تجربۀ عرفانی در «موقعیّت های مرزی» و بازتاب آن در داستان طوطی و بازرگان

مثنوی معنوی مولانا، چنانکه از محتوای آن برمی آید و اطّلاعات تاریخی مربوط به قصد و غرض گویندۀ آن نیز مویّد آن است، متنی «تعلیمی» است و هر متن تعلیمی در درجۀ نخست، محصول اطّلاعات، دانش و تراوشات ذهنیِ فرد گوینده و نویسنده و در درجۀ دوم برآمده از «هوشیاری و آگاهیِ پیشینی» مولّف است. با وجود این، در مثنوی، همچون غزلیّات شمس که گویندۀ آن بیشتر در سیطرۀ ناهوشیاری و قرار گرفتن در کشف و شهودهای ناب عرفانی است، جلوه هایی از «تجارب و کشف و شهودهای عرفانی» را می توان سراغ گرفت؛ به‌عبارت‌دیگر، مولانا در پاره ای از تمثیلات مثنوی، با خلق موقعیّت هایی، شخصیّت های داستانی خود را در معرض «تجربه های عرفانی و کشف و شهود» قرار می دهد. موقعیّت هایی که این شخصیّت ها وارد تجربۀ عرفانی می شوند، بی شباهت با «موقعیّت های مرزی/حدّی» (boundary situation) مدّ نظر فلاسفۀ اگزیستانسیالیست نیست. به نظر فلاسفۀ مذکور، آدمی در موقعیّت های خاصّی مستعدّ ایجاد تحوّل بنیادین در وجود خویش و استعلا یافتگی است. این موقعیّت ها می توانند در اثر بحران های روحی و روانی، عجز و ناتوانی اساسی، مواجهه با پرسش های لاینحل، برخورد با افرادی شگفت، فربه شدگی بیش‌ازحد در یک وضعیّت معرفتی و عوامل دیگر به وجود آیند. داستان طوطی و بازرگانِ مثنوی، یکی از تمثیلات پیچیدۀ عرفانی است. در این داستان، یکی از قهرمانان اصلی آن، یعنی بازرگان، بعد از مواجهه با «مرگ تصنّعی» طوطی خود و از دست دادن آن، به‌عنوان بزرگ‌ ترین تعلّق ذهنی خود، در موقعیّت مرزی قرار می گیرد و همین موقعیّت او را برای ورود به عالم تجارب عرفانی مهیّا می کند. بازرگان، ضمن از سر گذراندن تجربۀ عرفانی دچار استحالۀ شخصیّتی (تولّد مجدّد) و استعلای شخصیّتی می شود. در خوانشی دیگر، بازرگانِ این تمثیل، بازنمودِ بخشی از وجودِ مولانا و منعکس کنندۀ تجارب عرفانی خود اوست که در مواجهه با شمس تبریزی، دچار تحوّل و استعلای شخصیّتی شده است. به این دلیل، در قسمتی از داستان، مولانا (راوی) با شخصیّت داستانی خود (بازرگان) چنان در هم ادغام می شوند که به نفس واحدی تبدیل می شوند.

Mystical Experience in Boundary Situations and Reflections on Parrot and Bazargan Tale

Extended Abstract;;Introduction;;Khaleghi Motlagh is one of the last scholars of with the expertise of knowing texts and Shahnameh correction. He has edited and published Shahnameh in a critical scientific manner. The basis of his work is that the editor first reviews and evaluates all or a large part of the manuscripts and determines its independence or kinship and grouping, then chooses the most valid ones and puts one which is known as the oldest and the most correct ones as the basis of the text, and records the manuscript differences accurately and scientifically at the footnotes or in a separate volume, but unlike the method in which the editor have to be loyal and faithful to the original text in composing, he does not make himself to follow the main text. Rather, he evaluates the recordings in terms of their degree of authenticity (selection) and among them he chooses the right or more accurate recording on some more difficult recording criteria (Lectio difficilior) and takes it from any copy to the text; while in cases where all versions are corrupt, he makes a deductive correction. These three steps in the scientificcritical method of text correction are called Rezension, Examination, Konjektur.;After reviewing fortyfive manuscripts of Shahnameh, Khaleghi Motlagh, selected fifteen manuscripts for his correction among which he made Florence’s copy (1217 AD) as the oldest and the most correct volume and as the base of his work. Other copies including the London (1276 AD), Istanbul (1331 AD), Leningrad (1333 AD), Cairo (1340 AD), Cairo (1394 AD), Leiden (1436 AD), Paris (1440 AD), the Vatican (1444 AD), Oxford (1448 AD), Britain (1486 AD) and Berlin (1489 AD) copies were determined as the original manuscripts; while the London (1437 AD), Leningrad (1445 AD) and Istanbul (1498 AD) manuscripts have been introduced as nonoriginal ones.;Despite many corrections in which only the difference of recordings (negative way) are presented at the footnotes (negative method) Khaleghi Motlagh recorded the differences at the endnotes of his work (positive method) Accordingly, in addition to the discrepancies of the manuscripts, he has also presented the similarities and homologies of the recordings at the footnotes.;This article attempts to critically study Khaleghi Motlagh’s criticalscientific correction method in order to find the level of his loyalty to the wellaccepted principles of criticalscientific correction method and to offer some suggestions for improving the correction and refinement of the text.;;Method;;In this study, the beginning verses of Shahnameh, as corrected by Khaleghi Motlagh, are evaluated in two parts based on the principles of scientificcritical correction and the images of the recordings. The first section deals with the direct relationship between the text and the footnotes. Then, the second part discusses the shortcomings and extensions of the text. Finally, the article will end with some suggestions to improve the texts;;Results and Discussion;;Based on Khaleghi Motlagh’s correction, the number of verses at the beginning of the book (from the beginning to the start of the Kioomars story), which he named preface, are 209 verses. We contrasted the text with fifteen versions used in the correction and find a difference. That is, the recording different copies (footnotes) of this section from pages 318 of the first volume that cover the edited text. In this regard, 81 handwriting malfunctions or negligence in recording different versions (out of 479 footnotes) can be seen. Add to this list the 24 unreported items (based on original manuscripts) which have been left unanswered. This section discusses such cases that make a fundamental change in the context of Shahnameh, including controversial verses besides the editor’s method of correction. There are also cases being discussed in which the editor has intertwined some manuscripts and created new recordings.;The editor has counted a number of verses adjuncts for reasons such as the existence of Arabic words or not being in the original version (Florence) and driven them as footnotes. Based on the textual evidence of different versions of Shahnameh, in this study, the authenticity or non authenticity of these verses has been discussed, and it has been concluded that mere Arabic words or external references (relatively simultaneous works) cannot be conclusively related to the adjunct verse or verses.; In his correction for various parts of Shahnameh the editor has chosen titles that cannot be found in any of the manuscripts .These titles are the result of a mix of recordings of various versions that have resulted in producing new copies and have led to more confusion. In this section, we have illustrated such things and noted its damage to textual work.;;Conclusion;;Khaleghi Motlagh’s attempt to identify the Shahnameh manuscripts and his attempts to correct those manuscripts in a scientificcritical method is undoubtedly an important step towards the advancement of textual studies on Shahnameh, which has unique complexities qualitatively and/or quantitatively. Failure to adhere to the manuscripts of the work, failure to show the different versions of the text, using eclecticism, and referring to sources outside the text of Shahnameh necessitates a critical approach to Khaleghi Motlagh’s correction.;Based on the presented textual evidences and analyses, this article argues that Khaleghi Motlagh’s correction cannot be a complete example of a scientificcritical correction that adheres to all definitions and methods. Moreover, it cannot be considered as a work that makes the readers needless to refer to the original manuscript.;Finally, examining the beginning verses of Shahnameh with regard to our proposed suggestions for a better modification of the text, it seems that a new critical approach to the mere scientificcritical correction of Shahnameh is necessary and inevitable.;It has been discussed and concluded that mere Arabic words or external references (works at the same time as Shahnameh) cannot be conclusively related to the adjunct verse or verses.;In his correction for various parts of Shahnameh the editor has chosen titles that cannot be found in any of the manuscripts .These titles are the result of a mix of recordings of various versions that have resulted in producing new copies and have led to more confusion. In this section, we have illustrated such things and noted its damage to textual work.;Khaleghi Motlagh’s attempt to identify the manuscripts of Shahnameh and begin to correct them with a scientificcritical method is an important step towards the advancement of textual studies on Shahnameh, which has in the terms of quality and quantity unique complexities. Failure to adhere to the manuscripts of the work, failure to show the different versions of the text, using eclecticism and referring to sources outside the text of Shahnameh necessitates a critical approach to Khaleghi Motlagh’s correction.;This article, based on the textual evidence and analysis presented, argues that Khaleghi Motlagh’s correction cannot be a complete example of a scientificcritical correction that adheres to all definitions and methods and it cannot be consider that his audience has no need to refer to the original manuscript. Also by examining and analyzing the verses at the beginning of Shahnameh, while presenting our suggestions for a better modification of the text, it shows the necessity of a critical look at the only scientificcritical correction of Shahnameh.