The Prelude: Returning to the Perfect Human
Before continuing our discussion of the Perfect Human, we must return to some of the ideas that were previously presented, because the new issue cannot be separated from the foundations upon which the previous discussion was built. Among the most important of these foundations are the issue of freedom and constraints, then the issue of the punished man and the punished woman, and what is connected to them in terms of the meaning of masculinity and femininity, and the relationship between essence and form, and between commitment and outcome.
It was previously proposed that freedom and suffering are two sides of the same coin, and that a human being cannot prove his freedom except by denying the blessing. Not enjoying something can be evidence of freedom, because whoever enjoys something is constrained by the instrument that enables him to enjoy it. A hearing person has an ear, and the ear is a condition and an instrument for hearing. A seeing person has an eye, and the eye is a condition and an instrument for sight. Whoever does not possess an eye does not possess sight. Therefore, enjoying existence itself cannot be separated from the conditions, limits, and constraints that make this existence possible.
From here, the pursuit of liberation from all constraints becomes a pursuit of liberation from existence itself, because removing the conditions that make the blessing possible ultimately leads to destruction and nonexistence. Nonexistence here is not merely another state of existence; rather, it is the absence of an opportunity for existence and an approach toward impossibility. Whatever approaches impossibility no longer has an opportunity to be.
For this reason, three concepts connected to one another have repeatedly appeared: nonexistence, the impossible, and illusion. A result that comes without a real process is an illusion, and a result that does not rest upon its conditions is not a real result in the first place. What cannot be obtained through a process, conditions, and rules becomes an approach toward nonexistence and impossibility. Therefore, nonexistence is also illusion, impossibility, and suffering, because you cannot obtain a real fruit without a process that leads to it.
Existence Between the Constraint of Masculinity and the Constraint of Femininity
If we wish to look at existence from this perspective, then the first of its constraints is that a human being is recorded in existence as either male or female. In other words, the code of existence, before entering into its other details, is divided into two principal codes: the code of masculinity and the code of femininity.
This is where the discussion of the punished man and the punished woman arose. The punished man is the man who wants to free himself from constraints that are fundamentally part of his being male; therefore, it was said that he is a man who does not want to be a man. The punished woman is the woman who wants to free herself from constraints that are fundamentally part of her being female.
But the point here is not necessarily that the punished man wants to become a woman, nor that the punished woman wants to become a man. The deeper truth in this conception is that the punished man does not love femininity in the first place, just as the punished woman does not love masculinity in the first place. The issue is not merely a transition from one sex to another, but a rejection of the other who performs the corresponding role.
The male who loves femininity loves masculinity, and the female who loves masculinity loves femininity, because neither side can be understood in isolation from the other, but through the relationship that exists between them.
A Relationship Cannot Exist Without Conditions
The relationship between male and female, like any real relationship, is conditional. Indeed, every real relationship is conditional, and there is no relationship without conditions at all. If we remove commitment, covenant, promise, and constraint from a relationship, nothing remains that can be called a relationship.
If we encounter a male who is bound by no condition whatsoever and a female who is bound by no condition whatsoever, then what exists between them is not a real relationship, because a relationship can only exist through commitment. Therefore, what brings the punished man and the punished woman together is not necessarily genuine love, but may instead be a shared desire to take revenge against the conditions according to which they consider themselves failures or rejecters.
This is why they suffer through one another rather than enjoying one another. The one who enjoys the other is the male who commits himself to the conditions of his masculinity and the female who commits herself to the conditions of her femininity. Just as the ear is a condition for hearing and the eye is a condition for sight, conditions are not the enemy of blessing; rather, they are the precondition of blessing.
The blessing, in its essence, is an outcome achieved through certain conditions. If the conditions are abolished, the foundations upon which the outcome rests are abolished as well.
A Real Fruit Does Not Come from Randomness
This can be understood through the example of agriculture. If you want to obtain a real fruit, you must plant, choose the appropriate seed, provide it with the appropriate environment, and deal with it according to conditions that allow it to grow properly. You as the farmer perform your role, the soil performs its role, the environment performs its role, and the seed performs its role. Each of these elements participates in the process that produces the fruit.
But if you leave everything to randomness and chaos, you cannot expect a real fruit. To put fertilizer in one place, change it in another, and act without wisdom or rules means that you are directing the farm toward destruction rather than production.
From here, the forbidden fruit, in this conception, is the fruit that comes without conditions, because it is a random fruit that was not based upon constraints, covenants, and commitment. The absence of conditions makes the fruit unreal, because you have removed the foundations upon which it should have been built.
Thus, failing to adhere to conditions means leaving the matter to chaos, and chaos is not a path to fruits.
Why Does the Punished Man Not Love Women?
If we ask: Why does the punished man, deep down, not love women? The matter can be simplified by saying that there is a feeling that the female has taken his place, just as the punished woman feels that the male has taken her place. From here, hidden envy, jealousy, and the desire for revenge emerge.
The punished man wants to take revenge on femininity by leaving his role. But his departure from his role as a male does not affect him alone; it also makes the female's performance of her role unproductive, because the result is achieved only when the male and female perform their roles together.
As in agriculture: it is not enough for the farmer to exist, nor is it enough for the soil to exist, nor is the seed alone sufficient. The elements must perform their roles within the same process. If one of the elements leaves its role, the process is disrupted.
Therefore, the male's departure from his role may in reality become a failure imposed upon the female as well, forcing her to leave her role. Whoever does not want to be in his own role does not, at the same time, want to see the other settled in theirs, because the other's existence within their role places before him judgments revealing that he himself is unsuitable for the process.
The same applies to the punished woman who wants to remove the man from his role. She does not want the man to occupy the center of his role, because his presence there places upon her judgments revealing the extent of her suitability for the process.
The False Union and the Alliance of the Punished
From here, the union between the punished man and the punished woman can be understood as a false union, similar to the union of people who are not brought together by love but by a lower interest: stealing something, destabilizing something, or igniting discord.
They may praise one another, and each may describe the other as liberated, enlightened, or peaceful, but this praise does not necessarily mean that genuine love exists. Rather, each may be reminding the other, even faintly, that they are mistaken.
The liberated female, when she sees the man, even if he is liberated like her, may see him as a reminder of her natural role, while the man sees the female as a reminder of his role. Therefore, the love and peace that appear between them may be merely superficial if what has been taken from masculinity and femininity is the form without the essence.
Here the difference between superficial love and essential love becomes apparent. Whoever truly loves does not say that love abolishes constraint, because the essence itself is commitment and adherence.
Essence Is Commitment
Someone may say: “If you truly loved me, you would not restrict me.” But the question is reversed here: What kind of relationship contains no commitment?
If there is genuine love, then there is loyalty, promise, covenant, and conditions. Whoever loves binds himself to the conditions that preserve the relationship, while whoever does not love does not want to bind himself.
Even in the simplest examples: if you are riding a bicycle or driving a car or flying an aircraft, you must adhere to your designated path. Failing to remain on your path may lead to destruction, and forcing others out of their paths leads to chaos, until no one is safe on their own path.
Thus, respecting one's own path becomes part of peace. The original man, according to this conception, does not walk on the opposite path, because the opposite path belongs to the female. He sanctifies privacy, and the fact that he possesses his own path makes him responsible for respecting paths that do not belong to him.
Privacy Is Not Aggression
A person who insists on his path and defends his boundaries may appear aggressive, narcissistic, or dark in the eyes of someone who does not understand the meaning of privacy. But defending what is private does not mean attacking others.
To say, “This is my path, this is something private to me, and I do not want anyone to enter it or force me out of it,” is not inherently aggression. Rather, attempting to force a person out of his path may itself be an assault on his privacy.
Strangely, someone who does not defend his own privacy may also want others not to defend theirs, because the other's defense of their boundaries makes him feel that his own failure to defend his boundaries was a mistake.
Therefore, accusing someone of arrogance or ego merely because he says, “I do not want to be like you,” is not enough to prove anything. If enlightenment can only be achieved by becoming a copy of you, then my refusal to become like you does not necessarily make me unenlightened; it simply means that I am holding on to my individuality.
Laws Are a Path to Safety
The idea can be brought closer through traffic laws. Why do traffic laws exist? To guarantee every driver a degree of safety simply by adhering to them.
If the laws tell you to go, your movement takes place within a system that guarantees your safety. If they tell you to stop, your stopping becomes part of the system. Whoever violates the law is the one at fault, not the one who follows it.
Therefore, the existence of laws is one of the greatest sources of safety in existence. A world without rules becomes a random and unjust world.
As for someone who drives randomly and then mocks a person traveling in his lane according to the law, calling him backward or outdated because he does not drive however he wishes, he is in reality trying to turn randomness into a rule.
If everyone drove this way, no one would be able to go onto the road safely—not the passenger, not the driver, not the cyclist, and not the pedestrian.
Therefore, respecting the privacy of every type, sex, and path does not abolish equality; rather, it recognizes difference. Not all paths are equal in their nature, not all vehicles are alike, people are not alike, and not every issue is suited to the same rule. Something may work in one situation and fail in dozens of others.
The Man's Privacy and His Responsibility for Himself
If a man is required to respect a woman's privacy, he must first respect his own privacy. A man who does not sanctify boundaries, who does not adhere, and who does not commit himself cannot demand that a woman understand the meaning of privacy.
Before a man asks a woman to see him as different from a female, he must himself be different and must not mix himself with women. If a man mixes himself with the female, the woman has the right to say: I see no difference between him and me, because he himself has created no difference.
Privacy begins with the person himself. A man who wants a woman to distinguish between him and herself must first have distinguished himself, sanctified his identity, boundaries, personality, and commitment.
Here the problem is not solely with the woman, because a man who does not apply what he demands cannot ask someone else to adhere to it.
Obedience Is Not Obedience to a Person, but Obedience to Truth
From here the issue of obedience appears. The point is not that a woman obeys a man simply because he is a man, nor that a man obeys a woman simply because she is a woman. The real question is: What is one obeying?
If there is a genuine principle, a useful law, and a wise judgment, then its holder should be the first to apply it before asking someone else to apply it.
If there were a genuine law, it would make no sense for its creator to say: I do not follow it because I am the one who created it. If a decision is wise, wisdom does not change according to whether the person implementing it is a man or a woman.
The issue, then, is not formal obedience to a person, but essential adherence to truth. A man who tells a woman, “Obey me,” or “Obey me because you were created to obey me,” without presenting a principle, wisdom, or truth worthy of being followed, is not asking for genuine obedience; he is asking for the form of obedience.
But when there is clear truth, the rational person follows it because it is truth, whether he is a man or a woman.
The Man Who Follows Women and the Difference Between Form and Essence
A man who follows women superficially is not necessarily a man who truly respects or loves women. He may simply be fascinated by appearance.
This superficial following can lead to an erosion of essence, because a man who abandons essence and follows appearance loses something of the perfection of his masculinity. The perfection of masculinity, according to this conception, lies not in following appearance, but in following essence.
Therefore, a man cannot demand that a woman follow essence while he himself does not follow it. A woman sees a man whom his peers neither respect nor value, and then he comes to demand that she respect and obey him, so she asks: Why?
Likewise, a man who does not adhere to what he says cannot demand adherence from a woman. If the man himself is not essential, how can he want the woman to follow an essence that he himself does not apply?
The Man Begins with Example
If a man wants to call for modesty, he must himself be modest. If modesty is truth, then he should begin with himself.
If a man says that nudity distracts the gaze and affects concentration, he must be the first to control his own gaze. The eye is in his head, and he is capable of lowering his gaze.
This does not mean removing responsibility from the woman; rather, it means that the sincerity of a call begins with the person making it. When is your call sincere? When you yourself are an example of what you call for.
If what you call for is truth, then apply it yourself, and do not make its truth dependent upon people following you. If others follow you, the good is multiplied; and if no one follows you, you have still taken the path of salvation and safety for yourself.
Here the meaning of the statement that some people say what they do not do becomes apparent. Whoever looks deeply does not settle for what is said, but looks at whether speech corresponds to action.
Judgment Is Not Superficial
True judgment is not merely formal judgment. If a person is described as corrupt or misguided, what is meant in this discussion is not merely his appearance, but the essence of his actions and position.
Therefore, one must distinguish between essential judgment and superficial judgment. The problem with superficial judgment is that it sees no further than appearance, whereas essential judgment searches for the truth standing behind appearance.
Likewise, corruption of rules and principles occurs when their purpose becomes merely satisfying appearance or reaching a lower objective. If the goal becomes following women or gaining their approval, the rules become secondary, and the principle becomes a servant of desire instead of desire being governed by principle.
To restore rules to their central position, the man must stop following the woman superficially and return to essence.
The Punished Man and the Punished Woman as Destroyers
A man who rebels against principles and rules is not a builder, but a destroyer. The punished man, in this conception, is destructive because he breaks covenants, and is a liar and hypocrite when he refuses to commit himself to what the structure is based upon, making pleasure, destruction, consumption, and ruin his objective.
The punished woman is likewise unsuitable for construction as long as she does not accept rules and principles and commit herself to them.
There is no construction without rules and principles. Therefore, the alliance between the punished man and the punished woman is an alliance for destruction, chaos, and discord, not an alliance for construction.
There is a vast difference between someone who builds something sound, from which corruption does not arise and upon which harm does not descend, and someone who destroys. The difference between them is like the difference between good and evil, between pain and blessing, and between affliction and blessing.
Whoever cannot see the difference between soundness and corruption will not be able to see the other distinctions, because he does not see the difference between blindness and sight, nor between truth and falsehood.
The Perfect Human and Following Truth
After this introduction, we can return to the Perfect Human.
It has been said that the Perfect Human is at the peak of servitude, meaning at the peak of following. According to this meaning, the Perfect Human follows truth both essentially and formally.
The Perfect Human is the good and complete example to be followed, not because he is an example in and of himself, but because he sees what others do not see, and preserves, protects, and remembers the truth that is hidden from people's eyes.
This truth is not absolutely absent; rather, it may be absent formally while being present essentially. The Perfect Human is shown what is hidden from others because he is bound to and follows truth in essence.
Whoever follows truth in essence is shown what is formally hidden from truth. There are things that may not appear in the world of manifestation now, yet they are present in essence, and their effects and signs appear in the end.
Just as an illness may exist before its symptoms appear, but when the symptoms appear, the existence of the illness becomes visible in the world of manifestation. The Perfect Human does not wait until the symptoms of suffering and corruption appear in order to know that he is walking on the wrong path. Rather, he anticipates the appearance of the signs and reveals what has not yet appeared of the signs of soundness and corruption.
This is what is meant by the hidden truth: it is not a nonexistent truth, but a truth that has not yet appeared in form.
The Punished Man Does Not Love the Man Who Loves Women
From this perspective, another issue can be understood: Why, in this age, is the man who loves women sometimes viewed as though his love for women were something bad?
Because the punished woman may work to make the man hate women. She does not love the man who loves women, because her objective is for the man to stop loving women.
Likewise, the punished man does not love the woman who loves the man, because he wants her to stop following the man and instead follow him. He says to her implicitly: Do not follow him; follow me. I will make you independent of the real one, and I will provide you with what makes you no longer need him.
From here, a relationship may appear to have attraction and love on the surface, while its essence is exactly the opposite. Some of these people may appear extremely attractive and ready for construction, while the reality within is different.
This explains how what we see can be the opposite of what actually exists: appearance may say one thing, while essence says another.
Natural Selection When Essence Is Absent
When the people of essence disappear, and there is no longer an essential belief in essence, choice turns into a random, superficial, and incidental state. This is natural selection when appearance becomes the basis of choice.
At that point, essential values disappear and essence fades, and mating and construction become based on superficial matters, until the human becomes lower than or similar to an animal in the manner of choosing.
Instead of choice being based on essence, the human becomes part of a competition in appearance: who displays more feathers, who appears more attractive, and who possesses a stronger appearance. The matter becomes similar to a peacock displaying its feathers in order to be chosen randomly.
When essence disappears, appearance becomes the ruler.
The Female as the Center of Appearance When the Creator Is Removed from the Equation
From here we can understand the discourse that makes the female the center of existence and choice. If we assume the absence of the Creator, creation, principles, values, and standards, then nothing remains except pure appearance.
Within pure appearance, the female becomes the center, because the matter turns into material, form, instinct, and incidental choice. If there is no Creator, there is no longer any meaning to truth and falsehood, no meaning to right and wrong, and no standard by which injustice can be judged or soundness and corruption evaluated.
Therefore, saying that the female is the origin or center may be structurally correct within a model that recognizes nothing except appearance, but it remains incomplete because it has forgotten the element of the Creator.
The Creator is what gives meaning to truth and falsehood, right and wrong, value, boundaries, and rules.
But if we remove the Creator, we remain before pure form without any genuine standard by which to judge it.
What Is Natural Is Not Always Good
From here comes the necessity of distinguishing between what is natural and what is unnatural.
Someone may say that a man is naturally submissive to a woman, and that a man who does not submit to her is unnatural. But the mere fact that something is natural does not necessarily make it good, just as the fact that something is unnatural does not necessarily make it bad.
A person may have a bad habit, and there may be a bad nature; therefore, going against the habit may be a good thing. If nature or habit is bad, then departing from it may be a transition from a bad nature to a good one.
Therefore, what is unnatural should be divided into what is above the norm and what is below the norm. Something unusual is not necessarily always bad; it may be good or it may be bad.
The Good Man Is Above Instinct
The good man, in this conception, is the man who is capable of rising above instinct, not the man who is governed by instinct.
A human being governed by his instincts and nature is controlled by them, whereas a human being who can control his instincts and nature rises above them.
Therefore, it is not permissible to generalize about men by saying, “A man is a liar,” or “Men are like this.” Generalization is invalid, because one man may lie once, another may lie more often, and a third may never lie at all.
The point, then, is not man in general, but the man who follows his instinct and does anything to reach it without resistance. Instinct does not recognize right and wrong, and if instinct is made the ruler, all paths become permissible for reaching its goal.
Therefore, the man who follows instinct is not necessarily the man who deserves to be followed. He is a man who submits to habit, while we are searching for a man who rises above habit, who is above habit and more elevated than habit.
Accepting Superficial Loss for Essential Gain
If a man wants to discipline his nature, he must be able to bear superficial loss.
The man who cannot bear superficial loss remains controlled by nature, while the one who can lose superficially in order to gain implicitly and essentially can discipline his nature.
A person may face two choices: to gain superficially and lose essentially, or to lose superficially and gain implicitly and essentially. The first choice, according to this logic, is a foolish choice, because superficial gain does not compensate for essential loss.
Therefore, freedom from illusory nature does not mean escaping existence; rather, it means being capable of refusing to worship or submit to a bad nature when that nature itself is an obstacle to perfection.
Educating the Man and Emerging from the Cocoon
The man, like the child, needs education that helps him distinguish, exercise discipline, and leave bad habits.
For this reason, the idea was previously raised that a child needs a different kind of education, and that after a certain stage he should be separated from some household habits so that he can learn independence, emerge from his cocoon, and become accustomed to enduring departure from his initial nature when that departure is guided by genuine direction.
Departing from nature is therefore not always a bad thing. It may be required when the nature or habit governing a person is bad.
The important thing is that the departure should not be random, but directed toward what is better.
Man and Woman Between Appearance and Essence
The fundamental problem, then, is not for a human being to be outward or inward, but to separate the two.
Formal adherence alone is not sufficient if the heart is empty of essence, because adherence without essence may be hypocrisy. But the presence of essence does not make form meaningless.
Saying that faith exists only in the heart can become a gateway to abandoning adherence altogether, whereas genuine faith, in this conception, appears inwardly and outwardly at the same time.
If you truly love something within yourself, what prevents you from showing the effect of that love outwardly? And if essence exists, why should formal adherence be a burden to you?
The heart is the foundation for knowing sincerity, but form can be a sign of what exists within. Therefore, formal adherence without essence is hypocrisy, while essence that rejects any visible effect requires the question: What prevents this essence from appearing?
Formal Adherence and the Importance of Details
Formal adherence is not a secondary matter. Clothing, eating, drinking, speech, and all details enter into the equation of perfection.
A person cannot say that some details have nothing to do with truth if everything is connected to creation. Everything has a relationship with truth through its relationship with creation.
The thing that loses its importance is the thing that becomes separated from the center. If you connect something to creation, it becomes important; if you separate it from the center, it becomes insignificant.
From here, the message from the Creator to the human being declares the importance of the human being to the Creator, and the importance of the Creator to the human being. The human being who separates himself from this relationship loses the meaning of his importance.
Therefore, small things should be viewed with a sense of importance, because a person who neglects the small may eventually neglect the great. A large structure is composed of forms, stones, walls, and small details, and whoever does not care about details may ultimately open the door to destabilizing the entire structure.
Formal Adherence as a Distinguishing Sign
What distinguishes the believer from the non-believer, according to this conception? Formal adherence can be a distinguishing sign.
If a person is formally adherent, this indicates that there is implicit adherence behind the form, or at least that faith has an outward effect. But if he completely rejects formal adherence, this does not necessarily mean that he is not a believer; rather, it raises a question about the nature of his faith.
A person who is convinced usually does not feel ashamed of showing what he believes. If he sees truth as truth, what prevents him from embracing it?
Therefore, formal adherence is important, while the heart remains the final criterion for knowing the reality of a person.
Honesty with Oneself and the Correspondence Between Inner and Outer
A sign of a person's sincerity is that his action corresponds to his speech, his speech corresponds to his action, and what exists within him corresponds to what appears from him.
If a person is sincere and people nevertheless do not follow him, the matter remains within its proper scope. He has done what was required of him; the response of others is their matter.
The problem begins when action contradicts speech, or appearance contradicts the inner reality.
If modesty is truth, let the one who calls for it begin with himself. If commitment is truth, let the one calling for it be the first to commit himself. If the principle is correct, its truth should not depend upon people's admiration of it or their following it.
Truth does not become truth because people follow it, nor does it become falsehood because people reject it.
The Perfect Human Is the Fully Corresponding Example
Here we return to the Perfect Human.
The Perfect Human is not perfect because he claims perfection, nor because he imposes himself as an example, but because he follows truth in essence and form. He does not wait for results, symptoms, and signs to appear before believing the truth; rather, he anticipates them because he follows truth in its essence.
He also does not create a separation between the inward and the outward. He does not say that the heart makes every form unnecessary, nor does he make form a substitute for the heart. Rather, he brings the two together.
The Perfect Human is the human being in whom inner truth unites with its outward form, and for whom commitment changes from a constraint he hates into a condition for blessing, from boundaries he fears into a path that preserves his existence, and from rules he sees as an obstacle into a foundation for construction.
Returning to the Meaning of Freedom
If, in the end, we return to the initial idea of freedom, we will find that freedom is not the elimination of every constraint.
The human being who wants to free himself from the ear in order to hear, from the eye in order to see, and from the conditions that grant him the blessing, is not moving toward a higher freedom, but toward nonexistence.
Existence itself is based on constraints. Blessing is based on conditions. Relationship is based on commitment. Construction is based on rules. Safety is based on law. Privacy is based on boundaries. Essence leaves its effect in form.
Therefore, true freedom is not to do everything without constraint, but to know which constraints preserve your existence, which constraints destroy you, which nature you should obey, and which nature you should transcend.
The human being who cannot distinguish between these things cannot see the difference between soundness and corruption, between truth and falsehood, between blindness and sight, or between blessing and suffering.
As for the Perfect Human, he is the one who distinguishes, follows truth, adheres to it in essence and form, and understands that the path to perfection is not through abolishing constraints, but through knowing the constraints upon which existence is founded, committing to them consciously, and departing only from the constraints and natures that prevent him from reaching truth.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment