M6:2206 — حس حیوان گر بدیدی آن صور / بایزید وقت بودی گاو و خر

Translation: If the animal sense could perceive those forms, The cow and donkey would be a Bayazid of their time. Meaning: This verse asserts that external, animalistic senses are incapable of grasping unseen spiritual realities; if they possessed such a capacity, even animals would attain the highest mystical stations.

In this verse, Rumi employs the analogy of the animal to illuminate the nature of inner perceptions and to distinguish them from external senses. The core argument is that the ultimate Truth governing all things in this world – the Divine Essence – though ‘qarīb’ (proximate) and constantly ‘maḥsūs’ (perceived) in all events, is not ‘maḥsūs by the senses of this house’; that is, it is not grasped by the five external senses, which are products of this natural world. We are in need of ‘another sense.’

I have previously pointed out that Rumi draws our attention to the existence of two categories of senses: ‘There are five senses other than these five senses; those are like red gold, these are like copper.’ Our external senses are our windows to this material world, and in this world, even cows and donkeys benefit from them. They too see, hear, smell, and touch. But those ‘forms’ (ān ṣuwar) that Rumi speaks of are the unseen, spiritual realities upon which God manifests Himself to our ‘other sense.’ These are the inner senses, which are as precious as gold, in contrast to the external senses, which are like copper.

This verse essentially states that animalistic senses, meaning purely sensory perceptions, are utterly incapable of grasping transcendental and spiritual realities. If they were, then animals such as cows and donkeys – symbols of the lowest order of external perception and heedlessness of the metaphysical – could attain the rank of Bayazid Bistami; Bayazid, who himself embodies the pinnacle of mystical perception and the intuitive apprehension of unseen truths. This is a hypothetical ‘if’ that points to an impossibility, emphasizing the fundamental distinction between two types of perception.

This is, in fact, an affirmation of the principle that there is ‘something else’ (chīz-ī dīgar) in human existence that prepares and enables one to perceive the non-sensory. This ‘something else’ is neither of the body nor confined within the cage of the body. As I have explained before, the soul is not ‘in’ the body in the sense of physical indwelling or containment; rather, the body is the ‘maẓhar’ (manifestation) of the soul, meaning the soul reveals itself through the body, and the body indicates the soul’s life. Unraveling the relationship between soul and body, like all points of intersection between the transcendent and the natural, is full of mystery, and sensory perceptions and empirical scientific investigations are incapable of solving it. These mysteries can only be comprehended through the opening of ‘inner eyes’ and precise philosophical analysis. Therefore, the animal sense is devoid of this ‘other’ capacity and can only perceive external and material forms; consequently, it can never grasp ‘those forms’ and attain the stature of Bayazid.

Key takeaways

• Animalistic perceptions (external senses) are incapable of grasping unseen spiritual realities and subtle forms.
• Humans possess ‘inner senses’ which are invaluable like gold, capable of perceiving the metaphysical, unlike external senses which are like copper.
• God is the proximate cause and the ruling Truth of the world, yet cannot be perceived by the five natural senses.
• Mystical stations and the apprehension of truths result from opening inner eyes and strengthening non-sensory perceptions.
• The distinction between humans and animals lies in a ‘something else’ that grants humans the capacity for apprehending the unperceived.