Dergiler / Marmara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi / 2013 / Sayı: 44
Dinî Çeşitliliği Değerlendirme Yetkisi: Frithjof Schuon Örneği
- Sayı
- 2013 · Sayı: 44
- Sayfa
- 99–122
- DOI
- —
Özet
Öz: Bu makalede dinî bir otoriteden bağımsız olarak, dinî inançları değerlendirme yetkisi ve onlarındoğru anlaşılması meselelerine dair, Frithjof Schuon’un (1907-1998) epistemolojik çözümleriniinceledim. Çoğulcu bir bakışla bu sorulara cevap verebilmek için, Schuon üç mertebeli bir bilgianlayışı ve iki tür anlama tarzı teorisini ileri sürer. Üç mertebeli bilgi anlayışında en yüksekte,mutlak Hakikatin etkin ve doğrudan bilgisi olan entellektüel bilgi, vayhe dayanan dinî-teolojikbigiden de dünya-içi tecrübelerin genellemesi sayılan aklî bilgiden de üst bir mertebededir. Busebeple entellektüel bilgi sahipleri mutlak Hakikat ve dinler arasındaki ilişkiyi değerlendirme yetkisineve doğru anlama ehliyetine sahiptir. Schuon’a göre entellektüel bilgi, dinî öğretileri sembolikanlamayı gerektirir. Dinî öğretiler, biricik ve her zaman ve zemin için geçerli doğrular olarakdeğil, bir türsel kalıbın örnekleri gibi anlaşılmalıdır. Ancak Schuon’un görüşlerini iknâ edici delillerledesteklediğini söylemek zordur. Schuon’un görüşlerinde ciddî tutarsızlıklar görülmektedir.Ayrıca onların dindar insanlarca kabul edilmesi zordur, zira Schuon’un teorileri dindar insanlarınkendi dinlerine bağlanma gerekçesiyle çelişmektedir.Anahtar Kelimeler: Schuon, Bilgi Mertebeleri, Entellektüel Bilgi, Dinî Çeşitlilik, DeğerlendirmeYetkisi.The Authority to Appraise Religious DiversityAbstract: In this article, I discussed Frithjof Schuon’s (1907-1998) solutions to the issues of understandingand judging religious beliefs without relying on a certain religious authority. In thisregard, Schuon develops his hierarchical theory of knowledge with three levels and and his theoryof double understanding, within a pluralistic framework. Schuon places entellectualknowledge, which is the immediate knowledge of the absolute Truth, at the top of his hierarchicaltheory of knowledge, above the revelation based religious knowledge and rationalknowledge. This is why the one who has entellectual knowledge has the authority to judge therelationship between religions and the absolute Truth and the qualification for correct understandingof religious beliefs. For Schuon, entellectual knowledge requires that religious teachingsshould be understood in a symbolic sense. They must not be understood as unique teachings truefor all times and places, but as exemplifications of an essence realizable in many examples. However,Schuon hardly provides convincing evidence for his theories, which suffer from series contradictions.Furthermore his theories are not easily acceptable for followers of religions, since theydestroy the ground that encourages people to give assent to religions.Keywords: Schuon, Levels of Knowledge, Intellectual Knowledge, Religious Diversity, Authorityto Appaise.
Abstract
In this article, I discussed Frithjof Schuon’s (1907-1998) solutions to the issues of understanding and judging religious beliefs without relying on a certain religious authority. In this regard, Schuon develops his hierarchical theory of knowledge with three levels and and his theory of double understanding, within a pluralistic framework. Schuon places entellectual knowledge, which is the immediate knowledge of the absolute Truth, at the top of his hierarchical theory of knowledge, above the revelation based religious knowledge and rational knowledge. This is why the one who has entellectual knowledge has the authority to judge the relationship between religions and the absolute Truth and the qualification for correct understanding of religious beliefs. For Schuon, entellectual knowledge requires that religious teachings should be understood in a symbolic sense. They must not be understood as unique teachings true for all times and places, but as exemplifications of an essence realizable in many examples. However, Schuon hardly provides convincing evidence for his theories, which suffer from series contradictions. Furthermore his theories are not easily acceptable for followers of religions, since they destroy the ground that encourages people to give assent to religions.