In the name of God. I am pleased to be at your service once again and I wish you health. I intend to read the second article and explain it to you. The title I have chosen for this second article is "Difference between the states of parable, narration, and novelty". Before entering the text, it is good to become familiar with three key words and see what understanding we have of them in our minds: parable (Ḥekāyat), narration (Revāyat), and novelty (Ḥedāthat). For example, you have heard it said that someone "tells a parable/story" (Ḥekāyat mikonad); meaning some events have occurred and the speaker informs us about them. Do we also look at it in this way? At first glance, "narrating" (Revāyat kardan) is also close to this same meaning, but in the article we will understand that the level of narration differs from the level of parable. In narration too, it seems that someone presents a report, tells a story, and tries to convey some news to us. However, the third word, "novelty" (Ḥedāthat), is perhaps less familiar to us. The root of this word consists of three letters: "Ḥā", "Dāl", and "Thā". Words like "Ḥadīth" (tradition/saying), "Ḥādetheh" (event/incident), and "Ḥawādeth" (events/incidents) are also from this same root. The word "Ḥadatha" itself means something that has newly occurred.

Text of the Article

Difference between the states of parable, narration, and novelty: Human understanding begins from a shaped state and leads to the extraction of concepts. Shaped understanding helps create a mental space of forms, but concentration, by transcending the Shaped Space, directs humans toward the realm of concepts and the understanding of meaning. Now we say that every contingent being, as a link between shapeless space (abstract/content space) and Shaped Space from the perspective of an observer, is in the state of parable.

Parable (Ḥekāyat) is a process in which a person, by considering a contingent being (Possible existence) and transcending their shaped mind, enters the realm of concepts and understanding. Therefore, the sign of the emergence of parable is the elimination of the Shaped Space and a close connection with concepts. Narration (Revāyat) is a process in which a person, when confronted with a contingent being (Possible existence), becomes stuck in their shaped mind. Thus, the sign of the emergence of narration will be shaped understanding based on artificial conventions; artificial convention (Ja'l) means convention and assumption.

Now we are faced with two individuals: one with experience in the realm of concepts and the understanding of meaning, and the other with shaped and conventional experience. The world of forms is continuously accompanied by the transformation of perspectives and presents humans with events. A person who possesses a mind of meaning perception can provide an appropriate analysis of the situation encountered due to their ability to transcend shaped appearances. However, a person with a shaped mind, due to the mismatch between existing conditions and their conventional assumptions, will experience confusion and bewilderment.

Novelty (Ḥedāthat) is a process in which a person, using acquired concepts and understanding, and transcending the conventional Shaped Space, analyzes the new conditions of their environment.

Explanation of the Article

The title of the article aims to speak about the states of parable (Ḥekāyat), narration (Revāyat), and novelty (Ḥedāthat), but in order to understand the main purpose of this presentation, we must pay attention to the fact that the word "cognition/understanding" (She-nākht) is used at the beginning of the article. This means that what is important for human is understanding. How is understanding achieved in human? You exist in a shaped world and are faced with forms, but human seeks the extraction of concepts and meaning. Here, it is the mind that helps with this; the mind must enter the shaped space, but must not remain in it. This is where concentration comes to help, causing us to transcend the shaped space and enter a space in the mind where concepts and the understanding of meaning are examined more thoroughly.

Consider a person who, in the Shaped Space, observes various forms around them; meaning they see different contingent beings in different shapes in front of them. In confronting these forms, what happens to the observer? They can experience parable-making (Ḥekāyat-garī), they can experience narration-making (Revāyat-garī), or another process such as novelty (Ḥedāthat) may occur within them. If we stand in front of a form and concentrate, and this concentration causes our shapeless mind (abstract/content space) to come into play, receiving and examining the signs we have received from the forms, extracting concepts, and achieving perception/understanding, we say we have experienced parable-making. The sign of the emergence of parable is the elimination of the Shaped Space and a close connection with concepts; meaning the person who is the observer does not remain in the Shaped Space and in conventions, but rather searches for concepts and preserves them as their achievement.

But consider a person who has again faced forms, yet their mind is not prepared to enter the space of understanding and receiving concepts. They remain in a minimal understanding; meaning they only look at the dimensions and shapes, and are forced to forge/invent a series of artificial conventions (Ja'l). Forging (Ja'l) means convention; meaning to assume/hypothesize. Here, the understanding is a conventional understanding: "I see something; its length, size, height, shape, color, and smell, but I stop right there and think that for understanding, this very amount suffices."

Thus, we are faced with two individuals. One has the experience of concepts and understanding; meaning their cognition is an understanding-based cognition. Of course, we know that they have seen forms and started their levels of cognition from there. On the other hand, we have another person whose experience is merely shaped and conventional, and has not extracted concepts. The important point is that the shaped world is constantly changing; scenes alter, and human is confronted with events. Now we have two individuals: a parable-teller (Ḥekāyat-gar) and a narrator (Revāyat-gar). The parable-teller has the capability to extract concepts from shaped representations, avoids being enslaved by shaped states, and is a person of understanding and meaning. However, the narrator has a shaped and conventional understanding. When these two face an event, what do they do? The parable-teller has the power of analyzing the event; they can transcend shaped appearances, analyze the event, and offer solutions; therefore, they do not become helpless, confused, or bewildered. Such a person can help others; parable-tellers make good teachers. But the narrator, who is placed within a set of hypothetical and artificial conventions, cannot establish an alignment and proportion between what they have in their shaped mind and the new conditions when circumstances change; therefore, they experience confusion and bewilderment.

Summary

Thus, from the perspective of cognition, a person is either in the state of parable-telling (Ḥekāyat-garī) or in the state of narration-telling (Revāyat-garī). The third word, novelty (Ḥedāthat), meaning to face new situations, was in fact a test for these two individuals. We saw that the parable-teller could reach a state where they offer fresh analyses in the face of new conditions and act as a guide for others; however, the narrator cannot enter such a state and cannot offer new analyses when environmental conditions change.