In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

9 The Question of Ibn al-ʿArab¥’s “Influence” on R¨m¥ Over the past century, many people have suggested that R¨m¥ was a follower or disciple of Ibn al-ʿArab¥. This is largely due to the observations of the greatest Western authority on the Mathnaw¥, R. A. Nicholson, who maintained that R¨m¥ was influenced by him.1 Before clarifying my position on the issue, I want to engage in a bit of introspection and ask why we are interested in such problems in the first place. Scholars of an earlier generation seem to have felt that by saying “x influenced y,” they had explained something of profound importance. Today, many people have come to understand that this sort of approach is deftly designed to turn their attention away from all that was considered important within the historical and cultural context in question. For R¨m¥ and Ibn al-ʿArab¥, historical influence was simply irrelevant to what they were saying. Like other Muslim sages, they considered the divine as primary and the human and historical as lesser. The spirit or meaning (maʿnå) is the root and the source, while the body or form (ṣ¶ra) is the branch and the shadow. Whether metaphysically, cosmologically , or intellectually, the meaning of a doctrine takes precedence, while the forms it assumes are of secondary interest. Both R¨m¥ and Ibn al-ʿArab¥ repeatedly affirm that they have not taken the content of their teachings from any human being. Their “vision” is of central importance, not the sources from which they derived the various formal elements used to express it. For them, the vision was all. Divine self-disclosures are central, not peripheral. The transformative power of a R¨m¥ or an Ibn al-ʿArab¥ derives from an intimate experience of God, and this power is not to be taken lightly, since it instilled a vibrant love and life into much of Islamic culture from the seventh/thirteenth century down to recent times, and it still possesses enough strength to attract “modern” and even “postmodern” men and women to esoteric conferences. One cannot read these authors without standing in awe of their incredibly deep and profound mastery not only of the “roots of the roots of the roots of religion,” as R¨m¥ puts 89 90 / In Search of the Lost Heart it in his introduction to the Mathnaw¥, but the roots of everything that allows for a full flowering of the human condition. R¨m¥ speaks also for Ibn al-ʿArab¥ when he addresses his readers with the words: Having seen the form, you are unaware of the meaning. If you are wise, pick out the pearl from the shell!2 But our business as scholars is to trade in shells, not pearls. By definition, we miss the point. Once we understand that our research, from the perspective of the teachings of those we are studying, is off the mark, we can turn to the shells with perhaps a small amount of humility, knowing that the pearls will never be found through our trade. This does not mean that the shells should be denigrated. No matter how great the spiritual vision of a R¨m¥ or an Ibn al-ʿArab¥, it was expressed in shells, and on this level it is possible to speak about elements deriving from earlier sources and to draw certain conclusions about R¨m¥’s predecessors. Those who claim that R¨m¥ was influenced by Ibn al-ʿArab¥ or his immediate followers will have to prove their contentions through these formal elements. Henry Corbin remarks that “it would be quite superficial to dwell on the contrast between the two forms of spirituality cultivated by Mawlånå and Ibn ʿArab¥.”3 One agrees with Corbin that at the level of meaning, R¨m¥ and Ibn al-ʿArab¥ converge profoundly, since they both spoke on behalf of the Supreme Meaning. But one also agrees that Ibn al-ʿArab¥ and R¨m¥ represent “two forms of spirituality” which, as forms, are different. If one wants to talk about influence , this can be perceived only on the superficial level where forms influence forms, the same level where similarities and differences are perceived. No one can reach inside the hearts of R¨m¥ and Ibn al-ʿArab¥ except through the forms and imagery that they use to express their inward states. At the inward level, there may indeed be deep and profound connections between R¨m¥ and Ibn al-ʿArab¥, since both...

Share