What are your thoughts on this quote by Rumi?

Question

If in the darkness of ignorance,

you don’t recognize a person’s true nature,

look to see whom he has chosen for his leader.

-Rumi, "Mathnawi" [IV, 1640]

Answer 1

It is a profound call for man to turn to the Divine Educator, that was Muhammad for his time, and Baha'u'llah for our time.

Following are four criteria for our search of the truth:

"Every subject presented to a thoughtful audience must be supported by rational proofs and logical arguments. Proofs are of four kinds: first, through sense perception; second, through the reasoning faculty; third, from traditional or scriptural authority; fourth, through the medium of inspiration. That is to say, there are four criteria or standards of judgment by which the human mind reaches its conclusions. We will first consider the criterion of the senses. This is a standard still held to by the materialistic philosophers of the world. They believe that whatever is perceptible to the senses is a verity, a certainty and without doubt existent. For example, they say, "Here is a lamp which you see, and because it is perceptible to the sense of sight, you cannot doubt its existence. There is a tree; your sense of vision assures you of its reality, which is beyond question. This is a man; you see that he is a man; therefore, he exists." In a word, everything confirmed by the senses is assumed to be as undoubted and unquestioned as the product of five multiplied by five; it cannot be twenty-six nor less than twenty-five. Consequently, the materialistic philosophers consider the criterion of the senses to be first and foremost.

But in the estimation of the divine philosophers this proof and assurance is not reliable; nay, rather, they deem the standard of the senses to be false because it is imperfect. Sight, for instance, is one of the most important of the senses, yet it is subject to many aberrations and inaccuracies. The eye sees the mirage as a body of water; it regards images in the mirror as realities when they are but reflections. A man sailing upon the river imagines that objects upon the shore are moving, whereas he is in motion, and they are stationary. To the eye the earth appears fixed, while the sun and stars revolve about it. As a matter of fact, the heavenly orbs are stationary, and the earth is turning upon its axis. The colossal suns, planets and constellations which shine in the heavens appear small, nay, infinitesimal to human vision, whereas in reality they are vastly greater than the earth in dimension and volume. A whirling spark appears to the sight as a circle of fire. There are numberless instances  254  of this kind which show the error and inaccuracy of the senses. Therefore, the divine philosophers have considered this standard of judgment to be defective and unreliable.

The second criterion is that of the intellect. The ancient philosophers in particular considered the intellect to be the most important agency of judgment. Among the wise men of Greece, Rome, Persia and Egypt the criterion of true proof was reason. They held that every matter submitted to the reasoning faculty could be proved true or false and must be accepted or rejected accordingly. But in the estimation of the people of insight this criterion is likewise defective and unreliable, for these same philosophers who held to reason or intellect as the standard of human judgment have differed widely among themselves upon every subject of investigation. The statements of the Greek philosophers are contradictory to the conclusions of the Persian sages. Even among the Greek philosophers themselves there is continual variance and lack of agreement upon any given subject. Great difference of thought also prevailed between the wise men of Greece and Rome. Therefore, if the criterion of reason or intellect constituted a correct and infallible standard of judgment, those who tested and applied it should have arrived at the same conclusions. As they differ and are contradictory in conclusions, it is an evidence that the method and standard of test must have been faulty and insufficient.

The third criterion or standard of proof is traditional or scriptural -- namely, that every statement or conclusion should be supported by traditions recorded in certain religious books. When we come to consider even the Holy Books -- the Books of God -- we are led to ask, "Who understands these books? By what authority of explanation may these Books be understood?" It must be the authority of human reason, and if reason or intellect finds itself incapable of explaining certain questions, or if the possessors of intellect contradict each other in the interpretation of traditions, how can such a criterion be relied upon for accurate conclusions?

The fourth standard is that of inspiration. In past centuries many philosophers have claimed illumination or revelation, prefacing their statements by the announcement that "this subject has been revealed through me" or "thus do I speak by inspiration." Of this class were the philosophers of the Illuminati. Inspirations are the promptings or susceptibilities of the human heart. The promptings of the heart are sometimes satanic. How are we to differentiate them? How are we to tell whether a given statement is an inspiration and prompting of the heart through the merciful assistance or through the satanic agency?

Consequently, it has become evident that the four criteria or standards of judgment by which the human mind reaches its conclusions are faulty and inaccurate. All of them are liable to mistake and error in conclusions. But a statement presented to the mind accompanied by proofs which the senses can perceive to be correct, which the faculty of reason can accept, which is in accord with traditional authority and sanctioned by the promptings of the heart, can be adjudged and relied upon as perfectly correct, for it has been proved and tested by all the standards of judgment and found to be complete. When we apply but one test, there are possibilities of mistake. This is self-evident and manifest."

(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 253)

Answer 2

Which one is the stupid one?

Answer 3

vanish the darkness and light the candle of knowledge so that you can recognize the person.

Answer 4

I think it may mean: If you do not know someone very well or are looking to find who they really are- look at who the person follows.  In other words, who that person ideas they believe in, the importance they put on the people/ person they admire and are loyal to.

Answer 5

I think it's quite apt. And timely too.

Answer 6

It is the fool's wisdom to look beyond the nature of a person and see them as neither good or bad, but human.

As for the Rumi quote, well simply it means 'Consider the source & the source's source'.

Answer 7

Very inspiring quote! The word "leader" here does not only mean a military or a political leader. It applies to any idol you follow and consider them your guidance and the ideal Master who deserves your loyalty.

My leader represents my ambitions, values, hopes, beliefs, concepts and is the ideal deity or power that can meet my great expectations. I look up high to my leader considering him an achiever of my own ideals.

Having chosen to follow him, implies that I wish to be like him, or at least feel comfortable with my ideals and high values in his presence. Consequently, the higher the standard of nobility, grace, gallantry, influence, integrity, skill, power, and creativity the leader enjoys, the greater the follower's inner character must be.

For example: if I do not know you at all, but can see you are loyal to a sage or a wise soul, I can tell you are a good-natured person who loves truth, wisdom, and the well-fare of humanity. So I might as well say I know you. This applies to all walks of life, including creeds and religions.

I think this example has conveyed the message, and there is no need to give an example of the character following a tyrant or a gangster.

Therefore, Rumi’s quote is true. No matter how strangers to each other you and I are, we both can tell who we are by knowing who our leaders are.

Answer 8

In my view it is a nice quote but it must be seen from its two views as a start only.

First , who is in the "darkness of ignorance"?

Second when one looks to the leader whom another has chosen, is not a judgment factor required as one looks at the leader another has chosen?  Is not this judgment now subject to the view of the one who is doing the looking?

Is it the role of mankind during this sequence in life to be concerned about the walk of others and the selection of their leaders?  I understand that each should first look at their own walk and the leaders they choose before they get too involved in spending a lot of time looking at the walk of others.  Yes I may be wrong and I do accept that.  Consequently I do continue my studies and searching.

No better time then now to learn more and be enlightened.

Answer 9

maybe some people's nature is just plain ignorance..can't blame someone else for your own stupidity.

Answer 10

I think it means, if you really don't know a person very well, look at who this person looks up to or the person he or she tries to be like.

Answer 11

wonderful, beautiful, so deep...

who could possibly be the leader that seems to cover up the true nature...? ego?