A discerning man questioned one of the indifferent, whom he saw to be very foolish and thoughtless, saying, Hast thou ever seen saffron, or hast thou only heard the name? He said, I have it by me, and have eaten a good deal of it, not once only, but a hundred times and more. Said the wise and discerning man to him, Bravo, wretch! Well done, my friend! Thou knowest not that there is a bulb as well! How long wilt thou wag thy beard in thy folly?
He who knows not his own soul, how shall he know the soul of another? and he who only knows hand and foot, how shall he know the Godhead? The prophets are unequal to understanding this matter; why dost thou foolishly claim to do so? When thou hast brought forward a demonstration of this subject, then thou wilt know the pure essence of the faith; otherwise what have faith and thou in common? thou hadst best be silent, and speak not folly. The learned talk nonsense all; for true religion is not woven about the feet of everyone.
Notes
From: Enclosed Garden Of Truth
Edited and translated by J. Stephenson in 1910
Leave a guest comment (subject to review)
Comments
-
In this part: 'Hast thou ever seen saffron, or hast thou only heard the name? He said, I have it by me, and have eaten a good deal of it, not once only, but a hundred times and more.' I feel it should be:
'Hast thou ever seen saffron, or hast thou only heard the name?' He said, 'I have it by me, and have eaten a good deal of it, not once only, but a hundred times and more.'
It reads better that way. Whether or not the original was like that, I do not know, but, it may have not been.
In this line: 'He who knows not his own soul, how shall he know the soul of another?'
I feel that when he mentions 'soul' that he doesn't just mean figuritavily but as well metaphorically. And in that reasoning I feel one can be empty inside and still have compassion for others for without a soul one still has a heart.
It's another good piece, a thought piece, and it speaks well.
Adding your comment:
