Author: Can Güralp

Ayn Rand Felsefesi: Objektivizm ve Göresizlik

/ Can Güralp / Leave a comment

Ayn Rand’ın Objektivizm felsefesi, bireyin akılcı çıkarını ahlakın temeli olarak görür. Rand’a göre gerçeklik, bilinçten bağımsız olarak vardır (Varoluş bilince önce gelir). Akıl, insanın tek bilgi edinme aracıdır. Bireyin mutluluğu, yaşamın ahlaki amacıdır.

TI çerçevesinden bakıldığında, Objektivizm’in “varoluş bilince önce gelir” ilkesi, Göresizlik’in Olu kavramıyla ilginç bir gerilim içindedir. Rand için varoluş göreli bir zemin üzerinde kuruluyken, TI’de Olu hiçbir kategoriye — “var” dahil — indirgenemez. Rand’ın bireyciliği ise KendiBiz’in ontolojik “Biz”iyle keskin bir karşıtlık oluşturur.

Bu fark, yüzeysel bir görüş ayrılığı değildir. Rand’ın “ben” merkezli etiği, ben-öncülü güçlendirirken; TI’nin teslimiyetli ahlakı “ben/benim/bana” dilinden “Biz” diline geçişi hedefler.

Enlightenment and liberation

/ Can Güralp / Leave a comment

Who we are, what we know and also believe are at the center of our actions. Knowledge and belief are almost always about our experiences; they form the medium—the mind—that defines the nature of our relationships with other people and the environment we find ourselves in.
When 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. Those acquisitions that (about which) we continuously rely on are relative to us as we are in the moment and what we already know and believe in he past.

It is illuminating to enter the state of freedom from the mind’s symbolically characterized and filtered relativistic reality; This state perfectly reveals the “true” nature (“the Truth”) of our and everyone else’s (ontological) being. This outcome is Enlightenment.

Hz. Jesus said (John 8:32) “…and ye shall know the Truth, and The Truth shall make you free.” The “directly experienced” knowledge of the Truth (without any mediation) is to the ultimate degree unifying since the experiencing person feels the ground of be-ing on which all stand and share immediately, including their self (with Grace).

The concern on some people’s part about the thrill aspect sought in enlightenment is valid. However, any seeking is a mediated act that will, by definition, keep one distant from the unmediated purity needed for illumination. Seeking intended for an end (or means to justify an end) is of such nature that is unfit for the pure Nature of Be-ing (God) to be acquired. 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 (page 92 of my book “The Unrelative Truth”) to demonstrate how unseeking process for seeing the 3D picture in the 2D pattern is necessary.

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 (while playing the “thrill” game). It takes a living with the goodness Sean Doyle suggested, 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 relation to the quote “If you think you understand God/Tao/Brahman, you don’t understand,” I found the need (featured in the book) for a new word: “instanding.” It replaces understanding (of cognition) when it comes to directly experienced form of “unmediated” knowledge acquisition specific to the spiritual realm of be-ing. Instanding has zero aboutness.
Thank you.
Love and peace.

🛠️ YAPIM AŞAMASINDA

/ Can Güralp / Leave a comment

Göresizlik sitesine hoş geldiniz.

Bu kategori şu anda yapım aşamasındadır. Yeni yazılar, kavramsal açıklamalar ve metafizik notlar hazırlanıyor. Çerçeve tamamlandı — kategoriler, kavramlar ve yapı kuruldu — içerik yakında burada yer alacak.

Lütfen daha sonra tekrar ziyaret edin.
Yeni içerikler hazırlanmaktadır.

Empati ve Müştereken İçleme

/ Can Güralp / Leave a comment

The Unrelative Truth ve KendiBiz kitaplarımızda müştereken içleme olayını ruhani bağlamda anlattık. İlahiyat için en önde duran bu kavram iç içelik vasıtasıyla ikilemi yok etmektedir. A ve B müştereken içledikleri veya içlendikleri zaman A+B yerine A’nın içinde B ve aynı anda B’nin içinde A durumu doğmaktadır. Sembolik olarak bu düstur şöyle ifade edilebilir:

Görülecek şudur ki, iç içelik toplama işleminden çok farklıdır. Toplama işleminde A ve B kimliklerini (ayrılıklarını) muhafaza ederler. Müştereken içlemede ise birlenmişlik kimlikleri önemsemez; bu iç içelik ortamında, anlayışta, bilinçte, görüşte bütünlük hakimdir.

Dolayısıyla iki şeyin birbirlerini müştereken içlemesiyle ayrılıklarını silmiş olurlar. Bu hakikatle  ben, sen o ayrılığı yoktur çünkü esas odak nokta birleyen ilkenin başarısıdır. İzlememizi birlik halinden başlatarak geriye doğru gidersek birliğin ancak müştereken içlenmiş şeylerle mümkün olabileceğini görebiliriz. Ruhani bağlamda  evrensel bir kuram olan müştereken içleme işlevini zihnî‑pisikolojik, vicdanî‑duygusal konularda da insan yapısında teşhis etmemiz mümkündür. Örneğin, empati konusunda yerleşik işlev iç içeliktir. Müştereken içleme empatinin doğal yapısında mevcuttur; bir bütünlük olgusu yaratır.

Empatinin tarifi hep kendimizi “başkalarının” yerine koymaktan söz ederek yapılır. Ancak bu eksiktir ve hikayenin yarısıdır.  Kendimize de empati mümkündür ve olmalıdır da. Kendimizi kendimizin yerine konmuş şekilde deneyimlediğimiz zaman öyleliğimizi (içerden) görüp öylece eksiklerimiz ve tamlıklarımız olduğunu görebiliriz. Bu duyarlılık sayesinde bilmekle ve rızanın ötesinde teslim olmakla empatinin ne olduğu öğrenilecektir. Giderek, empati sayesinde müştereken içleme yeteneğimiz güçlenecektir.

Empati aynı zamanda, saygının bir sonraki basamağıdır. Kendine saygı duyan kişi ancak karşısındakini de aynı hisle okuyup saygılı davranabilir. Yani yeteneklerimiz kişisel deneyimlerle oluştuğu için herşey bizimle başlayacak ve niyetlediğimiz etkiyle neticelenecektir.

Kendimize değer vermek ise ruhani bağlamda kutsallığımızın bilincinde olmakla mümkündür. Kendisini kutsal bilen karşısındakini de kutsal görecektir çünkü o anlayışa varmak için geçtiği yollarda edindiği talim terbiye ona başkalarına eşitlik tanımayı öğretmiştir. Hayy’ın bağışı eşit dağıtıldığından bu böyledir.

Müştereken içleme aynı zamanda samimiyetin temelidir. Hareket ve tavırlarımızdaki samimiyet diğer bir insanı değerli olarak içlemiş olduğumuza bağlıdır. Mümkünse onların da bilmukabele taktir ve duyarlılıkları bütünlüğü pekiştirecektir.

Uygulama yönünde bir gerekçe, empati, saygı, değer ve güven gibi ilkelerin başkalarına uygulanması öncesinde kendimizin bu ilkeleri deneyip ne olduklarını ilk elden bilmiş olmamızdır, çünkü müştereken vukuu bulacak bir hadise iki yönde aynı anda gerçekleşecektir. O anda bilincimiz dahilinde içlemeye yanaşmaya hazır olunmalıdır. Aksi taktirde doğruluğu başkalarına anında uygulayarak adil olabilme zorluğu çekilecektir.

Neticede dönüp dolaşıp hepten tek bir yere varıyoruz: Temelinde adalet yatan bir hayat içindeyiz. Adil olabilmek için empati ve müşterek içleme spiritüel yaşantıda uygulanması beklenen esaslardandır.

“Ben” Hakikati

/ Can Güralp / Leave a comment

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

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

 Bu çok kıymetli 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 (olunum) bilimi (ontoloji) kişiyi herhangi bir yönde dinȋ aydınlığa kavuşturabilirmi?
  • 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) İlahȋ Oluluğa (“isness”) nasıl eriştirir?
  • Üç “birlik eşdeğerliği” nin anlamları nelerdir? [2]
  • “Müştereken içleme” (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 göresiz (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

Submission (“islam”) and Detachment

/ Can Güralp / Leave a comment

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

Instanding and Enlightenment

/ Can Güralp / Leave a comment

Who we are, what we know and believe are at the center of our actions. Knowledge and belief are 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 a 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).

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 to replace “to understand” (of cognition) when the context is God. This new verb is “to instand.” It is how one acquires knowledge unique to the spiritual realm of pure Be–ing, 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 is immediacy with zero aboutness.

Theology

/ Can Güralp / Leave a comment

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

Refining the theosophical language

/ Can Güralp / Leave a comment

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.”