’ 안성맞춤이죠”
등록 2021-04-20 

[짬] 원불교 최고지도자 전산 김주원 종법사



취임 4년째인 전산 김주원 종법사가 20일 ‘대각개교절’을 앞두고 기자간담회를 했다. 조현 기자오는 28일은 소태산 박중빈 대종사가 전남 영광에서 깨달음을 얻고 원불교를 연 날이다. 대부분의 종교가 교조의 탄생일을 경축하는 것과 달리 원불교는 대각개교절을 최대 경축일로 삼고 있다. 교주를 아무리 신화해도 각자의 깨달음과 실천이 따르지 않으면 아무 소용이 없다는 종교 개혁의 의미가 담겨 있다.

그 원기 106년 대각개교절을 앞두고 20일 전북 익산 원불교 중앙총부에서 최고지도자인 전산 김주원(73) 종법사를 만났다. 2018년 종법사가 된 그는 국외 교당이 있는 24개 나라 가운데 최초로 미국에 자체 종법사를 두도록 선임하고, 여성 교무의 결혼을 허용하는 등 교단 개혁을 이끌고 있다.

창시자 박중빈 대종사 ‘깨달음 얻은 날’
28일 최대 경축일 ‘대각개교절’ 맞아
‘세불리기보다 깨닫는 사람 만들 것’
‘원망생활을 감사생활로 돌리는 것’ 강조

56년 전 입교때 대산 종사 예화도 소개
“국운상승해 세계인이 한글 배울 것”


전산 종법사가 20일 전북 익산 원불교 중앙총부를 찾아온 신도들과 기념촬영을 하고 있다. 조현 기자전산 종법사는 우선 코로나19와 관련해 “어찌 나쁘기만 하겠느냐”며 ‘은생어해, 해생어은’(恩生於害,害生於恩)을 들었다. 이 말은 소태산 대종사의 가르침으로, ‘은혜를 자각하지 못하면 해가 되고, 해로운 것도 마음을 잘 쓰면 은혜가 될 수 있다’는 의미다. 즉 ‘코로나 시기’도 잘 활용하면, 개인의 삶이나 조직과 국가도 전화위복의 계기로 삼을 수 있다는 것이다. 대부분의 종교계가 사회적 거리두기 탓에 모이기가 어려워 신자가 떨어져나가는 것 때문에 노심초사하고 있는 것과 달리, ‘개벽 종교’다운 일성이 아닐 수 없다.

“소태산 대종사의 교화는 법회 위주가 아니다. 생활 속에서 공부하라는 것이다. 일주일 동안 삶터에서 공부한 것을 점검 받고 다시 가정과 직장에 돌아가 공부하는 것이 대종사의 교화법이다. 법당이 중심이 아니라 가정과 직장이 공부의 중심이다. 그동안 교회의 영향으로 변질된 측면이 있지만, 원불교의 교화 체계는 딱 그렇게 되어 있다.”

그는 “교도가 늘어나 교당에 수만명이 모인다 한들 전부 제 욕심만 챙기며 산다면 그것은 교화된 게 아니다”라며 “대종사의 교화는 세를 불리자는 게 아니라 한명이라도 깨어나는 사람, 깨닫는 사람을 만드는 것”이라고 말했다. 따라서 깨어나기 위해서는 교당에서만이 아니라 가정과 직장에서, 일상의 삶터에서 상시훈련을 해야 하는데, ‘코로나 시기’야 말로 상시훈련을 하기에 가장 적기라는 것이다.

전산 종법사는 코로나19나 경제 상황에 대해서도 우려를 희망으로 돌려놓았다. 그는 젊은 시절 가까이 모셨던 ‘원불교 3대 종법사’인 대산 김대거 종사(1914~18)의 예화를 들었다.

“12·12 사태(1979년 전두환 신군부의 쿠테타) 때 금방이라도 북에서 쳐내려올 것 같고, 큰일이 터질 것만 같아 외국으로 이민을 간 고위층이 적지 않았다. 그때 대산 종사께서 계시던 신도안으로 중앙부처 공무원인 한 신도가 찾아와 ‘어려운 시국’이라며 ‘나라가 어떻게 되겠느냐’고 물었다. 그때 대산 종사께서 ‘아이를 키워보았느냐’고 묻고는, ‘아이들은 아프면서 크는 것이다. 한번씩 아프고 나면 부쩍 커있는 것을 보게 된다’며 ‘우리나라도 크는 아이와 같다’고 했다. 대산 종사께서 돌아가시기 직전 아이엠에프 외환위기 사태가 터졌다. 걱정하는 소리를 들은 대산 종사께서 ‘몇년만 있으면 몰라보게 좋아질 것’이라고 해서 시봉하는 교무조차도 ‘신심으로 보니까 그렇지 현실에서야 설마’라고 긴가민가 했다고 한다.”

전산 종법사는 “56년 전 교단에 들어왔을 때는 중국이 ‘죽의 장막’을 치고 있을 때인데, 대산 종사께서는 중국이 문을 열면 세계의 중심이 될 터이니 미리 중국어를 배워두라고 했다”면서 “우리나라는 안 좋은 일이 생겨도 이를 잘 넘기면 더 좋아지고, 좋은 일들이 있으면 그로인해 더 좋아지는 국운 상승기여서 세계인들이 앞다퉈 한글을 배우는 시대가 올 것이라고 했다”고 전했다.

전산 종법사는 소태산 대종사 가르침의 핵심을 ‘원망생활을 감사생활로 돌리는 것’이라고 정리했다. 이것이야 말로 ‘코로나 시기’에 집안에 갇히면서 갈등이 커져가는 가정의 화합, 남북·남남 갈등 해소, 세계 평화와 환경문제 해결 등에 있어 가장 절실한 자세이다. 그는 “원망생활을 감사생활로 돌리려면 먼저 천지와 부모, 동포 등의 은혜를 철저히 알아야 한다”며 마지막으로 대산 종사가 자주 언급했다는 예화를 들려주었다.

“겨울에 깊은 겨울산에서 헤매다가 눈밭에 쓰러져 얼어죽을 뻔한 과객을 어떤 은인이 발견해 주막에 데려다주어 살아났다. 그러나 은인은 과객이 깨어나기 전에 떠나 얼굴을 알 수 없었다. 그러다 세월이 지나 길을 가던 중 행인과 다툼이 생겨 싸우다가 화해의 술을 나누며 지나온 삶을 풀어놓던 중 상대가 눈밭에서 자신을 살려준 은인임을 알았다. 만약 진즉 그가 목숨을 구해준 은인임을 알았다면 조그만 일로 다투겠는가. 자신이 수많은 은혜 속에서 살고 있음을 깨닫는다면 어떻게 원망하는 삶을 살겠는가.”

익산/조현 종교전문기자 cho@hani.co.kr

연재짬

유상용 야마기시 [ 돈이 필요 없는 즐거운 마을]

(2) Facebook

유상용
7 m ·

아래의 글은 '야마기시즘실현지'를 만드는 과정에서 야마기시씨가 쓴 글이다. 조금 전 번역을 한 것인데, 그의 자세, 의도를 짐작할 수 있는 글이라, 관심있는 분들께 참고자료로 드린다.
ㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡ
<돈이 필요 없는 즐거운 마을 >
1960년 5월- 야마기시 미요조, 처(부인) 니와
연구가·실행가에게 드리는 말씀

이 저서는 교서教書가 아니다. 아니, 이 저서뿐만 아니라 나의 과거에 말해 온 것, 써 온 것, 해 온 것 모두 및 앞으로의 모든 언행, 어느 것도 가르치는 것은 아니다. 전부 연구가의 참고 자료로서 제공하고, 그것의 취사선택·실행에 있어서는 각각의 자유의지에 맡기는 것이다.
그때 그 자리에서 내가 생각한 대로 혹은 스스로 깨닫지 못한 채 표현되고 있는, 일단의 부분적 현상에 지나지 않는 것이다. 이윽고 내가 생각하는 기록, "월계月界로의 통로"의 일부분으로서 『정해正解 야마기시즘 전집』의 초안을 정리해 각 집輯으로 분류하고 인간 생활은 물론 우주 만반의 현상계·무현상에 대해, 내가 느끼는 대로 종횡으로 써내려 대중 앞에 드리고 싶어서 지금 그것에 모든 것을 걸고 있다.
그러나 생각만큼 되지 않는 것은, 지금의 환경 조건 하에서 심신의 불편함으로 인해 그것의 중단 상태의 부득이한 사정에 있으며, 내가 오늘까지 받았던 과거, 현재의 사람들 및 대자연에 응하는 날이 늦어지는 것에 무거움을 느끼고 무위로 생명이 다 연소될 때가 가까워지고 있음을 아쉬워한다.
이 저서는 지금의 세계정세를 고려하여, 내일을 기다릴 수 없는 긴박함을 느끼고, 신심의 초췌함 속에서 마음 졸이는 대로 전집 안의 구절을 발췌·생략하여 기술한 것으로 조잡한 정도가 심한 것이 있다.
나를 낳고, 키우고, 쏟아넣은 것이 살려지는 것은 이제부터라고 생각한다.
만약 세상에 어느 정도 도움이 된다면, 나를 살려서 사용되는 것이 좋다고 생각한다.
진정, 최량을 목표로 하고, 그것을 검토하고, 탐구하고, 한순간의 멈춤 없이, 희망찬 전진 일로, 과거·현재를 알고, 장래를 창조하는 환희로 생활하는 오늘-지금, 즉 모두가 사이좋게 즐겁고 풍요롭게 오늘보다 내일, 모레로 경쾌한 미래를 창설하는 오늘의 환희 속에 현재-지금도 정상·건강 속에 잠겨 생활하는 한 컷 한 컷의 연속이려 하는 것이다.
내일의 행복은 오늘의 기쁨 속에서 나온다.
만약 오늘-지금이 정상·건강하지 않다면 신속하게 그것의 원인을 탐구하여 그 틀린 부분을 발견하고 즉각 그것의 해소를 도모하는 것이다.
슬픈 오늘 중에서 즐거운 내일은 태어나지 않는다.오늘은 물건이 부족하고 몸에 땀이 나도, 마침내 올 물심의 풍만, 건강·정상을 위한 오늘-지금의 마음의 세계는 환희요 삶의 보람으로 사는 것이다.
야마기시즘 생활은 진실을 지향하여, 지금도 진실일 것이며 환희 속에 이론연찬·방법연찬·실행연찬의 정상·건강의 연속생활을 말한다.
이 책 『돈이 필요 없는 즐거운 마을』을 저술할 때 사실은 이론, 이념에서부터 설명을 시작한 후, 현상면에 대해 쓰는 것이 순서인데, 지금 저자의 체력적·시간적 사정도 있고, 그것은『정해 야마기시즘 전집』에 따르기로 하고 여기서는 읽는 사람들이 둘러가는 불편함을 느끼지 않게 하기 위해 형태면에 대해 대중적으로 쓰기로 했다.
하지만 이것은 최종 단계의 완성된 모델이 아니라 진리, 진실, 최선을 목표로 하는, 이제부터 시작인 단계에 있으며 미숙·불완전한 전진 단계의 한 장면임은 물론이다.
다음 날도 다음 날도, 연찬을 계속하여, 개량에 개량을 가해 유치한 것을 완전한 것으로 키워 나가려는 생장기의 것이다.
그 연찬 개량도 저자 혼자 좋게 하려는 것이 아니고, 각자가, 세계의 모든 지혜, 모든 능력, 실적을 취사선택하여 다같이 키워나가는 것이고, 내일도 오늘의 이 저서에 담겨있는 형태를 답습하는, 진보성 없는 것이 아니다.
모두가 함께 창안하고, 보다 좋게, 보다 진짜로, 모두가 개량해 나가는 것이다.
이것은 반복해서 말해 두고 싶은 것으로, 저자 스스로도 더욱더 개량을 계속해 나가겠지만, 그것에 의존하지 않고, 각자 스스로 개량·실행해 나가는 것이다.
교서가 아니라고 쓴 것은, 가르치려는 것이거나 따르고 배우는 것이 전혀 아니고, 어디까지나 생각하기 위한 참고 자료에 불과하다는 뜻이다.
현재의 세태에서는, 본서의 문자를 읽을 수 있는 사람은 많겠지만, 이것을 읽어도 의미를 읽을 수 있는 사람은 적을 것이라고 생각한다.
하물며 본서에 담긴 구현방식을 즉시 실행, 구현할 수 있는 사람은 그 경지에 들어선 상당히 진보적이고 세계의 첨단을 가는 혁명의식에 불타는 보기 드문 사람들에게만 이루어질 것이다. 하지만, 이 공상空想도 일반에게는 웃음거리가 될 것이지만, 사실 실현하기 쉬운 이상경理想境 '돈이 필요 없는 즐거운 마을'이 지상의 일각에 한 곳 든든히 세워질 때, 그것을 보고, 듣고, 전한 세계 과학자들의 연구 과제가 되어, 인간의 본질, 사회의 본연의 상태 등에 대해, 관심을 갖는 사람들의 이목이 집중되어, 실행가実行家가 속출할 것은 불을 보듯이 명확하다.
세계 각지·각처에 '돈이 필요 없는 즐거운 마을'이 속속 세워질 것이고, 이렇게 해서 이것들이 상관연相関連적으로, 요원의 불길처럼 세상에 번져, 급속히 전세계를 휩쓰는 것을 거부하는 사람은 아무것도 없을 것이다.
처음에는 황당하고 꿈같은 이야기라고 비웃고 있는 낡은 사회통념・상식관도, 사실 앞에서, 어느새인가 새로운 사태 속에 서 있는 자신을 깨닫게 될 것이다.
세계 제1호를 쏘아 올릴 사람은 누구일까.
뒤따르는 사람은 누구누구일까. 하기 싫은 사람, 못하는 사람은 하지않아도 될 일이고, 또 그런 사람들이 할 수 없는 일이기도 하다.
『돈이 필요 없는 즐거운 마을』이라는 저서명도 단지 그것은 일단의 일부의 표현일 뿐, 이것의 진의真意·실질은 삼라만상 모든 것에 관계하는 깊은 것으로, 세계혁명을 유발하는 포문을 여는 것이다. 돈이 필요 없다는 것은 통화나 티켓·권익·계약·의무·소유관념 등 유무형 일체의 틀에서 해방된 진정한 자유의 천지天地이며, 예부터 내려오는 법률·제도·습관·통념이, 근본적으로 참된 모습에 입각한, 전 인류가 상상으로조차 이루지 못한, 가장 진보적인, 문화적인, 물리·심리의 정수를 모은, 철리현현哲理顕現의 세계이고, 또한 바로 그렇기 때문에 실현도 쉬울 것이다. 참된 것은 어려운 것이 아니고, 잘못된 생각에 방황하는 동안에는 진정한 답이 나오지 않는다.
이수규명理数究明적으로 한 점의 차질 없는 답이 나올 것이다.
규모는 작아도, 본질적인 것이 한 군데 생기면, 나중에는 누가 권하지 않아도 모두 다 본받는다.
전 세계에서 보러 와서, 전 세계로 넓혀진다.

A Conversation about the Study of Spirituality and Asian Religions in th...

A Conversation about the Study of Spirituality and Asian Religions in the Global Age

John Hope Franklin Center at Duke University

11.3K subscribers

Subscribe

4

Share

Download

Clip

218 views  Mar 12, 2022

At a Wednesdays at the Center talk at Duke University, three editors of the recently published volume "Situating Spirituality: Context, Practice, and Power (Oxford, 2021)" discussed spirituality broadly from global and international perspectives. The essays collected in Situating Spirituality examine not only individual engagements with spirituality, but also how seemingly personal facets of spirituality, as well as definitions of spirituality itself, are deeply shaped by diverse religious, cultural, and political contexts. 

About the speakers:

Anna Sun is Associate Professor of Religious Studies and Sociology at Duke University and two-term co-chair of the Chinese Religions Unit of the American Academy of Religion. In addition to Situating Spirituality: Context, Practice, and Power (Oxford, 2021), which she co-edited with Brian Steensland and Jaime Kucinskas, she is the author of Confucianism as a World Religion: Contested Histories and Contemporary Realities (Princeton, 2013). A sociologist of religion who has conducted extensive fieldwork on religious life in contemporary urban China, she has published on issues related to religious identity, the social nature of prayer, and Chinese ritual pluralism. Her most recent projects are on sacred time in urban religion and the politics of the concept of magic.

Brian Steensland is Professor and Chair of Sociology at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). His research interests include religion, culture, politics, and civic life. His books include Situating Spirituality: Context, Practice, and Power (Oxford, 2022), co-edited with Jaime Kucinskas and Anna Sun; The New Evangelical Social Engagement (Oxford, 2014), co-edited with Philip Goff; and The Failed Welfare Revolution: America's Struggle over Guaranteed Income Policy (Princeton, 2008).

Jaime Kucinskas is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Sociology at Hamilton College. She is the author of The Mindful Elite: Mobilizing from the Inside Out (Oxford, 2019), co-editor of Situating Spirituality: Context, Practice, and Power (Oxford, 2022), and has published on spiritual and religious movements, inequalities, and the importance of situating studies of spirituality, religion, and morality in specific temporal, group, institutional, and national settings.

The talk was presented by the Duke University Center for International & Global Studies, Duke University's John Hope Franklin Center, and the Asian Pacific Studies Institute (APSI) at Duke. 

Learn more about the Wednesdays at the Center Series: 

https://igs.duke.edu/series/wednesday...

Key moments

View all

Situating Spirituality: Context, Practice, and Power | Department of Sociology

Situating Spirituality: Context, Practice, and Power | Department of Sociology



Situating Spirituality: Context, Practice, and Power

Anna Sun (co-editor)
2021

Oxford University Press



Spirituality is in the spotlight. While levels of religious belief and observance are declining in much of the Western world, the number of people who identify as "spiritual but not religious" is on the rise. Practices such as yoga, meditation, and pilgrimage are surging in popularity. "Wellness" regimes offer practitioners a lexicon of spirituality and an array of spiritual experiences. Commentators talk of a new spiritual awakening "after religion." And global mobility is generating hybrid practices that blur the lines between religion and spirituality.

The essays collected in Situating Spirituality: Context, Practice, and Power examine not only individual engagements with spirituality, but they show how seemingly personal facets of spirituality, as well as definitions of spirituality itself, are deeply shaped by religious, cultural, and political contexts. The volume is explicitly cross-national and comparative. The contributors are leading scholars of major global regions: North America, Central America, East Asia, South Asia, Africa and the African Diaspora, Western Europe, and the Middle East. They study not only Christian, Jewish, and Islamic societies, but also non-Abrahamic societies with native as well as transnational sacred traditions.

‘글 쓰는 농부’ 전희식 신간 ‘밥은 하늘입니다’ 출간

‘글 쓰는 농부’ 전희식 신간 ‘밥은 하늘입니다’ 출간
‘글 쓰는 농부’ 전희식 신간 ‘밥은 하늘입니다’ 출간
‘글 쓰는 농부’ 전희식 신간 ‘밥은 하늘입니다’ 출간
박철 기자 | 기사입력 2023.03.27. 18:56:02

30년째 농사를 지으며 각종 집필과 강연, 수련 등을 통해 활발한 귀농‧생태‧환경‧영성운동을 펼치고 있는 전희식 작가가 최근 신간 ‘밥은 하늘입니다’(도서출판 모시는사람들)를 출간했다.
KBS TV ‘자연의 철학자들’에 출연(2022)해 흙에 발을 딛고 햇볕을 쬐면서 하는 생태적인 농사법과 ‘마음농사’까지 짓는 진솔한 삶을 보여준 ‘글 쓰는 농부’ 전희식이 ‘먹거리와 사람살이, 마음공부’ 이야기를 모아 펴낸 책이다.
이 책에서 저자는 제대로 된 밥 한 끼가 어떻게 한 개인의 건강이나 안전의 문제를 넘어 사회구조적인 것이며, 나아가 지구촌 전체의 지속가능성, 생명력 복원의 문제인지를 보여준다. 몸으로 살아내고 마음으로 겪어나가는 밥과 사람과 사회의 이야기를, 나와 지구를 살리는 사람들의 삶의 현장과 그에 관한 책들을 소개하면서 풀어놓는다.

▲전희식 저 '밥은 하늘입니다' 표지. ⓒ출판사


이 책은 저자가 여러 매체에 쓴 글 중에서 ‘밥을 모시고 사는 이야기’를 모아 새로 다듬은 것이다. 저자는 이 책에 대해 “동학에서 말하는 하늘 모심을 밥 이야기로 풀고 있다”, “내 안의 세계와 밖의 세계가 하나로 온전하게 통합되고자 하는 책”이라고 소개한다.

저자 전희식은 먹방, 맛집순례 등의 트렌드를 들어 현대를 “밥들의 전성시대”로 규정하고 “우리 사회가 이렇듯이 밥의 소비에 열중하는 사이, 전 지구적으로는 식량 생산과 관련된 여러 가지 문제로 기후위기가 가속화하고 있다”고 지적한다.

저자는 “이러한 문제의식에 착안하여 건강하고 안전하며 공동체적이고 생태적인 식사를 위해 눈에 보이지 않게, 사회적으로 노력하는 사람들이 점점 늘어나고 있다”며 “제대로 된 밥은 나를 살리고 세상을 살린다. 우리가 늘 마주하는 밥상을 제대로 차리고 바르게 먹음으로써 나와 세상을 살릴 뿐만 아니라 인생의 의미와 가치를 한 차원 고양시키는 깨달음으로 나아갈 수 있다”고 말한다.

그래서 이 책엔 건강하고 아름답고 행복하게 밥을 먹는 사람들의 이야기가 풍부하게 담겼다. 기후위기에 즈음한 세상, 하루하루 밥 벌어 먹고 살기 팍팍한 사회. 어느 쪽에 관심을 두든 오늘 아침 마주한 밥상, 그 “밥의 의미만 제대로 알면 만사형통이 된다”고 저자는 말한다.

저자 전희식은 경남 함양에서 태어나 서울과 인천에서 살다가 1994년부터 농촌으로 와 전북 완주에서 12년, 장수에서 16년을 살았다. 인도와 호주, 독일, 스웨덴, 브라질, 오스트리아, 페루 등의 공동체를 찾아가서 익힌 공유경제와 선물경제를 우리나라 전통과 잇고 있다. 요즘은 상담과 수련지도와 함께 생태치유농장을 일군다. 2011년 구제역 파동 뒤로 자연식물식을 하며 생채식과 단식을 좋아한다. 

쓴 책으론 『똥꽃』(그물코, 2008), 『시골집 고쳐 살기』(들녘,2011), 『소농은 혁명이다』(모시는사람들, 2016), 『습관 된 나를 넘어』(피플파워, 2022) 등 열두 권이 있고, 어린이 책으로 『하늘이의 시골 일기』(그레이트북스, 2015)가 있다.

최초 퀘이커교도 조지 폭스의 흔적을 찾아서 - 오마이뉴스

최초 퀘이커교도 조지 폭스의 흔적을 찾아서 - 오마이뉴스

최초 퀘이커교도 조지 폭스의 흔적을 찾아서영국 페니 드레이톤에 가다
23.03.24 11:35l최종 업데이트 23.03.25 10:21l
김성수(wadans)


조지 폭스(1624~1691)는 영국에서 태어난 세계 최초 퀘이커교도다. 그의 삶과 사상은 한국 의 인권운동가이자 사상가 함석헌(1901~1989)에게도 결정적 영향을 끼쳤다. 그래서 그런지 함석헌은 '항시 추구하는 사람' 이었음에도 불구하고 결국 퀘이커교도로 그 삶을 마감했다.

나는 군복무 중인 1981년부터 1984년까지 함석헌의 책을 틈틈이 읽었다. 그러던 중 군대에서 휴가를 나와서 연세대에서 열린 그의 강연을 듣고 금방 함석헌에 푹 빠졌다(관련 기사 : "나는 이제 기독교인만 생각하고 있을 수 없다").

1984년 전역하고 서울 명동에서 함석헌이 강의하는 '노자와 장자 공부모임'에 출석하며 그를 매주 만날 수 있었다. 그리고 그런 함석헌 덕에 1985년부터 나도 서울퀘이커모임에 나가기 시작했다.


1990년 4월 영국으로 유학 온 후 런던에서 열리는 영국퀘이커 연회에 참석한 적이 있다. 그때 한 영국퀘이커 교도가 내게 "한국에는 퀘이커교도가 몇 명이나 있나요?" 물었다. 내가 "ten(10)" 이라고 대답하자 그는 "ten thousands?(만 명이요?)" 하고 물었다. 그래서 나는 "No, just ten, actually nine as I am in here now.(아니요, 10명이요. 아 제가 영국에 있어서 지금은 9명이네요.")라고 대답한 것이 엊그제 같다. 지금은 한국에 20여 명의 퀘이커교도가 있다. 지난 30여 년 동안 한국의 퀘이커교도 수가 2배 이상 늘어났으니 정말 장족의 발전을 이룬 것이다!

1990년 5월 영국퀘이커들과 '퀘이커 순례길 여행'을 차량으로 일주일 정도 한 적이 있다. 주로 조지 폭스가 수감됐던 영국 북부 랑카스터성, 그가 신에게 영감을 받았다는 펜들힐, 야외강연과 선교활동을 했던 호수지방인 컴브리아 등지였다. 그리고 조지 폭스의 아내인 마가렛 펠(1614~1702)이 살던 저택 수와스모어홀도 방문했다. 그 여행을 통해 17세기 퀘이커들이 영국의 왕족과 귀족 등을 향해 "모든 사람은 평등하다"는 사상을 주장함으로써 "사회위험분자"로 몰려 핍박받고 고문 받은 음침한 지하 감옥 등을 방문하며 큰 충격을 받은 기억이 지금도 생생하다.

그러나 최초 퀘이커교도 조지 폭스가 태어난 곳은 전혀 방문하지 않았다. 아마 "(어느 한 곳이 아니라) 모든 곳이 성스럽다. 어느 한 날(성탄절)뿐 아니라 모든 날이 소중하다. 어느 한사람이 아니라 모든 사람이 중요하다"는 영국퀘이커들의 사상과 생활태도가 내게도 무의식적으로 작용된 듯하다.


▲ 조지 폭스가 수감되었던 영국북부 랑카스터성
ⓒ 김성수

관련사진보기


▲ 조지 폭스가 수감되었던 영국북부 랑카스터성
ⓒ 김성수

관련사진보기


▲ 조지 폭스가 수감되었던 영국북부 랑카스터성. 30년전인 1990년 방문시에는 없었던 한글 안내판이 지금은 있다.
ⓒ 김성수

관련사진보기

그러던 중 지난 주 우연히 우리 집에서 가까운 영국 친구 집을 방문했었다. 그 친구는 페니 드레이톤이라는 시골에 사는 농부였다. 차를 몰고 '페니 드레이톤'이라고 적힌 마을 어귀 에 들어선 순간, "아. 여기가 조지 폭스가 태어난 동네가 아닌가!" 라는 생각이 불현 듯 들었다.

페니 드레이톤은 영국중부지방 레스터셔에 있는 작은 시골마을이다. 우리 집도 레스터셔에 있고 우리 집에서 페니 드레이톤 까지는 차로 30~40분 정도 걸린다. 영국은 섬나라 이지만 레스터셔(주)만 유일하게 바닷가가 없는 내륙지방이다. 한국의 충청북도처럼.

영국에 30여 년을 살면서 같은 동네에 사는 최초 퀘이커교도인 조지 폭스가 태어난 곳을 한 번도 안 와 본 것에 고인에게 무척 미안했다. 나도 퀘이커 교도이면서... 그래서 지난 23일 아예 날을 잡아 도시락을 싸들고 혼자 다시 페니 드레이톤을 찾았다. 다행히 봄날의 햇볕도 따사로웠다.


▲ 400년 전 조지 폭스와 그 가족이 다니던 페니 드레이톤 성공회 성당
ⓒ 김성수

관련사진보기

조지 폭스는 페니 드레이톤의 성공회교회 관리인이자 직공(weaver)의 아들로 태어났다. 그의 부모는 엄격하지만 정직하고 부지런한 것으로 동네에 소문이 나 있었다. 특히 그의 부친 크리스토퍼의 별명은 동네에서 "의로운 크리스"라고 불릴 정도였다고 한다. 더욱이 폭스의 부모는 그래도 시골에서는 재산도 좀 있는 요즘으로 치면 중산층 정도였다. 이런 부모영향 때문인지 폭스도 어린 시절부터 아주 종교적이었고 성경에도 통달했다고 한다.

폭스 부친이 관리인으로 일했고 폭스가 어린 시절 다니던 성공회 교회는 지금도 그 자리에 그대로 서있다. 이 교회의 평신도 목회자인 미셸씨는 내게 "내년 2024년은 조지 폭스 탄생 400주년이라 우리 교회에서 그의 탄생을 축하하고 기념하는 특별 행사를 합니다"라며 귀띔해 주었다.

나는 혼자 양지바른 교회당을 걸으며 400년 전에 부모님 손을 잡고 아장아장 그 교회를 찾았을 조지 폭스를 생각했다. 그 교회 마당에는 그 교회를 다니던 몇 백 년 된 교인들의 비석들도 있었다. 삶과 죽음을 가까이 생각하는 순간이었다.


▲ 조지 폭스가 400년전 다니던 페니 드레이톤 성공회 성당 내부
ⓒ 김성수

관련사진보기


▲ 페니 드레이톤 성공회 성당내의 '퀘이커 코너'
ⓒ 김성수

관련사진보기

교회 안에 들어가니 한쪽 구석에 '퀘이커 코너'가 있다. 그 코너에는 간략하게 조지 폭스의 삶과 사상을 보여주고 있었다. 폭스의 부모는 신앙이 독실한 그가 성공회 신부가 되기를 바랐다.

하지만 폭스는 위계적이고 계급적인 성공회에 성이 차지 않았다. 그래서 19살에 아예 집을 나왔다. 그리고 결국 목사나 신부 같은 중재자 없이 개인이 신과 직접 교감하는 퀘이커교를 창시하게 된 것이다. 하지만 그래도 그가 어려서 다니던 성공회 교회에서 내년 그의 탄생 400주년을 맞아 그의 삶을 축하하고 기념하는 행사를 한다니 세상일은 참 아이러니하다.

페니 드레이톤은 인구도 500여명 밖에 안 되는 작은 시골마을이다. 그래서 교회 예배도 매주 없고 매월 마지막 일요일 한 번밖에 없다고 한다.

교회에서 나와서 조금 걸으면 퀘이커 길(Quaker Close)이라는 막다른 골목길도 보인다. 또 좀 더 몇 분을 걸으니 조지 폭스 길(George Fox Lane)도 나온다. 이곳에 자그마한 조지 폭스의 기념비가 있다.

지금은 없어졌지만 이 자리 부근이 그가 태어나서 뛰어놀며 자라던 생가가 있던 자리란다. 기념비 옆에는 비교적 그의 삶을 자세하게 기록한 기념물이 있다. 이 기념비 앞에서 나는 400년 전에 이곳에서 살다가 지구 반대편에 있는 함석헌에게도 절대적 영향을 미친 조지 폭스의 삶을 생각했다. 그가 4세기 전에 거닐던 이 시골길을 오늘도 내가 걷고 있는 것이 좀 신기하게 여겨지기도 했다.


▲ 페니 드레이톤에 있는 조지 폭스 기념비
ⓒ 김성수

관련사진보기


▲ 페니 드레이톤에 있는 조지 폭스 기념비
ⓒ 김성수

관련사진보기


▲ 페니 드레이톤에 있는 조지 폭스 기념비 옆에는 비교적 그의 삶을 자세하게 기록한 기념물이 있다.
ⓒ 김성수

관련사진보기

함석헌이 퀘이커를 처음 접하게 된 것은 3.1운동 후 북한 평안도 오산학교에서 면학에 힘쓸 때인 1921년이었다. 그때 그는 영국 사상가 토마스 카알라일(1795～1881)의 <의상철학>을 통해서 퀘이커에 관한 글을 읽었다. 이때 그는 조지 폭스에 대해 큰 인상을 받았고, 이 일을 계기로 그는 폭스가 쓴 <일지>를 읽게 됐다.

함석헌이 사회정의를 추구하기 위해 직접 남한의 현실문제에 참가하게 된 경위의 배후에는 퀘이커가 있다. 조지 폭스는 남녀와 인종 그리고 사회계급을 넘어선 모든 인간 사이에 평등의 중요성을 역설했다. 또 그는 죽어서 천국에 가는 것 보다 지금 여기서 사회적 약자를 돌보는 것이 참된 종교라고 전했다.

퀘이커교는 영국이 청교도혁명(1640~1660)에 휩싸여 있었을 때 서서히 그 빛을 발하기 시작했다. 조지 폭스의 사상은 영국에서 퀘이커교 창설에 결정적 영향을 미쳤다. 그의 <일지>는 그의 사후인 1694년 출판되었고, 이 책이 퀘이커교가 무엇인지를 가장 잘 설명해 준다.

그의 <일지>를 통해서 폭스는 각 개인은 하나님과 직접 교감할 능력이 있다고 주장했다. 또 모든 인간 안에는 여러 용어로 표현될 수 있는 속 생명, 내면의 빛, 영감, 내적 그리스도, 하나님의 씨앗 등이 있고 이것은 직접 하나님의 영성과 교통할 수 있다는 폭스의 주장은 초기에는 영국정부와 국교인 성공회에서 이단으로 여겼다. 그래서 폭스를 포함한 많은 퀘이커교도들은 수많은 정치적, 종교적 박해를 받았다.

조지 폭스는 종교가 설교나 교리, 의식에 의한 제도라기보다는 내면의 빛을 따르는 것이라고 믿었다. 그리고 모든 인간에게 내면의 빛이 있으므로, 폭스는 각 개인이 침묵예배를 통해서 절대자와 교감하는 합일의 경지에 이를 수 있다고 느꼈다. 이 내면의 빛은 시대와 장소에 따라 다르게 표현될 수 있다. 그것은 종교적인 어떠한 형상에만 국한된 것이 아니라 진실한 마음을 가진 사람이면 누구에게나 다 있는 것이다. 이 내면의 빛은 각 개인을 통해서만 나타나는 것이 아니라 신앙인들의 단체모임을 통해서도 발현된다.

초창기 조지 폭스를 비롯한 퀘이커들은 한 개인의 영적 통찰도 깊은 사회적 의미를 갖고 있다는 사실을 감지했다. 퀘이커들의 증언(testimonies)은 타인의 내면의 빛을 발견하고 존중하는 것을 그 기초로 한다. 그래서 수감자들을 위한 교도소 시설의 개선, 정신병원시설 개선, 여성참정권운동, 노예제도반대, 노동자들을 위한 공정한 임금과 근로조건 개선, 정직한 상거래 확립, 정찰제 소개, 교육과 구호사업, 세계평화운동 등을 위해 퀘이커들은 역사를 통해 부단히 힘써 왔다.

또한 초창기부터 퀘이커들은 남녀평등을 중요시했다. 그것은 예배뿐 아니라 공개연설, 교육, 그리고 사무관계를 논의할 때도 마찬가지였다. 그 결과 퀘이커 모임에서 양성 평등의 훈련을 통해서 여성들은 자신들의 지도력과 능력을 유감없이 발휘할 수 있는 기회를 가졌다.


▲ 페니 드레이톤에 있는 퀘이커길
ⓒ 김성수

관련사진보기


▲ 페니 드레이톤에 있는 조지 폭스 길
ⓒ 김성수

관련사진보기

최초 퀘이커 조지 폭스가 17세기 영국 장인계층의 가문에서 태어나 엄격하고 근엄한 청교도적 분위기에서 성장했지만 그러한 종교적 분위기가 그의 영적 갈증을 해소해 주지 못한 것처럼, 함석헌도 20세기 상공업이 발달한 평안도 지역에서 엄격하고 청교도적인 장로교인으로 성장했지만, 결국 그는 3.1운동이라는 정치, 사회변혁을 체험하고 경직된 장로교로부터 영적 만족을 못 느끼게 되는 것도 폭스의 영적 행로와 유사하다. 고난의 삶을 살다간 조지 폭스와 마찬가지로 고난의 아들 함석헌도 아무런 세속의 매개 없이 절대자와 직접 대면하려던 사람이었다.

함석헌의 종교적 편력이 개혁적 성향이 강했던 것을 고려한다면, 17세기 영국교회의 세속적 권위에 대항해서 폭스가 주장한 '내면의 빛' 개념이 20세기 국가폭력의 시대를 살았던 함석헌에게 영감을 제공해 주었을 것이라 짐작된다.

함석헌은 퀘이커 내면의 빛을 통해 내적 힘을 기르고 사회개혁을 추구하는 정신을, 한국 민족이 그 의지를 기르고 일으켜 세우는 한 방법으로 배우기를 원했던 것 같다. 동시에 그도 폭스처럼 기성교회의 무조건적 권위에 대해 질문을 던질 수 있도록 탈권위적 성향의 퀘이커로부터 고무되었을 가능성이 크다고 판단된다.

일반적으로 퀘이커들은 평화주의자로 잘 알려져 있다. 그러나 퀘이커들을 절대평화주의자들로 구분하기엔 무리가 있다. 실제 생활에서 각 퀘이커는 각자의 내면의 빛이나 통찰력에 따라 각자 믿음대로 결정한다.

예를 들면 미국 독립전쟁이나 1.2차 세계대전 당시 평화주의를 내세우며 집총을 거부한 퀘이커들이 있는 반면, 애국심의 가치를 평화주의보다 앞세워 전쟁에 참여한 퀘이커들도 많았다. 또한 남북전쟁 중 많은 퀘이커들은 노예제도폐지를 무력을 통해서라도 실현할 수밖에 없다는 불가피론을 택하기도 했다.

사회정의 없는 평화는 불가능하다고 믿었기에 퀘이커들은 사회정의, 빈곤, 문맹퇴치, 반전운동 등에도 적극적으로 참여했다. 영·미 퀘이커회는 제 1, 2차 세계대전에서 난민과 그 유가족들을 도와준 활동에 대한 감사와 국제적 평화주의의 중요성을 행동으로서 고취시켰던 공헌에 대한 인정의 표시로 1947년 노벨평화상을 받기도 했다. 6.25 전쟁 후에도 퀘이커들은 북한을 포함해 이념을 떠나 국제 원조, 구제, 재건활동을 적극 지원했다(관련 기사).

특별히 1953년부터 1955년까지, 영·미 퀘이커 의료봉사단은 한국에서 대대적인 의료봉사활동을 벌였다. 2만여 명의 한국전쟁 난민은 영·미 퀘이커의료봉사단의 도움 아래 군산병원에서 무료진료를 받았다. 1970년대는 남한의 민주화 운동을 여러모로 도와주었고 1990년대는 영국 대학원에서 '함석헌 연구'를 위한 물심양면의 지원을 내게 해줬다(관련 기사 : 베갯속 죽은 쥐...영국여의사는 왜 한국에 왔나).

퀘이커들은 실천적인 면과 신비적인 면, 상대적 사회현실과 절대적 가치인 하나님, 자신들이 역사적으로 속한 구체적 한 시대와 영원의 세계, 일치와 다양성, 그리고 최소한의 형식과 무제한적인 생명 등의 문제를 고민해 왔다. 영국 퀘이커교도 잉글 라이트는 그러한 상대세계와 절대세계의 밀접한 연관성을 이렇게 표현했다.

"세속의 진리를 추구하는 것과 퀘이커들의 침묵 예배는 상호 긴밀히 연관되어 있는데 그것은 인류 복지와 행복을 위해 일하는 것이다."

영국생활 30여년 만에 처음 찾은 최초 퀘이커교도 조지 폭스 고향인 영국 시골마을 페니 드레이톤에서 날씨 좋은 봄날 나는 너무나 행복한 시간을 가졌다.

A Review of Sufism and Taoism Rostamian ???

A Review of Sufism and Taoism

A Review of Sufism and Taoism

Document Type : Original Article

Author

M. A. Rostamian

Assistant Professor, University of Religions and Denominations.

Abstract

Toshihiko Izutsu's Sufism and Taoism may be regarded as one of the remarkable books concerned with comparative religion; it is, in fact, a comparative study of Islamic and Taoist mysticisms. 

Two great merits make the book worth reading: 

• first, the author's considerable familiarity with these two mysticisms; 
• second, the division of the discussions into two parts: the first part is concerned with the introduction and the second part is concerned with the comparative study of these mystical traditions. 

However, the book is defective in some respects: 

• first, Izutsu fails to set forth the key elements of Ibn Arabi's mysticism, causing a confusion between the issues concerned with the theoretical mysticism and those associated with the practical mysticism; 
• second, he takes no cognizance of the various interpretations of the Taoist mysticism; 
• third, only a very small portion of the book deals with its central issue, that is, the comparative study of Sufism and Taoist mysticism. 
• Furthermore, the methodology he employs in his study is defective in several
• respects: a little attention is paid to the differences, for example he overlooks the theoretical nature of Ibn Arabi's mysticism and the practical nature of Taoist mysticism; he also sometimes uses inappropriate equivalents; and 
• finally, he imposes Ibn Arabi's mysticism upon that of Taoism.

Keywords

Izutsu  Sufism and Taoism  Islamic mysticism  Taoist mysticism  Ibn Arabi

===

Reviewing and criticizing the book of Sufism and Taoism * 

Mohammad Ali Rostamian refers to the book of Taoism and Sufism, written by Toshi Heiko Izutsu, among the good and influential books in the field of comparative studies of religions. 

In this book, the mysticism of Ibn Arabi and Taoism are compared with each other. The author's familiarity with these two mystical schools and the introduction of two mystical traditions in the comparison section are among the merits that make this book worth reading. But this effect also has weaknesses. Despite the fact that the author has a good acquaintance with the mysticism of Ar Ibn Bey, he has not been able to reconstruct the key elements of mysticism and his mystical system. This has caused the problems of theoretical and practical mysticism to mix together. Also, the author has neglected various interpretations of Taoist mysticism. On the other hand, despite the fact that the purpose of the book is comparison, but a small part of the book is dedicated to the comparison of two traditions. In addition, his comparison also has flaws; Like he neglected the theoretical nature of Ibn Arabi's mysticism and the practical nature of Taoist mysticism in; The authority of comparison paid less attention to the differences; In equating these two traditions, he made some mistakes and it has resulted in him imposing Ibn Arabi's mysticism on Taoist mysticism. 

Keywords: Izutsu, Sufism and Taoism, Islamic mysticism, Taoist mysticism, Ibn Arabi * Assistant professor at the University of Religions and Religions.

==

142 Introduction 

Comparative studies in the field of knowledge of religions is a new field that emerged in order to provide a context for the dialogue of civilizations and to bring people's thoughts closer together in different cultures, and due to its many benefits, it gradually found its place in the scene. He has opened religions. Professor Toshihiko Izutsu is one of those interested in comparative studies and most of his scientific works are in this field. On the other hand, he has been very interested in Islam and Iran and has dedicated most of his research works, both applied and non-applied, to this field. One of his important features in the field of Islamic studies is his familiarity with Islamic scholars, especially Muslim philosophers and mystics, as well as his mastery of the Arabic language.

 Therefore, he got acquainted with Islam through the main sources, which made his research more valuable. One of the important works of Izutsu is the translation of the Holy Quran from Arabic to Japanese, which is considered the first translation of its kind. The important position of Eze Vetsu in comparative and Islamic studies caused that in 1379. A conference will be held in his honor. The articles of this conference show that in addition to Izutsu's works of Quranic studies, his comparative studies have also received attention. In line with comparative studies, this article reviews and criticizes his book titled Taoism and Sufism. This book, which compares Islamic mysticism and Taoist mysticism, has been translated into Persian under the title of Sufism and Taoism (translated by Mohammad Javad Gohri, Tehran: Rozneh, 1378). It is stated about it. The position and merits of the book As we have mentioned, the book of Sufism and Taoism has an important position among Islamic thinkers due to its special importance, because this book has been successful in achieving its goals. A brief study of this book tells about this. The author has a good knowledge of Islamic mysticism and Taoist mysticism and has been able to familiarize the reader with these two mystical traditions.

==

143 One of the merits of this book, which goes back to its subject, is the comparison between two mystical traditions that were formed in two different cultures with two completely different languages. The author, while paying attention to the problems that exist in the field of comparative studies, has caused some people not only to reject the comparison between different points of view, but also to question any kind of understanding and dialogue between different cultures. Metahistory - which has been interpreted as a kind of phenomenology (Pazuki, 1382: 13) - makes this possible (Isutsu, 1983: 2: 469). He considers time and thoughts related to it as separate and incomparable, thought can be viewed as a transhistorical thing; therefore, he believes that every historical thought can be separated from its time and with another thought that belongs to He compares these two traditions to show that when you can compare traditions that are completely different in terms of culture and language, there is no doubt that differences If it is less, the comparative study will be easier. Therefore, the writer will take a lot of trouble by choosing the most difficult work. He has suffered to defend comparative studies and this is considered one of the merits of this book. Another important advantage of this book is that before the comparison, it introduced the two traditions of Islamic mysticism and Taoism separately. The first part of the book deals with Islamic mysticism, the second part with Taoist mysticism, and the third part with the comparison between these two. There is no doubt that the comparison between the two traditions depends on knowing both of them, and someone who is not familiar with Islamic or Taoist mysticism cannot make a comparison. From this point of view, the author has provided the possibility to get acquainted with two mystical traditions and then followed the discussion of comparison. But it seems that Izutsu also pursues another goal by compiling the book in three parts, and that is the ease of his work in comparison. The two traditions of Islamic mysticism and Taoist mysticism have many teachings that without clarifying these teachings, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to make a comparison. For this reason, even if the author does not discuss the teachings in the beginning, during the inevitable comparison

==

It will be 144 works; While the introduction during the comparison, it will not have the benefits of the separate introduction. Therefore, in the overall classification of the book, the author has done a good job and has introduced each of the traditions separately from the discussion of comparison and has provided a way to know each of the two mystical traditions separately. Considerations about the translation of the translator of this book, Mr. Dr. Mohammad Javad Gohri, is a graduate of Imam Sadiq University. Undoubtedly, the specialization and vastness of the field of this book has caused the translator to face a very difficult task. In addition, the translation of such a book requires extensive familiarity with mystical language, both Islamic mysticism and Taoist mysticism, but it seems that the translator did not have enough skills in this field, and this has caused many problems in the translation. , to exist in the field of equivalents of mystical terms. There are other problems in the translation as well, which are due to the translator's lack of accuracy. Misplaced cuts, deletion of some discussions and not translating them are among these issues. Mr. Ali Reza Hedaei has criticized this translation in Mah Din magazine, 1380, No. 45-46, and has tried to briefly explain the problems of this translation. Since the purpose of this article is to deal with the content of the book, we will limit ourselves to the translation and refer those interested to Mr. Hedayi's article for more details. Considerations about the essence of the book According to the features we have listed for this book, it is clear that criticizing it is a difficult task. However, no valuable work is flawless. Here, we would like to mention some points about this book that could have made the book more useful. We explain these points in the order of the sections of the book. The first part is dedicated to the introduction of Islamic mysticism based on Ibn Arabi's book Foss al-Hakim. The author has a good acquaintance with the mystic Ibn Arabi; But be careful in reviewing and criticizing books on Sufism and Taoism

==

The 145 chapters of the book and the way he discusses it indicate that his knowledge of Ibn Arabi's mysticism was not enough and therefore he could not draw the form of Ibn Arabi's mysticism well. In the introduction of the book, Izutsu has mentioned that the topics are scattered in the writings of Ibn Arabi, and these writings form a deep ocean in which everything exists (Izutsu, 1983: 3). , has emphasized that for his discussion, he needs to separate the discussions from each other and organize them, and he cannot deal with every discussion that Ibn Arabi brought in his book. In this sense, he has made the concepts of "existence" and "existence" the focus of his work. (2: Ibid.) But it seems that his lack of deep familiarity with Ibn Arabi's mysticism has caused him to not be able to make this distinction well. As Qaysari has well stated in the introduction of the book Fuss al-Hakim, in twelve chapters (Qayseri, 1375, p. 5, Ibn Arabi's mystical system is designed based on the names and attributes of God in the form of an arc of descent and an arc of ascent, according to which, the world is sent out on the basis of divine grace and then returns to him. But Izutsu could not He systematized Arabic in a correct form and stated the issues in a mixed and scattered manner. It begins with cognitive knowledge, that is, dreams and reality, which is considered to be one of the problems of practical mysticism (7: Ibid). Of course, at the end of the first chapter, he brings the main discussion, i.e. Hazrat Khams (20: Ibid), but most of the discussions in the first chapter are not related to Hazrat Khums. It seems that if Izutsu was inspired by Kayseri's introduction, he would have found a better way. The discussion of Islamic mysticism begins. Even though Ibn Arabi's mystical system revolves around the discussion of Hazrat Khums, this discussion does not find its own place in this book. There are references to it in the first chapter, but firstly, it is very brief and secondly, with The truth of what Ibn Arabi puts forward has a distance. Izutsu defines Hazrat Khums in a format he adapted from Kashani as Hazrat Ghayib, Hazrat Al-Wohayt, Hazrat Af'al, Hazrat Al-Madaal and Hazrat Alam Hassi M. (20, 11: Ibid). But Hazrat Khums as introduced by Qaysari and is more consistent with Ibn Arabi's thought, based on the presence of divinity (oneness and unity), the presence of reason,

==

46 Hazrat al-Mada, Hazrat Madh and Hazrat Insan have been fully planned (Qaysari, 1375: 89). At least, Izutsu should have paid attention to both categories in the discussion of Khums. Even in the 15th chapter, which discusses humans Kamel is proposed (218: Ibid, Izutsu does not interpret the position of the perfect human being as one of the existential worlds, that is, Hazrat Khamis, and only deals with the human being as a small world that encompasses all the worlds. Another problem that shows Deh Izutsu is not familiar enough with Islamic mysticism, he is confused between the issues of theoretical mysticism and practical mysticism. Of course, the issues of theoretical and practical mysticism are mixed together in the books of Muslim mystics, including Ibn Arabi, but as it is known, before Ibn Arabi often gave priority to the problems of practical mysticism and the theoretical mysticism issues were raised implicitly, and the important work of Ibn Arabi was that he gave shape to theoretical mysticism, especially in the books Fatuhat Makkiyya and Fuss al-Hakam. Paying attention to the ontological approach that Izutsu has chosen, it should not deal with practical mysticism issues and or at least that he should raise its issues separately; But we can see that the issues of practical mysticism are mixed with theoretical mysticism and sometimes they are given priority and are raised earlier than theoretical mysticism. For example, immediately after the discussion of the absolute, he discusses self-knowledge and the way to know the truth through self-knowledge (36: Ibid) or the discussion of wonder in the fifth chapter (68: Ibid, which is related to tension and analogy, more than It is related to ontology, it is an epistemological discussion and it is considered one of the issues of practical mysticism. This approach of his has caused the reader to get lost and not be able to properly get acquainted with the form of Ibn Arabi's mysticism. Perhaps the reason for this is the practical form of Taoist mysticism. It may be that this caused Izutsu to raise the issues of practical mysticism in Ibn Arabi's mysticism so that the comparison would be easier and more successful. However, in the case of the second part that deals with Taoist mysticism, this point has been neglected that there are generally two different interpretations of " "Tao" is mentioned in Taoist mysticism, and especially in the words of Lao Tzu and Zhong Tzu. According to one interpretation, Tao is the supreme and nameless truth that forms the whole universe. According to this interpretation, Tao is a truth beyond the material world. Reviewing and criticizing the book of Sufism and Taoism

==

147 Another interpretation looks at the Tao with a materialistic attitude and considers the Tao, that is, the method, to be just the laws governing nature. According to this interpretation, Taoist mysticism is simply a materialist mysticism whose goal and purpose is to preserve this material life - for example, Fang Yu Lan (141:1380) provides such an interpretation of the mysticism of these two sages. It has been stated that the text of Tao Te Jing, which Izutsu puts forward as a basis for the introduction of Taoist mysticism, is very ambiguous and can be interpreted in both ways, but since the first interpretation is closer to Islamic mysticism, Izutsu chose this interpretation and did not mention the second interpretation. Although it seems that the first interpretation is stronger, it was appropriate that the author did not state these two interpretations at the beginning of the book and prove the preference of the first interpretation over the second. At least it was put forward as a presupposition. The design of this topic could help the reader to make a better judgment in the comparison. There are also considerations about the third part. The first point is that this part is much less compact than the other two parts, out of a total of 493 About 25 pages in the original text are dedicated to this section, which in Mr. Gohri's translation, 535 pages, h The smoke covers 30 pages. Because Izutsu introduced the comparison between two traditions as his main goal of this research, he should give more importance to the comparison and focus on the comparison. As we said before, the work done by Izutsu in separating the two traditions and comparing them is a very good and valuable work; But when the goal is comparison, comparison should be prioritized and most of the introduction should be done in this way. But Izutsu did the opposite and devoted most of his efforts to introducing these two mystical traditions separately and devoted only a small part of the work to the comparison. One of the important objections of Izutsu's comparison between the tradition of Islamic mysticism and Taoism is that the author did not pay serious attention to the distinctions. He simply stated the similarities and homogeneities and about the distinctions, he only pointed to their existence and their formality (70: Ibid: see).

More about this source textSource text required for additional translation information

Send feedback

Side panels

==

147 Another interpretation looks at the Tao with a materialistic attitude and considers the Tao, that is, the method, to be just the laws governing nature. According to this interpretation, Taoist mysticism is simply a materialist mysticism whose goal and purpose is to preserve this material life - for example, Fang Yu Lan (141:1380) provides such an interpretation of the mysticism of these two sages. It has been stated that the text of Tao Te Jing, which Izutsu puts forward as a basis for the introduction of Taoist mysticism, is very ambiguous and can be interpreted in both ways, but since the first interpretation is closer to Islamic mysticism, Izutsu chose this interpretation and did not mention the second interpretation. Although it seems that the first interpretation is stronger, it was appropriate that the author did not state these two interpretations at the beginning of the book and prove the preference of the first interpretation over the second. At least it was put forward as a presupposition. The design of this topic could help the reader to make a better judgment in the comparison. There are also considerations about the third part. The first point is that this part is much less compact than the other two parts, out of a total of 493 About 25 pages in the original text are dedicated to this section, which in Mr. Gohri's translation, 535 pages, h The smoke covers 30 pages. Because Izutsu introduced the comparison between two traditions as his main goal of this research, he should give more importance to the comparison and focus on the comparison. As we said before, the work done by Izutsu in separating the two traditions and comparing them is a very good and valuable work; But when the goal is comparison, comparison should be prioritized and most of the introduction should be done in this way. But Izutsu did the opposite and devoted most of his efforts to introducing these two mystical traditions separately and devoted only a small part of the work to the comparison. One of the important objections of Izutsu's comparison between the tradition of Islamic mysticism and Taoism is that the author did not pay serious attention to the distinctions. He simply stated the similarities and homogeneities and about the distinctions, he only pointed to their existence and their formality (70: Ibid: see).

More about this source textSource text required for additional translation information

Send feedback

Side panels

===

noticed; Because although it is possible to compare different traditions with special methods and express the similarities, it should not be overlooked that the difference between religions and traditions is a serious matter and even in cases where there are many similarities between two religions or traditions Yes, the differences are also serious. Therefore, a researcher who deals with the adaptation between two specific traditions or religions, must also pay attention to the differences and express them. The expression of differences along with the similarities in comparative discussions helps to master the discussion and shows how real the similarities are. One of the important differences between Ibn Arabi's mysticism and Taoism, which it seems necessary to pay attention to in comparison, is to pay attention to the fact that we stated before; It means that although Ibn Arabi deals with practical mysticism issues in the chapters on judgment, but the nature of his mysticism in this book is theoretical (Qaysari, Jalaluddin Ashtiani's introduction, p. 2), while Taoist mysticism has a practical nature. The goal of theoretical mysticism is to draw the existential order of the world, but practical mysticism focuses on the way humans behave towards a specific goal, which in Islamic mysticism is the goal of death. The nature of Ibn Arabi's mysticism is theoretical, because his main goal is to describe how the world is issued from the Almighty and the world returns to Him; On the other hand, although Tao Tejing deals with various theoretical topics about how the world is formed, the nature of Taoist mysticism is practical. Taoist mysticism thinks about the preservation of human existence in various ways (Yu Lan, 1380: 88). This difference between Islamic mysticism and Taoist mysticism causes the comparison between the two to be very different from what Izutsu did, because The topics discussed in practical mysticism are completely different from theoretical mysticism. Another important difference between these two mystical traditions that can be considered in the comparison between these two mystical traditions is that Ibn Arabi's mysticism is the peak of Islamic mysticism. Taoist mysticism in the Tao Te Jing is in the formative period. In other words, Ibn Arabi's mysticism has become a systematic mysticism, while Taoist mysticism in a few hundred years before Christ, which is the two phases of the formation of Tao Te Jing is simply the scattered words of the sages who sought to reform society and individuals.

===

149 Taoism found a specific system in the span of time and in the following centuries, but the mysticism that Lao Ze and Zhong Ze present is only in the form of wise words that have the authority to be transformed into a mystical system. Taoist mysticism at this stage can be compared to Islamic mysticism at the beginning of its emergence, which only includes the scattered words of mystics. Therefore, Taoist mysticism does not have a specific system even in the practical dimension at this stage. The lack of a system has caused Taoist mysticism to not have the necessary capacity to compare with Islamic mysticism, especially Ibn Arabi's mysticism. As a result, in many cases, the writer has been forced to give a special system to the words of these mystics and even in some cases to borrow from Ibn Arabi's system when expressing Taoist mysticism, which leads to the imposition of one system on another system. The main stage of borrowing is equating "Tao" with "existence". In order to form a common language between Islamic mysticism and Taoism, the author equated Tao to existence (Ibid: 472), which is flawed in several ways: firstly, it is the imposition of one tradition on another, and this is a cause of misunderstanding in comparison. Secondly, it is not compatible with the words and methods of these two Taoist mystics who consider the Tao to be beyond name and existence. In Taoist mysticism, they interpret the unnameable Tao as "non-existent" beyond existence (Yolan, 1380). 126: (Thirdly, placing absolute existence at the highest level of the universe is not compatible even with the mysticism of Ibn Arabi, because the existence or merciful soul is a divine manifestation, and the Supreme Being itself is before the level of manifestation, "Uma", "Anqa" And the unseen is called qi (Sari, 1375, : 26, 25, 987). The fact that in other places, he deals with the identity of the occult which is above the existence, this indicates that Qaysari considers the discussion of existence as a preliminary to the beginning and not that The level of truth is unique to it. This attitude indicates that the above level of divine essence exists, and by the way, this is a point that is much more compatible with Taoist mystics; Because in their eyes, the above Tao also exists. Therefore, this equation is not correct.

===

Of course, there is no doubt that we need a common language in every application. But it seems that in this case, it is better to assign the common language to the characteristics and attributes, that is, instead of making Tao equivalent in terms of language, we can list the characteristics and characteristics that are in Chinese culture, and Especially the Tao Tejing has stated for Tao, we should equate it in Islamic mysticism and if we do not find any exact equivalent, we should express the closest element. At the end of this article, it is necessary to mention this point that what was stated in the review of the mentioned book does not reduce the high value of this book. Bishek Izutsu, as he himself stated, had a difficult task ahead of him. Part of the objections of the book comes back to the fact that none of these two traditions that he compared in this book were native to him and he got to know them from outside. However, this book has been successful in its goal to a large extent. It is hoped that by reviewing and criticizing books in this field and expanding comparative studies, the way for such studies that can help to know more about religious traditions will be paved. Bibliography of Izutsu, Toshie Yoko (1382), Spokesman of East and West, Tehran: University of Tehran, Institute for Research and Development of Human Sciences. "Transhistorical dialogue and meta-dialogue in Izutsu's thought", in Speaking of the East and the West (Collection of Proceedings of the Conference Commemorating Professor Toshihiko Izutsu), Tehran: University of Tehran, Institute for Research and Development of Human Sciences. Kayseri Rumi, Mohammad Dawood (1375), Description of Fuss al-Hakam, Edited by Professor Jalaluddin Ashtiani, Tehran: Scientific and Cultural Publishing Company. Yu Lan, Fang (1380), History of Chinese Philosophy, translated by Farid Javaherkalam, Tehran: Forozan Rooz Publishing and Research. Izutsu, Toshihiko (1983), Sufism and Taoism, California : University of California Press.

===

بررسي و نقد كتاب صوفيسم و تائوئيسم

* محمدعلي رستميان

اشاره

كتـاب Taoism and Sufism ،نوشـته توشـي هيكو ايزوتـسو از جملـه كتـاب هـاي خـوب و

تأثيرگذار در زمينه مطالعات تطبيقي اديان است. در اين كتاب عرفان ابن عربي و تائويي ،

با يكديگر مقايسه . اند شده آشنايي خوب نويسنده با اين دو مكتـب عرفـاني و همچنـين

تفكيك معرفي دو سنت عرفاني از بخش مقايسه ، از جمله امتيازاتي است كه اين كتاب

را شايستة خواندن كرده است . ليكن اين اثر ضعفهايي نيز دارد با. وجود اينكه نويسنده

آشنايي خوبي با عرفان عر ابن بي دارد، نتوانسته است عناصر كليدي عرفان را او معرفـي

 و نظام عرفاني به را او خوبي بازسازي كند. اين امـر باعـث شـده اسـت مـسائل عرفـان

نظري و عملي به را هم بياميزد . همچنين نويسنده از تفسيرهاي مختلف عرفان تـائويي

غفلت ورزيده است از. طرف ديگر، عليرغم اينكه هدف كتاب م قايسه است، اما بخـش

كوچكي از كتاب به مقايس دو ة سنت، اختصاص يافته است. علاوه بر اين، مقايس او ة نيز

داراي ايراداتي است ؛ مانند اينكه از ماهيت نظري عرفـان ابـن عربـي و ماهيـت عملـي

عرفان ت ائويي غفلـت كـرده در ؛ مقـام مقايـسه كمتـر بـه اخـتلاف هـا توجـه كـرده؛ در

معادلسازي بين اين دو سنت دچار اشتباهاتي و ؛شده به او كار تحميل عرفان ابن عربي

 بر عرفان تائويي انجاميده است .

ها كليدواژه : ايزوتسو، صوفيسم و تائوئيسم، عرفان اسلامي، عرفان تائويي، ابنعربي

 * استاديار دانشگاه اديان و مذاهب.

 / 142

مقدمه

مطالعات تطبيقي در زمينه شناخت اديان، رشتة جديدي است كه در جهت فـراهم كـردن

زمينة گفت وگوي تمدن ها و نزديك كردن افكار انسان ها در فرهنگ هاي مختلـف پديـد

آمده و به دليل فوائد بسياري كه داشته، كم كم جاي خود را در صحنه شناخت اديان بـاز

كرده است . پروفسور توشيهيكو ايزوتسو، يكي ازعلاقه مندان به مطالعات تطبيقي است و

بيشتر كارهاي علمي او در اين زمينه است. از طرف ديگر او بـه اسـلام و ايـران علاقـه

بسياري داشته و اكثر كارهاي تحقيقاتي اش، چه تطبيقـي و چـه غيرتطبيقـي، را بـه ايـن

حوزه اختصاص داده است . يكي از ويژگـي هـاي مهـم او در زمينـه مطالعـات اسـلامي،

آشنايي كافي او با علماي اسلامي به ويژه فلاسفه و عارفان مسلم ان و همچنين تسلط بر

زبان عربي است . بنابراين او با اسلام از طريق منابع اصلي آشنا شده كه اين مسئله باعث

ارزشمندتر شدن تحقيقات او شده است . يكي از كارهاي مهـم ايزوتـسو، ترجمـه قـرآن

كريم از عربي به ژاپني است كه اولين ترجمه در نوع خود محسوب ميشود .

جايگاه مهم ايز وتسو در مطالعات تطبيقي و اسلامي موجب شد تا در سال 1379ش.

همايشي در بزرگداشت او برگزار شود . مقالات اين همايش نشان مي دهند كه علاوه بـر

آثار قرآنپژوهانة ايزوتسو، مطالعات تطبيقي او نيز مورد توجه قرار گرفته است .

مقاله حاضر در راستاي توجه به مطالعات تطبيقي، به بررسي و نقد كتاب او با عنوان

Taoism and Sufism ميپردازد. اين كتاب كه در زمينة مقايسه عرفان اسلامي و عرفان تائويي

است تحت عنوان صوفيسم و تائوئيسم به فارسي برگردانده شده است (ترجمة محمدجواد

گوهري، تهران : روزنـه، 1378 .(هدف اصلي از اين بررسي معرفي اين كتاب است و در كنار

آن، ملاحظاتي نيز دربارة آن بيان ميشود .

جايگاه و امتيازات كتاب

همانطور كه اشاره كرديم، كتـاب صوفيـسم و تائوئيـسم بـه دليـل اهميـت خاصـش از

جايگاه مهمي نزد انديشمندان اسلامي برخوردار است؛ زير ا ايـن كتـاب در رسـيدن بـه

اهدافش موفق بوده است . مطالعة اجمالي اين كتاب حكايـت از ايـن دارد كـه نويـسنده

آشنايي خوبي با عرفان اسلامي و عرفان تائويي داشته و تـا حـد زيـادي توانـسته اسـت

خواننده را با اين دو سنت عرفاني آشنا كند .

بررسي و نقد كتاب صوفيسم و تائوئيسم

 / 143

يكي از امتيازات اين كتاب كه به موضـوع آن بـازمي گـردد، مقايـسه بـين دو سـنت

عرفانياي است كه در دو فرهنگ م ختلف با دو زبان كـاملاً متفـاوت شـكل گرفتـه انـد .

نويسنده ضمن توجه به مشكلاتي كه در زمينه مطالعات تطبيقـي وجـود دارد و موجـب

شده است تا عده اي نه تنها تطبيق بين ديدگاه هاي مختلف را مردود بدانند، بلكه اصـولاً

هر گونه تفاهم و گفت وگوي بين فرهنگ هاي مختلـف را زيـر سـؤال ببرنـد، بـا طـرح

مطالعه فراتاريخي ــ كه از آن به نوعي پديدارشناسي تعبير كرده اند (پازوكي،1382( :13 ــ

اين امر را ميسر ميداند (469; 2: 1983, Isutsu .(منظور ايزوتسو از مطالعه فـرا تـاريخي ايـن

است كه برخلاف نگرش تاريخ گرا كه دوره هاي زمان و انديـشه هـاي مربـوط بـه آن را

جداي از هم و غيرقابل مقايسه مي داند، مي توان انديـشه را بـه عنـوان امـري فراتـاريخي

نگريست؛ از اين رو معتقد است كه مي توان هر انديشه تاريخي را از زمان آن جدا كـرده

و با انديشه ديگري كه متعلق به زمان و مكان ديگري است مقايسه كرد . او به تطبيق بين

اين دو سنت پرد اخته است تا نشان دهد كه وقتي بتوان سنت هايي را با هم مقايسه كـرد

كه از لحاظ فرهنگي و زباني كاملاً متفاوت هستند، بي شك در مـواردي كـه اخـتلاف و

تفاوت كمتر باشد مطالعة تطبيقي سهل تـر خواهـد بـود . بنـابراين نويـسنده بـا انتخـاب

سختترين كار، زحمت زيادي را متحمل شده است تا از مطالعات تطبيقي دفاع كنـد و

اين يكي از امتيازات اين كتاب محسوب ميشود .

يكي ديگر از امتيازات مهم اين كتاب، اين است كه قبـل از مقايـسه، بـه معرفـي دو

سنت عرفان اسلامي و تائويي به شكل مجزا پرداخته است . بخش اول كتاب بـه عرفـان

اسلامي و بخش دوم به عرفان تائويي و بخش سوم به مقايسه بـين ايـن دو مـي پـردازد .

شكي نيست كه مقايسه بين دو سنت، بر شناخت هر دوي آنها متوقف است و كسي كـه

با عرفان اسلامي يا تائويي آشنا نباشد، نمي تواند دست به مقايـسه ببـرد . از ايـن جهـت،

نويسنده ابتدا امكان آشنايي با دو سنت عرفاني را فراهم ساخته و سپس بحث مقايسه را

 پيگيري كرده است . اما به نظر مي رسد كه ايزوتسو از تدوين كتاب در سه بخش، هدف

ديگري را نيز دنبال مي كند و آن سهولت كار خودش در زمان مقايـسه اسـت . دو سـنت

عرفان اسلامي و عرفان تائويي داراي آموزه هاي متعددي هستند كه بـدون روشـن شـدن

اين آموزه ها كار مق ايسه بسيار سخت، بلكه ناممكن خواهد بود . از اين جهت حتي اگـر

نويسنده در ابتدا نيز به بحث دربارة آموزه ها نپردازد، در هنگام مقايسه نـاگزير از چنـين

 / 144

كاري خواهد بود؛ در حالي كه معرفي در حين مقايسه، فوايد معرفي تفكيكي را نخواهد

داشت. بنابراين در تقسيم بندي كلي كتاب ، مؤلف بـه خـوبي عمـل كـرده و هـر يـك از

سنتها را جدا از بحث مقايسه معرفي نموده و راه را براي شناخت هر يك از دو سنت

عرفاني به صورت مجزا فراهم آورده است .

ملاحظاتي در مورد ترجمه

مترجم اين كتاب، آقاي دكتـر محمـدجواد گـوهري از دانـش آموختگـان دانـشگاه امـام

صادق ع( ) است. بي شك تخصصي بودن و وسعت قلمـرو ايـن كتـاب موجـب گرديـده

است تا مترجم كار بسيار دشواري پيش رو داشته باشد . علاوه بـر ايـن، ترجمـه چنـين

كتابي نياز به آشنايي وسيع با زبان عرفاني، هم عرفان اسلامي و هم عرفان تائويي، دارد،

اما به نظر مي رسد كه مترجم در اين زمينه مهارت ك افي نداشته و همين امر موجب شده

است تا در ترجمه اشكالات زيادي، در زمينه معـادل هـاي اصـطلاحات عرفـاني وجـود

داشته باشد . اشـكالات ديگـري نيـز در ترجمـه وجـود دارد كـه بـه كـم دقتـي متـرجم

بازميگردد. تقطيعهاي نابجا، حذف بعضي از بحث ها و ترجمه نكـردن آنهـا، از جملـه

اين اشكال هاست. آقاي علي رضا هدايي در مجله ماه دين ، سـال 1380 ،شـمارة 45ــ 46

اين ترجمه را نقد كرده و سعي كرده است كه به اختصار اشكال هاي اين ترجمه را بيـان

كند. از آنجا كه هدف اين نوشتار پرداختن به محتواي كتاب است، در مورد ترجمـه بـه

همين مقدار بسنده مي كنيم و علاقه مندان را براي تفصيل بيشتر بـه مقالـة آقـاي هـدايي

ارجاع ميدهيم .

ملاحظاتي دربارة اصل كتاب

با توجه به ويژگي هايي كه براي اين كتاب برشمرديم، مشخص اسـت كـه نقـد آن كـار

دشواري است . با اين حال هيچ كار ارزشمندي بي عيـب نيـست . در اينجـا مـي خـواهيم

نكاتي را در مورد اين كتاب بيا ن كنيم كه رعايت آنها مي توانست كتاب را مفيـدتر كنـد .

اين نكات را به ترتيب بخشهاي كتاب بيان ميكنيم .

بخش اول به معرفي عرفان اسلامي، بـر مبنـاي كتـاب فـصوص الحكـم ابـن عربـي،

اختصاص يافته است . نويسنده آشنايي خـوبي بـا عرفـان ابـن عربـي دارد؛ امـا دقـت در

بررسي و نقد كتاب صوفيسم و تائوئيسم / 145

فصلهاي كتاب و شيو ه بحث او، حكايت از آن دارد كه شناخت او از عرفان ابـن عربـي

كافي نبوده و از اين رو نتوانسته است شاكله عرفان ابن عربـي را بـه خـوبي ترسـيم كنـد .

ايزوتسو در مقدمه كتاب به اين مطلب اشاره كرده اسـت كـه در نوشـته هـاي ابـن عربـي

مباحث به صورت پراكنده آمده است، و اين نوشتهها اقيانوسي ژرف را تشكيل مي دهند

كه همه چيز در آن وجود دارد ( 3: 1983, Izutsu .(به همين دليل، تأكيد كرده است كه براي

بحث خود نيازمند تفكيك بحث ها از همديگر و ساماندهي آنهاست و نمي تواند بـه هـر

بحثي كه ابن عربي در كتاب خود آورده است بپردازد . از اين جهـت مفهـوم هـ « ستي و »

«وجود» را محوركار خود قرار داده است (2: Ibid .(اما به نظر مي رسد كـه عـدم آشـنايي

عميق او با عرفان ابنعربيموجب شده استكه نتواند اين تفكيك را بهخوبيانجام دهد .

همانطور كه قيصري در مقدمـه كتـاب فـصوص الحكـم ، در ضـمن دوازده فـصل،

 بهخوبي بيان كرده (قيـصر ي، 1375 ،ص )5 ، نظام عرفاني ابنعربي بر مبناي اسما و صـفات

الهي به شكل قوس نزول و قوس صعود طراحي شده است كـه بـر طبـق آن، عـالم بـر

مبناي فيض الاهي صادر و سپس به سوي او بازمي گـردد . امـا ايزوتـسو نتوانـسته اسـت

عرفان ابن عربي را به شكل درستي نظام منـد كنـد و مباحـث را بـه صـورت مخلـوط و

پراكنده بيان كرده است . ايزوتسو بحث عرفان ابن عربي را با مسئله اي معرفـت شـناختي،

يعني رؤيا و واقع، كه تا حدي از مسائل عرفان عملي محسوب مي شود، شروع مـي كنـد

(7: Ibid ( . البته او در آخر فصل اول، بحث اصـلي، يعنـي حـضرات خمـس، را مـي آورد

(20: Ibid ( ، اما اكثر بحثهاي فصل اول به حضرات خمس مربوط نيست. به نظر ميرسد

اگر ايزوتسو از مقدمه قيصري الهام مـي گرفـت، راه بهتـري را در شـروع بحـث عرفـان

اسلامي ميپيمود .

با اينكه نظام عرفاني ابن عربي بر محور بحث حضرات خمس مـي چرخـد، امـا ايـن

بحث در اين كتاب جايگاه خاص خود را نـد ارد. در فـصل اول اشـاراتي بـه آن وجـود

دارد، اما اولاً بسيار مختصر است و ثانياً با حقيقت آنچه ابن عربي مطرح ميكنـد، فاصـله

دارد. ايزوتسو، حضرات خمس را در قالبي كه از كاشاني اقتباس كـرده حـضرت غيـب،

حضرت الوهيت، حضرت افع ال، حضرت مثال و حضرت عالم حسي م عرفـي مـي كنـد

(20, 11: Ibid .(اما حضرات خمس آنگونه كه قيصري معرفي ميكند و با انديشه ابنعربـي

نيز سازگارتر است، بر مبناي حضرت الوهيت (احـديت و واحـديت )، حـضرت عقـل،

 / 146

حضرت مثال، حضرت ماده و حضرت انسان كامل برنامـه ريـزي شـده اسـت (قيـصري،

1375( : 89 . حداقل اينكه ايزوتسو در بحث حضرات خمس بايد به هر دو طبقه بنـدي در

مورد حضرات خمس توجه مي كرد. حتي در فصل پانزدهم كه بحث انسان كامل مطـرح

 ميشود (218: Ibid ،(ايزوتسو به خوبي جايگاه انـسان كامـل را بـه عنـوان يكـي از عـوالم

وجودي، يعني حضرت خامس تفسير نمي كند و صرفا به انسان به عنوان عالم صغير كـه

جامع همه عوالم است، ميپردازد .

مسئلة ديگري كه نشان مي دهد ايزوتسو به اندازه كـافي بـا عرفـان اسـلامي آشـنايي

ندارد، خلط بين مسائل عرفان نظري و عرفان عملي است . البته مسائل عرفـان نظـري و

عملي در كتاب هاي عارفان مسلمان و از جملـه ابـن عربـي بـه هـم آميختـه اسـت؛ امـا

همانگونه كه معروف است، قبل از ابن عربي غالباً مسائل عرفان عملي اولويت داشـت و

مسائل عرفان نظري به طور ضمني مطرح مي شد و كار مهم ابن عربي اين بود كه شـاكله

 به عرفان نظري را، ويژه در كتابهاي فتوحات مكيه و فصوص الحكم ، پي ريزي كـرد . از

اين جهت و با توجه به رويكرد ه ستيشناختياي كه ايزوتسو انتخاب كرده است، اصولاً

نبايد به مسائل عرفان عملي بپردازد و يا حداقل اينكه بايد مسائل آن را جداگانه مطـرح

كند؛ اما مشاهده مي كنيم كه مسائل عرفان عملي با عرفان نظري به هـم آميختـه شـده و

گاه در اولويت قرار گرفته و زودتر از مسائل عرفان ن ظري مطرح شدهاند. بـراي مثـال او

بلافاصله بعد از بحث مطلق به بحث خودشناسي و راه شناخت حق از طريـق شـناخت

نفس ميپردازد (36: Ibid (و يا بحث حيرت در فصل پنجم (68: Ibid ،(كه به تنزيه و تشبيه

مربوط مي شود، بيش از آنكه به هستي شناختي مربوط باشد، بحثي معرفت شناختي ا ست

و از مسائل عرفان عملي محسوب مي شود. اين رويكرد او موجب شده است تا خواننده

دچار سرگرداني شود و نتواند به درستي با شاكله عرفان ابنعربي آشنا شود. شايد علـت

اين امر شاكله عملي عرفان تـائويي باشـد كـه باعـث شـده اسـت ايزوتـسو در عرفـان

 ابنعربي نيز مسائل عرفان عملي را مطرح كند تا مقايسه راحتتر و موفقتر باشد .

اما در مورد بخش دوم كه به عرفان تائويي مي پردازد، از اين نكته غفلت شده اسـت

كه به طور كلي دو تفسير متفاوت از «تائو» در عرفان تائويي، و مخصوصاً در سخنان لائو

زه و جونگ زه، مطرح است . بر طبق يك تفسير، تائو متعالي ترين حقيقت و بي نام است

كه همه عالم را شكل مي دهد. بر طبق اين تفسير تائو حقيقتي ماوراي عالم مادي اسـت .

بررسي و نقد كتاب صوفيسم و تائوئيسم / 147

تفسير ديگر با نگرشي مادي گرايانه به تـائو مـي نگـرد و تـائو، يعنـي طريقـت، را صـرفاً

قوانين حاكم بر طبيعت مي داند. بر طبق اين تفـسير عرفـان تـائويي صـرفاً يـك عرفـان

ماديگرايانه است كه غايت و هدفش حفظ اين زندگي مادي است ــ براي مثـال فانـگ

يو لان، (1380 :141 (چنين تفسيري از عرفان اين دو حكيم ارائه مي دهد. ايـن دو تفـسير

از اين جهت رخ داده است كه متن تائو ته جينگ كه ايزوتسو آن را به عنوان مبنـا بـراي

معرفي عرفان تائويي مطرح ك رده، بسيار مبهم است و مـي تـوان آن را بـه هـر دو شـكل

تفسير كرد . اما از آنجا كه تفسير اول با عرفان اسلامي نزديكـي بيـشتري دارد، ايزوتـسو

اين تفس ير را برگزيده و هيچ اشـاره اي بـه تفـسير دوم نكـرده اسـت . هرچنـد بـه نظـر

 ميرسد كه تفسير اول قوي تر است، اما مناسب بود كه نويس نده در ابتداي كتاب ايـن دو

تفسير را بيان و ترجيح تفسير اول بر دوم را اثبات يا دسـت كـم بـه عنـوان پـيش فـرض

مطرح مي كرد. طرح اين موضوع مي توانست به خواننـده بـراي داوري بهتـر در مقايـسه

كمك كند .

در مورد بخش سوم نيز ملاحظاتي وجود دارد . اولين نكته اينكـه ايـن بخـش بـسيار

 كمحجمتر از دو بخش ديگر است، از مجموع 493 صـفحه در مـتن اصـلي حـدود 25

صفحه به اين بخش اختصاص يافته كه در ترجمه آقاي گـوهري ، 535 صـفحه ، حـدود

30 صفحه را دربرمي گيرد. چون ايزوتسو هدف اصلي خود از اين تحقيق را مقايسه بين

دو سنت معرفي كرده است، بايد به مقابله اهميت بيشتري بدهـد و بـر مقايـسه متمركـز

شود. همانطور كه پيش از اين گفتيم، كاري كـه ايزوتـسو در تفكيـك بـين معرفـي دو

سنت و مقايسة بين آنها انجام داده، كار بسيار خوب و ارزشمندي است؛ ليكن زماني كه

هدف مقايسه است، مقايسه بايد در اولويت قرار بگيرد و بيشترين معرفي بـا ايـن رو ش

انجام شود . اما ايزوتسو برعكس عمل كرده و بيشترين همت خود را صرف معرفي ايـن

دو سنت عرفاني به صورت جداگانه كرده و تنها بخش كـوچكي از كـار را بـه مقايـسه

اختصاص داده است .

يكي از ايرادات مهم تطبيق ايزوتسو بين سنت عرفان اسلامي و تائويي اين است كـه

نويسنده به تمايزها توجه جدي نداشته اسـت . او صـرفاً شـباهت هـا و هـم گـوني هـا را

بيان كرده و در مورد تمايزها، فقط به وجود آنها و صوري بودنشان اشـاره كـرده اسـت

(70: Ibid: see .(حال آنكه در تطبيق بين اديان و سنتهاي مختلف، بايد به اختلافها نيـز

 / 148

توجه كرد؛ زيرا هرچند مي توان با روش هاي خاص به مقايسه بين سـنت هـاي مختلـف

پرداخت و شباهت ها را بيان كرد، اما نبايد از نظر دور داشت كه اخـتلاف بـين اديـان و

سنتها امري جدي است و حتي در مواردي كه شباهت هـاي زيـادي بـين دو ديـن يـا

سنت وجود دارد، اختلاف ها نيز جدي هستند . بنابراين محققـي كـه بـه تطبيـق بـين دو

سنت يا دين خاص مي پردازد، بايد به اختلاف ها نيـز توجـه و آنهـا را بيـان كنـد . بيـان

اختلافها در كنار شباهت ها، در بحث هاي تطبيقي، به اتقان بحث كمك مي كند و نشان

 ميدهد كه شباهتها تا چه حد واقعي هستند .

يكي از تفاوت هاي مهم بين عرفان ابـن عربـي و تـائويي كـه توجـه بـه آن در مقـام

مقايسه ضروري به نظر مي رسد، توجه به حقيقتي است كه قبلاً بيان كرديم؛ يعني اينكـه

هرچند ابن عربي در فصوص الحكم به مسائل عرفان عملي هم مـي پـردازد، امـا ماهيـت

عرفان او در اين كتاب نظري است ك.ر( : قيصري، مقدمه جلال الدين آشـتياني، ص دو )، حـال

آنكه عرفا ن تائويي ماهيتي عملي دارد . هدف عرفان نظري ترسـيم نظـام وجـودي عـالم

است اما عرفان عملي به نحوه سلوك انسان به سوي هـدفي خـاص مـي پـردازد كـه در

عرفان اسلامي اين هدف فناي در حق است . ماهيت عرفان ابن عربي نظري اسـت، زيـرا

هدف اصلي او ترسيم چگونگي صدور عالم از حق تعالي و بازگـشت عـالم بـه سـوي

اوست؛ در مقابل، هرچند تائو ته جينگ به مباحث نظري گوناگوني در مـورد چگـونگي

شكلگيري عالم مي پردازد، اما ماهيت عرفان تائويي عملي است . عرفان تائويي به حفـظ

وجود انسان از طرق گوناگون مي انديـشد (يـو لان، 1380( :88 . ايـن تفـاوت بـين عرفـان

اسلامي و ع رفان تائويي موجب مي شود كه مقايسه بين اين دو تا حد زيادي متفـاوت از

چيزي شود كه ايزوتسو انجام داده، زيرا مباحث مطرح در عرفان عملي كاملاً بـا عرفـان

نظري متفاوت است .

يكي ديگر از تفاوت هاي مهم بين اين دو سنت عرفاني كه توجه به آن مـي توانـد در

مقايسه بين اين دو سن ت عرفاني تأثيرگذار باشد، اين است كه عرفان ابن عربي نقطة اوج

عرفان اسلامي است، حال آنكه عرفان تائويي در تائو ته جينـگ ، در دوران شـكل گيـري

قرار دارد . به عبارت ديگر، عرفان ابن عربي عرفاني نظام يافته است، در حالي كـه عرفـان

تائويي در چند صد سال قبل از ميلاد، كه دو ران شكل گيري تائو ته جينگ است، صـرفاً

سخنان پراكنده حكيماني است كه به دنبال اصلاح جامعه و افراد بوده انـد . البتـه عرفـان

بررسي و نقد كتاب صوفيسم و تائوئيسم / 149

تائويي در گستره زمان و در قرن هاي بعد نظام خاصي پيدا كرد، اما عرفاني كه لائو زه و

جونگ زه ارائه مي دهند، صرفاً در قالب سخنان حكيمانه اي است كـه صـلاحيت تبـديل

شدن به يك نظام عرفاني را دارد . عرفان تائويي در ايـن مرحلـه را مـي تـوان بـه عرفـان

اسلامي در ابتداي ظهور آن تشبيه كرد كه صرفاً سخنان پراكنده عرفـا را در خـود جـاي

 ميدهد. بنابراين عرفان تائويي در اين مرحله حتي در بعد عملي نيز داراي نظام خاصـي

نيست. نداشتن نظام سبب شده است كه عرفان تـائويي ظرفيـت لازم بـراي مقايـسه بـا

عرفان اسلامي، مخصوصاً عرفان ابن عربي، را نداشته باشـد . در نتيجـه در مـوارد زيـادي

نويسنده مجبور شده است تا نظام خاصـي بـه سـخنان ايـن عارفـان بدهـد و حتـي در

مواردي هنگام بيان عرفان تائويي از نظام ابن عربي وام گيري كند كـه ايـن تحميـل يـك

نظام بر نظام ديگر را به دنبال دارد .

اصليترين مرحله وام گيري، معادل سازي «تائو «با » وجود» است. نويسنده بـه قـصد

اينكه زبان مشتركي بين عرفان اسلامي و تائويي شكل گيرد، تائو را معادل وجـود قـرار

داده (472: Ibid ( كـه از چنـد جهـت داراي اشـكال اسـت: اولاً تحميـل يـك سـنت بـر

سنت ديگر است و ايـن امـر در مقايـسه موجـب سـوء فهـم اسـت . ثانيـاً بـا سـخنان و

روش خود اين دو عارف تائويي كه تـائو را فراتـر از نـام و وجـود مـي داننـد، سـازگار

نيست. در عرفان تائويي، تـائوي نـام ناپـذير را فراتـر از وجـود دانـسته از آن تعبيـ ر بـه

« ناـوجود» ميكنند (يولان، 1380 :126 .(ثالثاً قـرار دادن وجـود مطلـق در بـالاترين مرتبـه

عالم، حتي با عرفان ابن عربي نيز سازگار نيست؛ زيرا وجود يـا نفـس رحمـاني، تجلـي

الاهي است و خود حق تعالي را قبل از مرتبـه تجلـي سـاري، « عمـاء «، » عنقـا » و غيـب

الغيوب مي نامند قي( صرِي، 1375 ، : 26 ، 25 987 .(البته قيصري هم در مقدمه ، بحث خود را با

وجود آغاز مي كند و وجود مطلق را مساوي با حق تعالي مي گيرد (همان)، اما با توجه به

اينكه در جاهاي ديگر، به هويت غيبيه كه فوق وجود است، مي پردازد، اين امر حكايـت

از اين دارد كه قيصري بحث وجود را مقدمهاي براي شروع مـي دانـد و نـه اينكـه تمـام

مراتب حقيقت منحصر در آن باشد . ايـن نگـرش حكايـت از ايـن دارد كـه مرتبـه ذات

الوهي فوق وجود است و اتفاقاً ايـن نكتـه اي اسـت كـه بـا عرفـان تـائويي هـم بـسيار

سازگارتر است؛ زيرا در نزد آنان نيز تائو فوق وجود است . بنـابراين ايـن معـ ادلسـازي

درست نيست .

 / 150

البته شكي نيست كه در هر تطبيق نيازمند زبان مشتركي هستيم . اما به نظر مـي رسـد

كه در اين مورد بهتر است زبان مشترك را به ويژگي ها و اوصاف اختصاص دهيم، يعني

به جاي اينكه تائو را از لحاظ زباني معادل وجود قـرار دهـيم، مـي تـوانيم بـا برشـمردن

ويژگيه ا و خصوصياتي كه در فرهنگ چيني، و به خصوص تائو تـه جينـگ بـراي تـائو

بيان كرده اند، آن را در عرفان اسلامي معادل سازي كنيم و اگر هيچ معادل دقيقي نيـافتيم،

نزديكترين عنصر را بيان كنيم .

در پايان اين نوشتار تذكر اين نكته ضروري است كه آنچه در نقد كتاب مذكور بيـان

شد، از ارزش والاي اين كتاب نمي كاهد. بيشك ايزوتسو همان طور كه خـود نيـز بيـان

كرده، كار سختي در پيش داشته است . بخشي از ايرادهاي كتاب به اين امر باز مي گـردد

كه هيچ يك از اين دو سنت كه او در اين كتاب، به مقايسه آنها پرداخته است، بـومي او

نبودهاند و او با آنها از بيرون آشنا شده است . با اين حال اين كتـاب تـا حـد زيـادي در

هدف خود موفق بوده است . اميد است كه با بررسـي و نقـد كتـاب هـاي ايـن حـوزه و

گسترش مطالعات تطبيقي راه اين گونه مطالعات كه ميتواند به شناخت بيشتر سنتهـاي

ديني كمك كند، هموار گردد .

كتابنامه

ايزوتسو، توشيه يكو (1382 ( ، سخنگوي شرق و غـرب ، تهـران : دانـشگاه تهـران، مؤسـسة تحقيقـاتي و

توسعه علوم انساني .

ــــــــــ (1378 ( ، صوفيسم و تائويسم، ترجمه محمدجواد گوهري، تهران: روزنه.

پازوكي، شهرام (1382 ( ،» گفتوگوي فراتاريخي و فراگفت وگـو در انديـشه ايزوتـسو »، در سـخنگوي

شرق و غرب (مجموعه مقالات همايش بزرگداشت پروفسور توشيهيكو ايزوتسو )، تهران: دانـشگاه

تهران، مؤسسه تحقيقاتي و توسعه علوم انساني .

قيصري رومي، محمدداوود (1375 ( ، شرح فصوص الحكم ، تدوين استاد جلال الـدين آشـتياني، تهـران :

شركت انتشارات علمي و فرهنگي .

 يو لان، فانگ (1380 ( ، تاريخ فلسفه چين، ترجمه فريد جواهركلام، تهران: نشر و پژوهش فروزان روز .

Izutsu, Toshihiko (1983), Sufism and Taoism, Clifornia: university of California press. 

===

Sufism and Taoism: a comparative study of key philosophical concepts. By Toshihiko Izutsu. J of the Royal Asiatic Society | Cambridge Core

Sufism and Taoism: a comparative study of key philosophical concepts. By Toshihiko Izutsu. pp. viii, 493. Berkeley etc., University of California Press. 1984. £23.00. | Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society | Cambridge Core
Sufism and Taoism: a comparative study of key philosophical concepts. By Toshihiko Izutsu. pp. viii, 493. Berkeley etc., University of California Press. 1984. £23.00.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Michael Scott

===

===

Of course, there is no doubt that we need a common language in every application. But it seems that in this case, it is better to assign the common language to the characteristics and attributes, that is, instead of making Tao equivalent in terms of language, we can list the characteristics and characteristics that are in Chinese culture, and Especially the Tao Tejing has stated for Tao, we should equate it in Islamic mysticism and if we do not find any exact equivalent, we should express the closest element. At the end of this article, it is necessary to mention this point that what was stated in the review of the mentioned book does not reduce the high value of this book. Bishek Izutsu, as he himself stated, had a difficult task ahead of him. 

Part of the objections of the book comes back to the fact that none of these two traditions that he compared in this book were native to him and he got to know them from outside. However, this book has been successful in its goal to a large extent. It is hoped that by reviewing and criticizing books in this field and expanding comparative studies, the way for such studies that can help to know more about religious traditions will be paved. 

Bibliography of Izutsu, 

Toshie Yoko (1382), Spokesman of East and West, Tehran: University of Tehran, Institute for Research and Development of Human Sciences. 

"Transhistorical dialogue and meta-dialogue in Izutsu's thought", in Speaking of the East and the West (Collection of Proceedings of the Conference Commemorating Professor Toshihiko Izutsu), Tehran: University of Tehran, Institute for Research and Development of Human Sciences. 

Kayseri Rumi, Mohammad Dawood (1375), Description of Fuss al-Hakam, Edited by Professor Jalaluddin Ashtiani, Tehran: Scientific and Cultural Publishing Company. 

Yu Lan, Fang (1380), History of Chinese Philosophy, translated by Farid Javaherkalam, Tehran: Forozan Rooz Publishing and Research. 

Izutsu, Toshihiko (1983), Sufism and Taoism, California : University of California Press.

AN ASSESSMENT OF IZUTSU’S SUFISM AND TAOISM by Anis Malik Thoha

13._Izutsu_Anis.pdf

IZUTSU’S APPROACH TO THE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RELIGIONS:

AN ASSESSMENT OF HIS SUFISM AND TAOISM

Anis Malik Thoha

Introduction

Doing comparison is man‟s „business as usual‟. Even the simple person does it in his daily affairs in order to get a better choice. However, to do it scholarly or scientifically has been evidently and exceptionally the concern of sophisticated minds throughout the ages. Especially when the comparison involves belief systems or religions toward which complete neutrality or objectivity is almost impossible.1 Hence arose the important question on “who should carry out the exercise” and “how it should be carried out” in the long and fierce debates among the scholars and students of modern study of religions.

As for the former, there seems to be no conclusive and objective answer as to whether the student of comparative study of religions must be a religious or non-religious person (skeptic and atheist). And it is quite unlikely to have such an answer,2 since the very question is actually problematic. Because, in the final analysis, man has never been human, and cannot continue to be so, without a “set of value” in which he/she believes to be the ultimate truth, so that based upon this “set of value”, he/she judges, evaluates, and selects. Accordingly, it will certainly make no difference whether we call it religion or not.3

1 Yet according to Søren Kierkegaard, “religion is something that toward which neutrality is not possible.” [Quoted in Joachim Wach, The Comparative Study of Religions (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), p. 9].

2 Geoffrey Parrinder, for instance, tries to discuss in his Comparative Religion the question and concludes finally with an answer which is in favour of the religious. [Geoffrey Parrinder, Comparative Religion (London: Sheldon Press, [1962] 1976), pp. 65, 120].

3 That religion has been the main source and supplier of value is self-evident and commonly

 

Whilst the latter, apparently the major discussions are addressed mainly to the issue of “descriptiveness-normativeness” or “objectivity- subjectivity” along with the types of approach to the study of religions (i.e., psychological, sociological, anthropological, historical, phenomenological, etc.),4 neglecting the issue of what we may call “representation”, which is equally (if not more) important to be taken into account, in order for the study to have its expected validity, credibility and commendability. This is true especially when the study involves a comparison between two or more religions. Otherwise, in the absence of the valid representation, it will be invalid, non-credible and non-commendable.

However, as far as my humble readings can tell, there are only very few scholars who really have paid due attention to this issue of “representation”, although many of them may have implemented this principle implicitly in their works. From the classical scholars, among these few, is Abū al-Ḥasan al-ʿĀmirī (d.381 AH/922 CE),5 a prominent Muslim philosopher, who deliberately addressed this issue and made it crystal clear in the introduction to his work on “comparative study of religion” under the title al-Iʿlām bi-Manāqib al-Islām, in which he compared “six world religions” between each other.6 He was fully

undeniable. But evidently, the ideologies and isms have remarkably functioned the same throughout the ages. In this regard, Paul Tillich observed that:

The outside observer is always an inside participant with a part of his being, for he also has confessed or concealed answers to the questions which underlie every form of religion. If does not profess a religion proper, he nevertheless belongs to a quasi-religion, and as consequence he also selects, judges, and evaluates. [Paul Tillich, Christianity and the Encounter of the World Religions (New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1963), p. 2].

Since by design they are usually meant as alternative to religions proper, some modern scholars simply call them “quasi-religions” [see: Paul Tillich, op. cit.], or “worldviews”, “semi-religions”, “weltanschauungs” [see: Ninian Smart, Dimensions of the Sacred: An Anatomy of the World’s Beliefs (London: Harper Collins, 1996)].

4 See a critical analysis of this issue: Anis Malik Thoha, “Objectivity and the Study of Religion,” in Intellectual Discourse, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2009, pp. 83-92.

5 He is Muḥammad ibn Abī Dharr Yūsuf al-ʿĀmirī al-Nīsābūrī, well-known as Abū al-Ḥasan al-ʿĀmirī, born in Nīsābūr in the beginnings of 4th century AH, died in the same city in 381 AH/922 CE. [Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-ʿĀmirī, al-Iʿlām bi-Manāqib al-Islām, edited by Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Ghurāb (Cairo: Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī li al-Ṭibāʿati wa al-Nashr, 1387 AH/1967 CE), p. 6].

6 Based on the Qur‟anic āyah 17, sūrah al-Ḥajj:

 

ﭫﭬﭭ

 

ﭢﭣﭤﭥﭦﭧﭨ ﭩﭪ ﴿ﭛﭜﭝﭞﭟﭠﭡ

ﭮﭯ ﭰ ﭱﭲ﴾،

 

aware that many of the writers and researchers had, wittingly or unwittingly, ignored this important issue. Further he said:

The description of merit of a thing against the other by way of comparing between the two could be right or otherwise. The right form is subject to two conditions. First, one must not make comparison except between the two similar types, i.e. he must not resort purposely to the noblest thing in this, then he compares it with the lowest in its counterpart; nor must he resort purposely to a principle among the principles of this, then he compares it with a branch among the branches of the other. Second, one must not resort purposely to a qualified property in some sect, which is not extensive in its whole, but then he attributes it to all of its classes.

Whenever the intelligent one observes these two conditions in comparing between things it will be easy for him to fulfill all the portions of comparisons adhering to the right in his exercise.7

Regardless of whether al-ʿĀmirī, in his work, was committed to what he had stated above or not (this is subject to further research), it is worth emphasizing here that these two principles of comparative study espoused by him in this passage – i.e., (i) the two (or more) objects of comparison must be of the same level in all respects, and (ii) each of them must be the qualified “representative” of its constituents – are logically and incontestably self-evident.

Meanwhile, among the modern scholars in the comparative study of religion, who have the same concern is Robert Charles Zaehner (1913- 1974). He stated vividly in his Mysticism: Sacred and Profane that:

It is quite absurd, for example, to quote the late philosophic mystic, Ibn al-

„Araby, as an authentic exponent of the Muslim Tradition since he has been rejected by the majority of the orthodox as being heretical. Such a ‘method’ has

nothing to commend it. It merely serves to irritate those who are genuinely puzzled by the diversity of the world‟s great religions.8

Al-ʿĀmirī confined the number of world religions to six only: Islam, Judaism, Sabeanism, Christianity, Magianism, and Polytheism. [see Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-ʿĀmirī, op. cit.]

7 The original Arabic text is as follows:

إن تجٍبن فضٍهخ انشًء ػهى انشًء ثحست انمقبثالد ثٍىٍمب قد ٌكُن صُاثب َقد ٌكُن خطأ    . َصُزح

انصُاة مؼهقخ ثشٍئٍه: أحدٌمب: أال ٌُقغ انمقبٌسخ إال ثٍه األشكبل انمتجبوسخ، أػىً أال ٌؼمد إنى أشسف مب

فً ٌرا فٍقٍسً ثأزذل مب في صبحجً، ٌَؼمد إنى أصم مه أصُل ٌرا فٍقبثهً ثفسع مه فسَع ذاك . َاَخس:

إنى خهخ مُصُفخ فً فسقخ مه انفسق، غٍس مستفٍضخ فً كبفتٍب، فٍىسجٍب إنى جمهخ طجقبتٍب . انؼبقم فً انمقبثهخ ثٍه األشٍبء ػهى ٌرٌه انمؼىٍٍه فقد سٍم ػهًٍ انمأخر فً تُفٍخ حظُظ أال ٌؼمد َمتى حبفع

انمقبثالد، َكبن مالشمب نهصُاة فً أمسي. 127] p. cit., op. .[al-ʿĀmirī,

8 R. C. Zaehner, Mysticism: Sacred and Profane (London: Oxford University Press, 1961),

p. 31. (emphasis added).

 

It is clear that, according to both al-ʿĀmirī and Zaehner, in order for the comparative study of religions to be credible and commendable, it must fulfill the requirements of “representation” adequately.

Preliminary Assessment of Izutsu’s Approach

Perhaps, the book entitled Sufism and Taoism is the only work of Professor Toshihiko Izutsu (1914-1993) which might fall under the discipline of comparative study of religion, in its narrowest sense. Although it is unclear whether he has purposely wished it to be so or not, yet he did make it clear that it is a work meant for a comparison. Moreover, according to him, it is a structural comparison between the two “worldviews” – one of which is sufistic (Islamic) and the other Taoist, that have no historical connection. He said further:

[T]he main purpose of the present work in its entirety is to attempt a structural comparison between the worldview of Sufism [Islam] as represented by Ibn ʿArabī and the worldview of Taoism as represented by Lao-tzŭ and Chuang- tzŭ….

[T]he dominant motive running through the entire work is the desire to open a new vista in the domain of comparative philosophy and mysticism.9

The term “worldview” and “weltanschauung” is increasingly used in the contemporary religious and philosophical studies to mean religion exchangeably.10 And on top of that, the work is deliberately written by the author to facilitate the existing inter-cultural and inter-religious dialogue by providing an alternative ground to the current practices, which he calls “meta-historical or transhistorical dialogue”, borrowing Professor Henri Corbin‟s term “un dialogue dans la métahistoire”.11

Hence, the main task of this essay is focusing exclusively on this particular issue of approach used by Professor Izutsu in this particular work, in order to assess the extent to which it is logically and comparatively adequate, credible and commendable. No doubt at all that his extensive study of the key philosophical concepts of Ibn ʿArabī

9 Toshihiko Izutsu, Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, [1983] 1984), p. 1. (emphasis added)

10 See the footnote 3 above.

11 Ibid., p. 2.

 

(1165-1240) and Lao-tzŭ and Chuang-tzŭ, taken independently, is exceptionally excellent, as so are his other works seem to be. However, when it is seen from a comparative perspective properly, taking into account that it is principally meant by the author as a comparative study – and not just any comparison but a structural comparison between the two worldviews, a crucial question is indeed in order. It is a question on whether the issue of representation for these two worldviews has been addressed adequately in this work or not. In other words, whether the representatives (figures and thoughts) selected by Izutsu in this work do represent adequately the two worldviews respectively, that is, Ibn ʿArabī for Sufism and Lao-tzŭ and Chuang-tzŭ for Taoism.

As far as Taoism is concerned, I think nobody will dispute or disagree with Izutsu. For all scholars (insiders as well as outsiders) on this religion unanimously recognized Lao-tzŭ and Chuang-tzŭ as founders of Taoism, and their thoughts as representing the mainstream of Taoism.12 Thus, such a question of representation does no longer arise. (Therefore, this essay will not touch this issue with regard to Taoism). But the case is totally different with regard to Ibn ʿArabī in Sufism, let alone in Islam. Although his followers and admirers recognized him as al-Shaykh al-Akbar (the greatest master),13 his thoughts are by no means the mainstream of Sufism. Yet, contrary to that, they are considered by the majority of ʿulamā’ (Muslim scholars) as deviating from the mainstream of Sufism and, above all, of Islamic thought in general. The main charge against Ibn ʿArabī is his unusual and unorthodox thought which is commonly identified as pantheism, the unity of existence (waḥdat al-wujūd). Since this line of sufistic thought has never been known in the early tradition of Islam, especially in the Prophet‟s tradition, the Muslim scholars tend to consider it as heresy or heterodoxy (bidʿah).14 Hence, later on, many of

12 All references on world religions and faiths confirm this fact. See for instance: Huston Smith, Religions of Man (New York, Cambridge, London: Perennia Library – Harper & Row Publishers, [1958] 1965); Ninian Smart, The Religious Experience of Mankind (Glasgow: Collins Fount Paperbacks, [1969] 12th impression 1982); S. A. Nigosian, World Faiths (New York: St. Martin Press, 1994).

13 The title of al-Shaykh al-Akbar (the greatest master) for Ibn ʿArabī became well-known after Sultan Salim I issued a decree in 922 AH to build a mosque in Damascus on the name of this Sufi master. [See Dr. Muḥammad ʿAlī Ḥājj Yūsuf, Shams al-Gharb: Sīrah al-Shaykh al-Akbar Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn al-ʿArabī wa-Madhhabuh (Aleppo: Dār Fuṣṣilat, 1427/2006), p. 16].

14 See for instance: Taqiyy al-Dīn ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm ibn Taymiyyah in his Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, Vol. 2, p. 143; ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khaldūn in his Muqaddimah, (Beirut: Dār wa Maktabah al-Hilāl, 1983), pp. 206, 297; Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn ʿUthmān Al-Dhahabī,

  

the contemporary Muslim scholars, such as Abū al-Wafā‟ al-Taftāzānī, term it as “heretical Sufism” (al-taṣawwuf al-bidʿī) to be distinguished from the one which is “traditional” (al-taṣawwuf al-sunnī) following the mainstream tradition of Islam. And because the former is more philosophical in nature, it is also known as “philosophical Sufism” (al- taṣawwuf al-falsafī).15 At any rate, the foregoing discussion has clearly shown that the place of Ibn ʿArabī in Sufism is far beyond the mainstream. Therefore, any attempt to introduce this Shaykh as representative of Sufism is methodologically questionable.

This question becomes more vibrant, pertinent and crucial when the comparative study is meant specifically as an attempt to embark on propagating certain agenda (be it ideological, philosophical or religious), such as philosophia perennis which is very controversial and to which Professor Izutsu seems to belong and subscribe ardently, or, rather idealizes. It is well-established that scholars in the discipline of comparative study of religion are particularly very sensitive to such an agenda, emphasizing the necessity to freeing it from any sort of attempts that would eventually divert and disqualify its neutrality and objectivity. Regardless of the question pertaining to the possibility and impossibility of full-fledge neutrality and objectivity, Izutsu rather spells this agenda out clearly following his conviction with “un dialogue dans la métahistoire” or “meta-historical or transhistorical dialogue”, as he states:

And meta-historical dialogues, conducted methodologically, will, I believe, eventually be crystallized into a philosophia perennis in the fullest sense of the term. For the philosophical drive of the human Mind is, regardless of ages, places and nations, ultimately and fundamentally one.

I readily admit that the present work is far from even coming close to this

ideal.16

Although philosophia perennis, as a school of philosophy, badly needs in itself to be studied and analyzed further, but since the main concern of this essay is on the issue of methodological approach employed by

in his Siyar al-Aʿlām al-Nubalā’, Vol. 23 (Beyrut: Mu‟assasat al-Risālah, 11th Printing, 1422 H./2001M.), pp. 48-9.

15 Further detail, see for instance: Dr. Abū al-Wafā‟ al-Ghunaymī al-Taftāzānī, al-Madkhal ilā al-Taṣawwuf al-Islāmī (Cairo: Dār al-Thaqāfah, 1988); and Abū Muḥammad Raḥīm al-Dīn Nawawī al-Bantanī, Madkhal ilā al-Taṣawwuf al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Islāmī (Cairo: Dār al-Amān, 1424 H./2003 M.).

16 Toshihiko Izutsu, Sufism and Taoism, p. 469. (emphasis in the second paragraph added)

 

Izutsu, we should confine ourselves to this approach leaving aside the study and analysis of this school of philosophy in detail to the other relevant works.17

It is interesting to note, nevertheless, that Izutsu‟s perennial tendency is not clearly spelt out in any of his works other than Sufism and Taoism. Not even in his The Concept and Reality of the Existence18 and God and Man in the Koran19 which are rightly supposed to address the point elaboratively and clearly. Probably this is the main reason why many of the students and scholars on Izutsu fail to notice this point. For instance, in his presentation under the title “Communicating Pure Consciousness Events: Using Izutsu to address A Problem in the Philosophy of Mysticism,” Dr. Sajjad H. Rizvi from University of Exeter, UK, on the conviction of the possibility of „pure consciousness experience‟ (PCE) of mystical experience, tried all out to argue that Izutsu is far from being a perennialist,20 ignoring the very fact of text written by himself above which is quite straight forward and, thus, obviously self-evident. Indeed, even in this latter work of Izutsu, a careful and meticulous reading of the chapter “Existentialism East and West,” will surely show, though by way of inference, the perennial tendency of Izutsu. He says:

…. Then we shall notice with amazement how close these two kinds of philosophy [Western existentialism and Islamic existentialism] are to each other in their most basic structure. For it will become evident to us that both go back to one and the same root of experience, or primary vision, of the reality of existence. This primary vision is known in Islam as aṣālat al-wujūd, i.e. the “fundamental reality of existence”.21

The phrase “both go back to one and the same root of experience, or primary vision, of the reality of existence,” is a typical expression of

17 There are studies on the perennial philosophy or Sophia perennis. And I have a humble contribution to this study in my book, Al-Taʿaddudiyyah al-Dīniyyah: Ru’yah Islāmiyyah (Kuala Lumpur: IIUM Press, 2005).

18 Toshihiko Izutsu, The Concept and Reality of the Existence (Tokyo: The Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies, 1971).

19 Toshihiko Izutsu, God and Man in the Koran: Semantics of the Koranic Weltanschauung

(North Stratford: Ayer Co. Publisher, [1964] repr. 2002).

20 Sajjad H. Rizvi, “Communicating Pure Consciousness Events: Using Izutsu to Address A Problem in the Philosophy of Mysticism,” a paper presented in the International Conference on Contemporary Scholarship on Islam: Japanese Contribution to Islamic Studies – The Legacy of Toshihiko Izutsu, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 5-7 August 2008, and is included in this volume, pp. 157-170.

21 Toshihiko Izutsu, The Concept and Reality of the Existence, p. 27. (emphasis added)

 

the perennialism (Sophia Perennis or al-Ḥikmah al-Khālidah). “The Masters”22 of this school of philosophy expressed it differently: René Guénon (1886-1951) used a phrase the Multiple States of Being;23 Aldous Huxley (1894-1963), in The Perennial Philosophy, paraphrased it as “the Highest Common Factor;”24 Frithjof Schuon (1907-1998) and Seyyed Hossein Nasr (b. 1933) called it the Transcendent Unity of Religion.25 In fact, Izutsu‟s Sufism and Taoism is comparable to one of René Guénon‟s posthumous collections entitled Insights into Islamic Esoterism and Taoism.26

Why not Islam and Taoism?

The foregoing analysis might lead eventually to such questions as, firstly, why Izutsu deliberately chooses Sufism and Taoism for his comparative study, rather than Islam and Taoism; and, secondly, why he chooses Sufism of Ibn ʿArabī per se among the prominent sufi figures. Of course, only Izutsu does know exactly the precise answer to this question. However, in the discipline of comparative study of religion today, scholars have discussed extensively the hypothetical definition of religion, and, thus, come up with some sort of typology of religions. Some of them have attempted to classify religions into “mystical” and “prophetic”, emphasizing that mysticism is “the highest type of religions”, as was commonly suggested by perennialists and transcendentalists. Accordingly, it is quite convenient for them to do a comparative study between Sufism and Taoism. Indeed, as I have just mentioned above, René Guénon wrote articles published later on in his posthumous collections entitled Insights into Islamic Esoterism and Taoism. From this perspective, Izutsu‟s Sufism and Taoism has been considered by some contemporary scholars, such as Professor Kojiro

22 In his works, Seyyed Hossein Nasr calls René Guénon, Ananda Coomaraswamy and Frithjof Schuon as “The Masters”.

23 René Guénon, The Multiple States of Being, (Hillsdale, NY: Sophia Perennis, [1932] 2002).

24 Aldous Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy (London: Fontana Books, [1944] 3rd impression 1961).

25 Frithjof Schuon, Esoterism as Principle and as Way, translated from French by William Stoddart (Pates Manor, Bedfont, Middlesex: Perennial Books, [1978] 1981); and his The Transcendent Unity of Religions, translated from French by Peter Townsend (New York, London: Harper Torchbooks, [1948] 1975); also Seyyed Hossein Nasr, „The Philosophia Perennis and the Study of Religion,‟ in Frank Whaling (ed.), The World’s Religious Traditions: Current Perspectives in Religious Studies, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1984), pp. 181-200; and his Knowledge and the Sacred (Lahore: Suhail Academy, [1981] 1988).

26 René Guénon, Insights into Islamic Esoterism and Taoism (Hillsdale, NY: Sophia Perennis, 2003).

 

Nakamura, a prominent Japanese scholar in comparative religion,27 as a significant contribution which might offer a new vista in the field of comparative religion and interreligious dialogue. But then, whether Sufism is mysticism is actually a highly debatable question that badly needs further research and study. What is clear from the above discussion is that, as far as the Muslim scholars are concerned, they distinguished Sufism into sunnī (traditional) and falsafī (philosophical). And even if philosophical Sufism could be readily labeled mysticism, it represents only a part, nay a small part, of Sufism.

As for the second question, it seems that Izutsu‟s selection of Ibn ʿArabī, and not other ṣūfī figures, as the representative of Sufism is simply because the main interest of Izutsu is actually to establish what he called a “common language” which, according to him, is a necessary ground for the projected meta-historical dialogues could be made possible. He put it as follows:

These considerations would seem to lead us to a very important methodological problem regarding the possibility of meta-historical dialogues. The problem concerns the need of a common linguistic system. This is only natural because the very concept of „dialogue‟ presupposes the existence of a common language between two interlocutors.28

Yet, this “common language”, which is in the form of “key-terms and concepts”, is hardly to be found in the predominant and “authoritative” Islamic thought (kalām) and philosophy that are grounded directly on the Qur‟anic and Sunnatic (traditional) principles as well-represented in the thoughts and works of, for instance, al- Ghazālī,29 al-Qushayrī30 and the likes. Somehow, this is a matter of fact that has been recognized and realized by Izutsu himself indirectly when he wrote his God and Man in the Koran, in which he dealt with these two grand key-terms and concepts mainly from Qur‟anic perspective. In this work, the “common language”, in the sense of that which he wanted eagerly to establish in his comparison between Sufism and Taoism, is completely absent, though the main thrust of the

27 Kojiro Nakamura, “The Significance of Izutsu‟s Legacy for Comparative Religion,” a paper presented in the International Conference on Contemporary Scholarship on Islam: Japanese Contribution to Islamic Studies – The Legacy of Toshihiko Izutsu, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 5-7 August 2008, and is included in this volume, pp. 171-180.

28 Toshihiko Izutsu, Sufism and Taoism, p. 471. (emphasis added).

29 See, for example, his Iḥyā’ ʿUlūm al-Dīn.

30 See his Al-Risālah (Beyrut: Dār al-Jīl, 1990).

 

two works is almost, if not totally, the same, viz. about God and man.

Instead, the “common language” or “philosophical ground” for a comparative study, or a dialogue, between Sufism and Taoism is only to be found easily and definitely in such thoughts of the mystics or philosophers as that of Ibn ʿArabī‟s. Perhaps this is that can best explain the reason of Izutsu‟s selection of Ibn ʿArabī. But unfortunately the “common language” of those mystics is unintelligible, and thus, unacceptable by the majority of the ṣūfīs, let alone the traditional Muslim thinkers.

Conclusion

Seen from a comparative perspective, Izutsu‟s Sufism and Taoism might be listed under the discipline of comparative study of religion (in the narrowest sense of the term). It is even more so as Professor Toshihiko Izutsu has made it clear in the introduction and conclusion of the book. Scholars in the discipline have painstakingly been discussing and debating on subjects pertaining to the approaches or methodologies appropriate to conduct the study in order to ascertain its objectivity and credibility. It is particularly this crucial issue of approach that this essay has tried to focus on by assessing Izutsu‟s contribution to the field. The main question of this essay has been the problem of “representation,” viz. how methodologically justifiable it is to do a comparative study between, on the one hand, the thought of Ibn ʿArabī as representative of Sufism which is “unorthodox” in the Sufistic trends, let alone in Islam, and on the other, that of Lao-tzŭ and Chuang-tzŭ as representative of “the main stream” of Taoism.

Although the academic attempts made by this great scholar to explore and find alternative way that leads to the possibility of meta- historical dialogues must be duly acknowledged and credited, but taking into account the issue of “representation” mentioned above and looking at the underlying motive and main objective of the comparative study undertaken by Izutsu in this work, one is sufficiently reasonably justified to cast doubt on the credibility and commendability of the approach used by him and, in turn, on the common ground he proposed.