مستان شطح‌گو یا هوشیاران خاموش؟ (دیدگاه‌های متفاوت مولوی و شمس درباره‌ شطح)

این گمان وجود دارد شمس و مولانا در همه‌ موضوعات عرفانی با هم اتفاق ‌نظر دارند، اما تامل در دیدگاه‌های آن‌ها نشان می‌دهد در بعضی از فروع دارای اختلاف ‌نظرند. یکی از محورهای متفاوت، آرای آن‌ها درباره‌ شطح و ابعاد مختلف آن است که چرایی این اختلاف ‌نظر و پاسخ بدان در رجحان سکر بر صحو باتوجه بر مشرب‌عرفانی هر عارف است. مولانا دیدگاهش با مشرب بایزید همخوانی دارد. برهمین ‌اساس، بی‌هوشی و بی‌خویشی شطّاح در مرتبه‌ سکر و حیرت نشانه‌ دین‌داری و اتحاد نورانی او با حق است که بی‌هیچ اختیار و حرکتی خاموش و حیران حق است تا حق از زبان وی برای ادای سخن استفاده کند. اما شمس مطابق با مشرب ‌عرفانی جُنید معتقد است، شطح یا سخنان بی‌تاویل و رسوا معنایی جز حلول، تکبر، عجز و تلوین ندارد و کسب معرفت‌الرب و حقیقت‌ دین در مرتبه‌ هوشیاری، ورای مراتب چهارگانه‌ مستی بنیان شده است. همچنین از یافته‌های نوین این پژوهش، کیفیت ارتباط جبر و اختیار با شطح از دیدگاه آنان است. در نگاه مولانا شطّاحان، جبارانی هستند که از سر اختیار از حق خواسته‌اند آن‌ها را بی‌اختیار و فانی در خود گرداند. در نتیجه، هیچ قول و فعلی را به خویش نسبت نداده و خدا را قائل و فاعل حقیقی تمام اعمال می‌دانند. اما از نظر شمس، اهل‌سکر چون تنها نمود لطف حقند از تسلط بر احوال، ثبات و اختیار هوشیاران بی‌بهره‌ و دچار جبر و ضلالت شده‌اند، لیکن هوشیاران، قَدَریانی هستند که به ‌سبب برخورداری از صفات لطف و قهر حق قادرند بر احوال خویش کاملاً مسلط و شایسته‌ مقام ولایت شوند؛ مقامی که صرفاً مختص اهل ‌صحو است.

the inebriated myth tellers or the sober observers? (molavi’s and shams’ different views about mystical state)

although it is supposed that molana and shams are in all consensuses, contemplation in their slants shows their disagreement in some subordination. one diverse is their slants about the mystical state and its different dimensions which causes this disagreement and its reply is because of the preference of mystical inebriation to observation by the mystical pattern of each mystic. molana’s slant is like bayazid. hence, the ecstasy of mystics in inebriation’s step is a symbol of being faithful and joining god, namely, a mystic with obligatory quiescent and motionless surprise god until god uses his tongue for a satisfying statement. but shams like junaid’s mystical pattern believes that a mystic state does not have any meaning but metempsychosis, arrogance, disability, and inconsistency, achieving god knowing the reality of religion in observation level, founded beyond quartet steps of inebriation. also, because of the new feelings of this research quality of the relation between obligation and authorization with a mystical state are their idea. in molana’s slant, mystics are despots who optionally asked god to make them compulsive and mortal in it. so, they did not accept any action and statement to themselves considering god the teller and also the doer of all deeds. but for shams mystics are inebriated because they are just symbols of god’s blessing, they have not achieved any dominance in states, stability, and observant authorization also they faced determinism plus misguidance, but, the observant are authorities who can dominate their states because of achieving traits of god’s wrath and kindness deserving to get a position of headship, typical for people of observantkeywords: mystical state, mystical inebriation and observation, mystical pattern, molavi, shams-e- tabrizi.introductionshath is a traditional way of expressing mystical concepts and findings, which have long been the subject of debate and controversy among mystics and they disagreed with each other in confirming or denying it; therefore, with each mystic, according to their mystical tradition and disposition, they may achieve value and credibility or may be discredited. rumi’s mystical disposition is connected with the first mystical tradition in the mystical principles and dealings, and in its branches, it is related to the mystical teachings of bayazid bastami, which today is better known as the mystical disposition or the school of khorasan. the indicators and criteria that were prevalent in bayezid’s teachings since the third century and distinguished his method from other mystical methods, were reflected in the evolved form in molavi’s opinions. shams’ mystical disposition also agrees with the mystics of the first tradition in explaining the principles of mysticism and in branches, in some positions, including shath, agrees with the views of junaid baghdadi. as a result, mystics such as shams and rumi, although they agree on the principles within the framework of a mystical tradition; but in branches, they differ from each other in the details of the epistemological method and the achievement of monotheism, with regard to their mystical source. the topic of shath, as it was said, is the way of expressing mystical topics, concepts, and findings, which is considered one of the main points of difference between the two mystics.