Abstract
Introduction
The approach is the attitude and style that the researcher relies on to seek closer to his hypothetical project. In fact, the approach refers to the angle of view or direction that the researcher takes. Collectively, how to deal systematically with a particular issue or situation is called an "approach." In modern literary criticism and analysis, the research is based on a set of approaches based on which the researcher seeks to know and understand, interpret and criticize the texts. Research approaches that have a methodological and sometimes interdisciplinary nature are unique theoretical and methodological frameworks that seek to analyze texts in an epistemological process.
Methodology
The extent of Sufism and mysticism as teachings, experience, art, thought, practice, knowledge, and its schools and practices has led to broad approaches to it. Sufism and mysticism have had many functions, contexts, and influences, both due to their buoyancy in definition and due to their continuous presence in the cultural history of Iran; Therefore, the scientific confrontation with this Iranian phenomenon requires various approaches, so that it is not possible to recognize and analyze Sufism from a fixed perspective. Sufi scholars, especially Western mystics, have used various approaches such as phenomenology, mythology, linguistics, hermeneutics, etc. to recognize and discover the symbols and basically what and how Sufism is.
Although the orientalist approach has a long history, it has no background in recognizing and analyzing the approaches with which Western mysticism has explored Sufism. . Due to the study gap, apart from the present study, there is no independent and comprehensive research that has examined the necessity of the methodology and research approach of Orientalists in mystical studies in general, and Louise's mysticism in particular.
The basis of the present study is a reflection on the research of Leonard Lewisohn (1953-2018), an American mystic who, in comparison with many orientalists, has analyzed Persian mystical texts with structured methodologies and approaches. This Sufi scholar has used different approaches in his Sufi studies depending on the context and time of the subject. In this discourse, due to the necessity of his mystical approach, he has studied and analyzed Lewisohn's research from this perspective, and we have come to the conclusion that he has well understood that looking at mysticism from a perspective is a component.Or a particular feature, causes the subject to be seized, reduced, or ideologized; Therefore, by choosing both aesthetic and historical-social approaches in his mystical studies, he has sought a more comprehensive and realistic cognition of Sufism.
Results and Discussion
In his mysticism, Leonard Lewisohn has explored Sufism with specific approaches such as aesthetic, historical, social, and comparative approaches. What the Orientalist's methodological analysis shows is that the socio-historical aspect is more analytical than his other approaches, and his aspects of Sufism no longer have the depth of this approach Lewisohn's aesthetic view of mystical texts is, above all, corresponding to mystical symbolism and its interpretation and literary artistic functions. He considers the aesthetics of Sufism to be inspired and discovered, and calls it the "aesthetics of taste." According to Lewisohn, the aesthetics of Sufism depends on the knowledge of the cognitive metaphors of Sufism, the origin of which is "science". Lewisohn considers the interpretation and decipherment of mystics' allegories as a work of art and believes that interpretation is the discovery of exemplary meanings and the understanding of the relationship between property and kingdom, which is possible by passing through the word and reaching the world of example.
Another aesthetic aspect of Lewisohn's research is the discovery of artistic symbols of "infidelity." Lewisohn's explanation of this is not focused on the classification and interpretation of these symbols, but rather on the explanation of the political and social components of infidelity and the transgression of taboos. According to him, infidelity is the secret of esotericism and confrontation with the demonstration of the official religion, which reveals the totalitarian belief of the Sufis. Lewisohn has viewed the literary tradition of blasphemy and superficiality necessarily and exclusively from the socio-political dimension and function of transgression; While this kind of look is a reduction of the subject.
History is the basis of Lewisohn's research; In such a way that he has never neglected the socio-historical approach in recognizing Sufism. According to his historical analysis, Sufism has had a wide and continuous function in the intellectual life of Iranians, so much so that he considers Sufism to be the "institutionalized religion of the masses." Examining this aspect of Lewisohn's research, we have come to the conclusion that the most important aspect of his historical approach is the conflict between jurists and Sufis; As far as he believes, the "historical evolution of the Sufi-Mullah transition" is very important for the flow of Sufi thought. The pivotal history of Lewisohn Behnik has revealed the background and time of Iranian Sufism; But sometimes, seeing merely historical matters of spirituality, has caused him to fall into the conflicts of jurists and Sufis and not be able to reveal and introduce the spirituality captured in history and society. The historical approach to the study of Sufi texts, for all its value, sometimes fails to discover the spiritual spirit of mysticism, and the spirituality trapped in history and society becomes merely ideology.