Hz. Yunus Emre (1240–1321) Vahdet-i Vücud’u anlatmak için şöyle dedi:

“…bir Ben vardır bende, benden içeri.”[1]

  Çok kıymetli bu mistik söylemin derinliklerinde The Unrelative Truth kitabının ele aldığı ve cevabını önerdiği bazı soruları sunuyorum.

  • Her an içinde bulunduğumuz ve içimizde olan İlahȋ “Ben” hakikati nasıl bir şeydir?
  • Bu hakikate nasıl erişilir? Veya şuurunda olunur?
  • Dinȋ kitapların vahy kısımlarının ve mistik yazıların tefsirinde açıklık nasıl güvenilirlikle sağlanır?
  • Bu güvenirlilik nereden gelebilir?
  • Vahy olunan bilgilerin hayatımızdaki yeri/işlevi ne olmalıdır?
  • Varlık bilimi (ontoloji) kişiyi herhangi bir yönde dinȋ aydınlığa kavuştururmu?
  • Oluluk, var oluş ve varlanış terimleri arasındaki etimolojik farklar nelerdir?
  • Türkçemizde din dilinin inceltilmesi veya saflaştırılması ihtiyacı varmıdır?
  • Bugün kulandığımız dilin manevi yaşantımızdaki olumsuz etkileri nelerdir?
  • İlahȋ bağlamda, kurtuluş (liberation), aydınlanma (Enlightenment), uyanış (awakening) ne demektir?
  • “Deneyüstülük” (transcendence) ilahȋ Oluluğa (“isness”) nasıl eriştirir?
  • Üç “birlik eşdeğerliği”’nin anlamları nelerdir? [2]
  • “Müştereken içeriş”  (mutually inclusive) operatörü kutsal bir hassadır; nasıl uygulanır?
  • Dinȋ aydınlığa engel zihinsel öğeler nelerdir? Bu engeller nasıl ortadan kaldırılır?
  • Dinȋ inanç ve bilgelik arasındaki ruhani boşluk nasıl kapatılır?
  • “İlahȋ Sahiplenişlik” (divine Ownership) ve vahy/ilahȋ-ilham arasındaki bağın niteliği nedir?
  • İnsan halinin iki yüzünden biri olan görecesiz (unrelative) insan hali ne demektir?
  • “Sahiplenişlik Pusulası”’nın yaşantımızdaki dinȋ kılavuzluğu nasıl gerçekleştirilir?
  • İnsan/İlah bağıntısının yaşamdaki adalet ve sadakat etkisi nasıl belirir?
  • Dinȋ yaşantıda doğruluk ve yanlışlık kaynakları nelerdir?
  • “Tanrı varmıdır?” suali geçerlimidir? İspatı olabilirmi?
  • Din nasıl ve neden ortaya çıkmıştır?
  • Dinler arası farklılıkların yok olacağı nokta neresidir? Dinlerdeki ortak nokta nedir?
  • Dinler arası birlik mümkünmüdür?
  • Dinler arası diyalog esasen nerede başlamalıdır?
  • Din-bazlı çelişkilerin ve doğan çatışmaların menşeği (kökeni) nedir?
  • Günümüzde dinin politikaya uygulanışı yanlışları nereden kaynaklanır?
  • Görecesizlik devlet yönetiminde nasıl fayda ve katkı sağlar?

 

[1] (Fuat, Yunus Emre: Yaşamı, Sanatçı kişiliği, Yapıtları, 1979), 94

[2] (Güralp, The Unrelative Truth, 2016), 176

Detachment is another name for submission which Hz. Eckhart (1260–1327), a German Dominican monk, uses extensively. Detachment is a virtue one should not think is of the uncaring, unfeeling or disregarding kind. On the contrary, it is the concerned total ownership of the truth with no relative‑component to one’s position on any matter that can interfere with the definition and formulation of the reality for truth sake. In this process, all is as “is” as though the observer, and the judge’s person is absent, with what J. Krishnamurti considers choiceless awareness[1] to see (acquire) how and what truth is present. This attitude to relieve our preferences from the process we have named fidelity in the book “The Unrelative Truth”[2]. Fidelity enables one not to distort, alter or corrupt the pure reality of “is.”

What is spoken by detachment is total immersion into the reality demanding (perfect) fidelity for the thing in itself—OwnSelf—as the divine Reality always warrants.

Take notice of Hz. Ibn ‘Arabī’s caution:

“For the seeing of a thing, itself by itself, is not the same as its seeing itself in another, as it were in a mirror; for it appears to itself in a form that is invested by the location of the vision by that which would only appear to it given the existence of the location and its [the location’s] self‑disclosure to it.”[3]

In other words, submission is the means to end relativity. Submissive‑mean causes a critical juncture where possible misunderstanding or contradiction is avoided. Submitting is not a negative thing since the powers of attention are fully concentrated on the submitted-to other. If the aim is to receive reality—at the ultimate truth level—what is facing us in our existence, then “choiceless awareness” is mandatory by giving up the power of will to choose to exclude what we deem deserves no attention.

Submissive objectivity is a virtue for any judge in order to not be swayed by extraneous influences pulling and pushing in dissonance for ways out of order. The order of objectivity for justice sake is the act of being open to the reality one encounters that warrants holistic surrender asking us to see it as it really is without seeking to dismember and divide. Such surrender gives freedom to allow justice to reign by side stepping our subjectivity, foregoes bias, partiality, as we apply the discipline of our intellectual powers while observing for purity. Bertrand Russell approached submission in the following way when he wrote:

“The submission which religion inculcates in action is essentially the same in spirit as that which science teaches in thought; and the ethical neutrality by which its victories have been achieved is the outcome of that submission.”[4]

The detachment, by “neutrality,” that is always in play in science, aims to not exclude for the virtue of understanding the unity essence of all things. Justice for happiness in human life is only possible by travelling on the path that ensures the will of divine Ownership for Oneness sake. This is the submission—islam—that guides through the Qur’an.

 

 

[1] (Krishnamurti, The First and Last Freedom, 1954), 96

[2]  (Güralp, The Unrelative Truth, 2016), 106

[3] (Al-Arabī, The Bezels of Wisdom, 1980), 50

[4] (Russell, Mysticism and Logic, 1957), 30

Who we are, what we know and believe are at the center of our actions. Knowledge and belief are in majority of the time about our experiences, and form the medium—the mind—that defines the nature of our relationships with other people and the environment we find ourselves in.

When the indirection of aboutness ceases, the direct experience of reality happens. This point in human life is liberation from the skewed and biased aspects of one’s self-consciousness since anything about anything is according to our take, which are the acquisitions, mindful or not, that we continuously rely on.

The state of freedom (“detachment”) from the mind’s relativistic reality—symbolically characterized and filtered—is illuminating; revealing the “true” nature (“the Truth”) of our and everyone else’s (ontological) being. This is Enlightenment.

“…and ye shall know the Truth, and The Truth shall make you free.” (Hz. Jesus)

The “directly experienced” knowledge of the Truth (without any mediation) is to the ultimate degree unifying since the experiencer feels the ground of be-ing on which all stand and share immediately, including their self (with Grace).

The worry by some about the thrill seeking for enlightenment is valid. However, any seeking is a mediated act that will, by definition, keep one distant from the unmediated purity required for illumination. Seeking intended for an end (or means to justify an end) is of such nature that is unfit for attaining the pure Nature of Be-ing (God). In other words, there is mismatch between the way of getting something and that something needing its own way of being received. I presented the SIRDS as an example on page 92 of my book “The Unrelative Truth” to demonstrate how unseeking process for seeing the 3D picture in the 2D pattern is essential.

The path to purity is through empathy and compassion, kindness and fidelity, justice and objectivity. It is no simple easy task to gain those virtues (especially while playing the “thrill” game). It takes an honest living with the goodness suggested by psychologist Sean Doyle[1] in the way: “Its expression would be seen when bringing the best out of loved ones and strangers and friends, when helping them reveal themselves as miraculous and holy.”

In the aftermath of appreciating Saint Augustine’s words, “God is not what you imagine or what you think you understand. If you understand you have failed,” there is an emerging need for a new verb[2]  to replace “to understand” (of cognition) when the context is God. This new verb  is “to instand.” It is how one acquires knowledge specific to the spiritual realm of pure Being, where the “unmediated” hence directly experienced form of knowledge is with authenticity. There, the knowledge “about God” is unsatisfactory.

Understanding is all about aboutness while instanding has zero aboutness.

Let us ponder on that further.
Love and peace.

[1] http://www.johnseandoyle.com/enlightenment-and-connection/

[2] (The Unrelative Truth, Güralp, 2016), 116

In what aspect of one’s life is theology of significance? To what extent would one like to know more, to view the future through the prism of a liberating paradigm to not waste precious time while chasing fantastical premises, to not be mis-takingly-led by what one thinks salvation or enlightenment is (about)? True theology inquiries into the elimination of indirection, that mediating vectoring, which selectively and on purpose points one’s intelligence away from the center of one’s being purely as “is.” Justified theology, by gently pulling our consciousness toward harmony, wants to gain us the steady equilibrium in tranquility, by enabling the perfect inclusive disposition of mutuality in order to coincide the mundane relative and  the divine Unrelative aspects of life.

What is the nature of reconciling theology that would concretely brighten my this‑time‑around‑life that strives to gain freedom to track God’s Will? Is controlling my destiny within my reach, having evolved as a member of human type with conscious abilities to self-abstract? Self‑awareness by knowing who I am ontologically can deliver the empowering implements to breech the high walls of institutional religious bondage whilst grasping for incarcerating irrational aboutness[1] Would one be better off living a spiritual authentic life when it does not rely on aboutness? What if one can realize the plot of this life’s story and move past the difference between “about God” and “God OwnSelf?” Between “God’s existence” as a falsity and “God’s isness” as the indisputable Truth?

I am sorry to say: Authenticity is so absent from lives of persons who cannot see beyond the bounds of corporeal reality set by physical birth and death, even while everyone is grounded on a beginning without time. Authenticity ought to make one feel the terrain of no‑birth so one would perpetually appreciate the no‑death of God Presence. Divine Truth is universally valid and in play holistically that imbues the variants of particularity, manifesting as you and me. We should expect theology to dispel the secrecy beneath the divine Ground shared by be‑ing.

[1] (The Unrelative Truth, Güralp, 2016), 231

The effort to refine the theosophical language creates a unique opportunity for exploring how transcendence is possible to fully appreciate spirituality and the role of religion. Spoken refinement in the book “The Unrelative Truth” comes in the form of corrections and extensions while relying on introduced new words such as unrelative, instanding and metaverse.

The book is very unique in its approach by taking a path without disregarding the very rich and colorful past of human religiosity. In fact it draws on them to unite religious understanding at each one’s apex for the much needed unity/togetherness in our world that is of much short supply these days. The rampant extremism and harmful kinds of false fundamentalism signal the spiritual demise in the arena of inter‑ and inra‑faith relationships in need of urgent correction and consilience.

The book explores refining in three directions. The present for the individual’s theological understanding is shown to be perennially grounded on the revelations of the past (through diverse means offered by religious and wisdom traditions), while the future awaits for the individual’s chosen way of living a pious life if it entails the right kind of ownership that is mutually inclusive for every encounter with the world. The personal journey on a psychic map of all presences for an individual creates a new approach to augmenting religious life.

“Living‑religion” should be made the key to spirituality supported by a healthy psychology tracked by a tool such as the featured one in the book: the Compass of Ownership. Immediate interpretation of one’s spiritual involvement through owning and being own‑ed becomes the proper medium for self‑learning while positively encouraging solitary venture on a path with self‑direction toward salvation (“Know Thyself”) for liberating one’s core Reality for the sake of enlightenment (“kurtuluş”).

In the words of Hz. Yunus Emre “The one Me with me, is inner than me” (“Bir Ben vardır bende benden içeri”) becomes the destination for oneness. Oneness state on the Compass is marked as the highest attainment sought by contemplative meditation. How to arrive here—within—becomes the story of our spiritual travels. The book specifically expounds on the origin of religions and claims it to be this religious experience of “Me” within “me.”

God neither exists nor does not exist. God is. God’s Nature (divinity) is ingrained in the “God is” sentence which, at first sight, appears incomplete. Can one claim “God is” is a minor blunder in speech, just like “God exists” is?

“God is” is the proper expression in the spirit of what theologian Paul Tillich (1886–1965) said according to English philosopher of religion John Hick’s (1922–2012) reference: “Thus the question of the existence of God can be neither asked nor answered. If asked, it is a question about that which by its very nature is above existence, and therefore the answer—whether negative or affirmative—implicitly denies the nature of God.”[1] The ramification of realizing the esoteric significance of the “God is” sentence will allow one to take a mystical journey to a spiritual locale where knowing God’s Truth is the ultimate prize.

This “knowing” provides the key to the door leading to deeper metaphysical chambers of religion’s space, where the Truth of God‑is‑ness awaits our selfless consciousness. The Truth identified as “isness” is the nature for God Reality. Innate to God’s Selfhood, “aseity,”[2] oneness will be explained by the unrelativity of God’s isness. To benefit us on the road to knowing God Reality, the Truth gives meaning to true religion that is based on religious experience realitizing unrelativity.

[1] (Hick The Existence of God 1964), 2

[2] Ibid., 81

One of the reasons I was led to write The Unrelative Truth is to bring lucidity to the point still being wavered on—the topic of God’s existence. God existing, or God not existing, brings to mind what an oxymoron is and does. It provides me with a comparable sensation similar to when encountering the words “square circle,” as in the term “squaring a circle.” I know there are square things, and circles are round, but how those words are seen fit for each other creates a quandary. On what ground can I justify the idea of a “square circle” except when explaining an oxymoron?

A book which addresses the “existence of God”—The God Delusion[1]—is a good example of how confused contexts can get in the way of a rational mind, giving rise to justifications for atheism. In essence, while chasing after an invalid premise, the book itself becomes an oxymoron—there is defect and flaw in thought that pushes aside the context of actuality, causing a delusional understanding of God Reality. Huston Smith[2] comments on the “literal” reading of scriptures and how such a practice could be deemed delusional—as would be a lie if taken at face value.

Taking the holy writings at face value, without going deeper and further metaphysically, is a universal problem for religious understanding. The notion of existence mistakenly applied to God is such a derivative of the prevalent literality problem.

To begin with, my humble position on the main “Does God exist?” investigation is that we are asking an invalid question. Therefore, a yes or a no answer is not warranted. At a minimum, even the fact that the question can be posed as if it has religious relevance or scientific significance demonstrates perplexity. It is a reflection of confusion, as Francis Bacon (1561–1626) identified[3], on how we have managed to mix up our contexts of discourse belonging to different worlds of experience.

[1] (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion 2008)

[2] (Huston Smith, The Soul of Christianity 2005), 25

[3] (Edward O. Wilson, Consilience  1998), 9

How will you feel when, having been found worthy, you are graced to see divine Beauty with God’s Eye? When you discover you are of God’s divine Fabric and not separate from God’s Selfhood, yet were temporarily unaware? How will the answers to these inquiries contribute to your life?

The role of knowing and owning the Truth is liberating when it is without the mediation of conditioning beliefs. The book The Unrelative Truth explains how the obstacle of mediation can be overcome for the salvific Truth to be experienced directly and seen divinely as God “is.” The author asserts thatisness is the numinous unrelative nature of divinity. Isness is also the enigmatic aspect of human condition—the station of “sonship.”

To become worthy spiritual owners, the book introduces a theory of mutuality around a construct named the Compass of Ownership. The Compass transforms uniquely for each individual, helpful in charting their awakening pathway toward divine Ownership. The reader will realize that Enlightenment arrives while living with right kind of selfless ownership.

Isn’t it high time to remember why we are?