Some days ago, I received the sad news of the passing away of Dr. Rikhtegaran and I instantly remembered some of the memories I had from his class. In my view, some other students did not appreciate his worth and did not pay attention to his points. We had a course on Existentialism and sometimes he would make references to mystical literature and poetry that were quite appropriate to the subject. Once he was writing something on the board and speaking, and when he finished a point, there would be one or two seconds of silence. Usually after these silences, he would recite a verse or half-verse related to that point. At one point, it occurred to me that a certain verse of Hafez was probably on his mind, and I almost unconsciously recited it. He turned and looked at me, and said admiringly, “Very good, Mr. Latifi, very good!”
Among the verses he referenced during the lesson and that I still remember is this one from Attar:
> When we sent man out
> We placed the beauty of Our face upon the desert
And the point there was the resemblance between “sending out” and the sense that “exit” (existence) carries in existentialism [i.e., ek-sistere, standing out].
In general, these moments of mutual resonance—at least in mystical literature—over the course of the semester completely repaired that initial misunderstanding. In the first session, he was speaking about the opposition between reason and faith in Kierkegaard’s philosophy. I asked a question, intending to ask why the opposition we have in our own tradition between reason and love is pictured, in the Christian theological tradition, as an opposition between reason and faith. But I seem to have failed to convey my question properly. I wanted to see what his analysis of that matter was. But the class had ended, and the discussion went another way. Since what I remember of his answer is not precise, I will not repeat it, so as not to attribute mistakes to him. But overall, I felt that his mentality of my seminary (ḥawza) background caused the misunderstanding in that first session. Later, through the points exchanged over the semester, the matter was resolved.
In any case, I benefited from his teaching, and I have memories of him.
May God encompass him in His vast mercy.
Excerpts from his interview with the newspaper Iran:
—Then how is the difference between shari’at (law) and tariqat (the path) to be understood?
—Tariqat is the servant’s way to God, and shari’at is the manifestation of the rulings, rites, and acts of worship appropriate to that way. That is, they are not two things; they are one thing.
—How is it that many intellectuals (Roshanfekr) regard mysticism as a sign of the backwardness of Eastern societies?
—Our intellectuals usually know neither mysticism, nor Western philosophy, nor Eastern wisdom. It is unclear which land and tradition they belong to.
Mysticism is the opening and opening-up of the way of thought. Mysticism is accompanied by strength and activity, and it makes a person dynamic and active. If a people turn their attention to divine mysticism and develop an attachment, they acquire composure and expansiveness. Of course, throughout history, degenerate forms of mysticism have also appeared. The degenerate form of a thought or school is not merely a religious issue; it also has sociological dimensions.
Interview, Iran newspaper, 15/7/1386 (2007)
May God’s mercy be upon him.
