[lit-ideas] Re: Just the facts about the proverbial elephant, ma'am
- From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 12:23:19 EST
Odd. The earliest versions I have seen of this are entrenched in Islamic
mysticism. Rumi, a Sufi, is sometimes credited with the poem, but it appears
it existed in middle-eastern legend before his time.
_http://www.kheper.net/topics/blind_men_and_elephant/Sufi.html_ (http:
//www.kheper.net/topics/blind_men_and_elephant/Sufi.html)
The Blind Men and the Elephant in Islamic thought.
(note - the following is taken from Fritz Meier The Problem of Nature in the
Esoteric Monism of Islam For the sake of brevity I have deleted most of
the writers commentaries, but retained the translations of the various
versions of the story. I canât remember where I photocopied the article
from, but
it was probably a volume of the Eranos Yearbooks - _M.A.K._
(http://www.kheper.net/aboutme/aboutme.html) )
The legend of the Blind Men and the Elephant originated in the Pali Buddhist
Udana, which was apparently compiled in the second century b.c.e. It spread
to Islam _[1]_
(http://www.kheper.net/topics/blind_men_and_elephant/Sufi.html#Rhys_Davids)
through the work of the orthodox Sufi theologian _Muhammad
al-Ghazzali_ (http://www.oman-net.com/msp/ghazali.htm) (1058-1128 c.e.), in
his
Theology Revived. Ghazzali refers to the tale in a discussion on the
problem of human action, a problem in which the inadequacy of natural reason
becomes most evident. This is his version _[2]_
(http://www.kheper.net/topics/blind_men_and_elephant/Sufi.html#al-Ghazzali) of
the fable:
A community of blind men once heard that an extraordinary beast called an
elephant had been brought into the country. Since they did not know what it
looked like and had never heard its name, they resolved to obtain a picture,
and
the knowledge they desired, by feeling the beast - the only possibility that
was open to them! They went in search of the elephant, and when they had
found it, they felt its body. One touched its leg, the other a tusk, the third
an ear, and in the belief that they now knew the elephant, they returned home.
But when they were questioned by the other blind men, their answers
differed. The one who had felt the leg maintained that the elephant was
nothing other
than a pillar, extremely rough to the touch, and yet strangely soft. The one
who had caught hold of the tusk denied this and described the elephant as,
hard and smooth, with nothing soft or rough about it, more over the beast was
by no means as stout as a pillar, but rather had the shape of a post ['amud].
The third, who had held the ear in his hands, spoke: "By my faith, it is
both soft and rough." Thus he agreed with one of the others, but went on to
say:
Nevertheless, it is neither like a post nor a pillar, but like a broad,
thick piece of leather." Each was right in a certain sense, since each of them
communicated that part of the elephant he had comprehended, but none was able
describe the elephant as it really was; for all three of them were unable to
comprehend the entire form of the elephant.
The legend was also used by the Persian poet Sana'i (died probably 545
a.h./1150 c.e.), also as an illustration of the inadequacy of human reason.
The
great Sufi master _Jalal ud-din-i Rumi_
(http://www.kheper.net/topics/topics/Islamic_esotericism/Sufism/Rumi.htm)
(1207-1273 c.e.) is another who uses the
story _[5]_
(http://www.kheper.net/topics/blind_men_and_elephant/Sufi.html#Mathnawi) ; in
his Mathnawi. He likens those who cannot agree about the
eternally immutable God, those in whom the spiritual eye has not yet awakened,
to a
group of people who seek an elephant in a dark room, and try to determine its
appearance by touch alone. Naturally, each one comes to a different
conclusion, according to the part of the animalâs body that they feel.
The elephant was in a dark house; some Hindus had brought it for exhibition.
In order to see it, many people were going, every one, into that darkness.
As seeing it with the eye was impossible, [each one] was feeling it in the
dark with the palm of his hand..
The hand of one fell on its trunk; he said: "This creature is like a
water-pipe."
The hand of another touched its ear: to him it appeared to be like a fan.
Since another handled its leg, he said: "I found the elephant's shape to be
like a pillar."
Another laid his hand on its back: he said, "Truly, this elephant was like a
throne."
Similarly, whenever anyone heard [a description of the elephant]. he
understood [it only in respect of] the part that he had touched.
On account of the [diverse] place [object] of view, their statements
differed: one man titled it "dal _[3]_
(http://www.kheper.net/topics/blind_men_and_elephant/Sufi.html#dal) ," another
"alif."
If there had been a candle in each one's hand, the difference would have
gone out of their words.
The Persian mystic and philosopher `Aziz ibn-Muhammad-I Nasafi (7th century
a.h./13th century c.e.) was yet another profound thinker who made reference to
this parable, this time in the context of criticism of exoteric
theologians. According to Nasafi, these theologians have grasped only a part
of the
object of their study, but claim this part represents the whole. Since the
whole
consists of different parts, the result is bound to be false and one-sided;
and hence each contradicts the others. The battle of theological opinions can
only be arbitrated only by one who knows the relation between the parts,
that is, the esoteric seer who has preserved or acquired an ability to see the
whole. In this context, Nasafi tells the legend _[4]_
(http://www.kheper.net/topics/blind_men_and_elephant/Sufi.html#Aziz-I_Nasafi)
of the blind men and
the elephant. The blind men symbolize the theologians and exoteric thinkers,
the elephant represents God or the truth:
Once there was a city, the inhabitants of which were all blind. They had
heard of elephants and were curious to see [sic] one face to face. They were
still full of this desire when one day a caravan arrived and camped outside
the
city. There was an elephant in the caravan. When the inhabitants of the city
heard there was an elephant in the caravan, the wisest and most intelligent
men of the city decided to go out and see the elephant. A number of them left
the city and went to the place where the elephant was. One stretched out his
hands, grasped the elephant's ear, and perceived something resembling a
shield. This man decided that the elephant looked like a shield. Another
stretched
out his hands, grasped the elephant's trunk, and perceived something
resembling a club ['amud]. This man decided that the elephant looked like a
club. A
third stretched out his hands, grasped the elephant's leg, and perceived
something like a pillar [`imad]. He decided that the elephant looked like a
pillar. A fourth stretched his hands, grasped the elephant's back, and
perceived
something like a seat [takht]. He decided that the elephant looked like a
seat. Delighted, they all returned to the city. After e one had gone back to
his
quarter, the people asked: "Did see the elephant?" Each one answered yes.
They asked: "What does he look like? What kind of shape has he?" Then one I in
his quarter replied: "The elephant looks like a shield. And the second man
in the second quarter: "The elephant looks like a club." The third man in the
third quarter: "The elephant looks like a pillar." And the fourth man in
fourth quarter: "The elephant looks like a seat." And inhabitants of each
quarter
formed their opinion in accord; with what they had heard.
Now when the different conceptions came into contact with one another, it
became evident that they were contradictory. Each blind man found fault with
the next, and began to advance proofs in support of his own view and in
confutation of the views of the others. They called these proofs rational and
scriptural proofs. One said: "It is written in war the elephant is sent out
ahead
of the army. Consequently the elephant must be a kind of shield." The second
said: "It is written that in war the elephant hurls himself at the hostile
army and that the hostile army is thereby shattered. Consequently the
elephant
must be a kind of club." The said: "It is written that the elephant carries a
weight thousand men and more without effort. Consequently the elephant must
be a kind of pillar." The fourth said: "It is written that so and so many
people can sit in comfort on an elephant. Consequently the elephant must be a
kind of seat."
Now you yourself consider whether such proofs they can ever penetrate to the
object of demonstrations, the elephant, and whether with such proofs they
can ever arrive at the correct conclusion. Every rational man knows that the
more proofs of this sort they advance, the farther they will be from knowledge
of the elephant they can never arrive at the object of their demonstrations,
the elephant, and consequently that the conflict in opinions will never be
relieved, hut will become more and more pronounced.
But know this: Suppose by the grace of God one of them is made seeing so
that he perceives and knows the elephant as it really is, and says to them:
"In
what you have said of the elephant, you have indeed grasped some aspect of
the elephant, but you do not know the rest. God has given me sight, I have
seen
and come to know the elephant as it really is." They will not even believe
the seeing man, but will say: "You claim that God has given you sight, but
that is only your imagination. Your brain is defective, and madness assails
you.
It is we who are the seeing." Only some few accept the word of the seer, for
it is written in the Koran: "But few of my servants are the thankful" [Sura
34:13]. The others persist in their stupidity coupled with arrogance, refuse
to be in-structed, and call those among them who hear and accept the word of
the seer, and who agree with the seer, unbelievers and heretics. But this
only shows that "to hear about a thing is not the same as to see it for
yourself."
========Original Message========
Subj: [lit-ideas] Just the facts about the proverbial elephant, ma'am Date:
12/8/05 9:13:08 AM Central Standard Time From: _bruce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(mailto:bruce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To: _lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) Sent on:
On 6. Dez 2005, at 14:33, Mike Geary wrote:
> The FACT is we're all proverbial blind men feeling an elephant.
A long-absent pedant replies:
The 'proverb' (according to some 'a Hindu parable'; others 'an East
Indian tale of antiquity') is perhaps best known in English through a
poem (variously titled: 'The Blind Men and the Elephant'; 'Six Blind
Men and the Elephant') by the American poet John Godfrey Saxe
(1816-1887):
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"
The Second, feeling of the tusk
Cried, "Ho! what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up he spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee:
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope.
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
Moral:
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen.
The moral about 'theological disputants' is often left out of versions
I have seen. I know two 'alternate takes' to the story as presented
by the poem. Discussion as to whether they are relevant to the context
in which the 'proverbial blind men feeling an elephant' have been
introduced to Lit-Ideas is left as an exercise for the reader.
1) [author unknown] Once upon a time, there were five blind men who
had the opportunity to experience an elephant for the first time. One
approached the elephant, and, upon encountering one of its sturdy legs,
stated, "Ah, an elephant is like a tree." The second, after exploring
the trunk, said, "No, an elephant is like a strong hose." The third,
grasping the tail, said "Fool! An elephant is like a rope!" The fourth,
holding an ear, stated, "No, more like a fan." And the fifth, leaning
against the animal's side, said, "An elephant is like a wall." The five
then began to argue loudly about who had the more accurate perception
of the elephant.
The elephant, tiring of all this abuse, suddenly reared up and attacked
the men. He continued to trample them until they were nothing but
bloody lumps of flesh. Then, strolling away, the elephant remarked, "It
just goes to show that you can't depend on first impressions. When I
first saw them I didn't think they they'd be any fun at all."
2) [a Sam Gross cartoon] Along with (at least some of the) the usual
blind men learning what an elephant is, there's another - kneeling
behind the elephant feeling something on the ground and exclaiming: an
elephant is soft and mushy â.
Chris Bruce
Kiel, Germany
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
