Introduction

Gatekeeper: Welcome to the seventh program of the third chapter. Before we advance the program according to our usual routine, let me offer a brief introduction about the method with which we will be confronted in the four remaining sessions. According to the view of our teachers, in these four remaining sessions, we will be their guests; it is not bad news, they will host us and allocate these sessions to conclusion-drawing and conversation about basic concepts. I hope these summaries, as they have promised, place us in a fresh degree of understanding and prepare us for the more effective continuation of life. Now we move; come with me.

The Teacher's Discourse

Greetings to you, welcome. Let me, as the first teacher in this final part, express joy and satisfaction; you have reached a place where I can speak with you. You have traversed the initial stages, spent various sessions with different teachers. I am a teacher of this degree who speaks about basic issues and wants to speak about "Being" with you. I want to know how you, as a human, have what kind of Being? How is your presence (bashandegi)? What kind of existence do you have, how are you? And other than you, how are others?

We can say there are two kinds of being: "Being-in-itself" (Budan dar khod), and "Being-for-itself" (Budan barāye khod). As a first example, we consider the being of objects as Being-in-itself, but for human, another being is considered which we name Being-for-itself. We want to examine these two subjects in this session. What does Being-in-itself mean, what does Being-for-itself mean, and what is their difference? Consider yourself as a human who looks at an object, establishes connection with it; at this moment you experience "Ecstatic Reception" (Wajd)—meaning that very reception of meaning—and "Being" (Existence) is manifested in you; you become the possessor (possessing) of Being. But what is it that is before you and you want to recognize it, what is that object? It becomes "Existent" (Mowjūd), from your perspective; meaning it is a factor that has a role in bringing about that Ecstatic Reception in you. Now, between you and that object, which one is placed in a higher rank? Which one has experienced the phenomenon of Being? It is you who experienced this subject. So if we want to speak about Being/Existence, you possess it; but objects do not have Being/Existence, why? Because they do not experience Ecstatic Reception. It is you who experience Ecstatic Reception and perceive objects as Existents.

But why did we say for human there is a being that is for themselves? Because every human when they experience Ecstatic Reception, builds a space in their mind for themselves that is only and specifically for that same human; so every human when they experience Ecstatic Reception, performs the recognition belonging to themselves and the adjacent human is not placed in that same field. Meaning these two, although they look at one scene and one object, but when the act of Being occurs, their being is not identical, because their recognition is not identical. But what about objects? They do not experience Ecstatic Reception, so they exist in themselves, they find their existence in themselves. You must consider these two subjects; meaning if before you, you consider a mountain, as an object, does it experience Ecstatic Reception? Does it perform recognition? No; so it is *is* in itself, does not experience Ecstatic Reception. But what about me? I who am placed before it, experience perception, recognize it, and build a space of recognition in the space of the mind that belongs to myself; so my being is for myself, and no one else will be partner with me in this subject. The being of everyone is specific to themselves, for themselves, belonging to themselves.

But "Non-being" (Adam) is a relative matter, has a simple definition: when we say Non-being, it means human has no Ecstatic Reception toward something. Suppose as a human you look around and do not experience Ecstatic Reception; in this case, that space that surrounds you is non-existent from your perspective; because it did not make you experience Ecstatic Reception, you had no reception, you did not recognize. Let me say a point: objects may be there, but you do not experience Ecstatic Reception toward them, while someone else beside you experiences the same Ecstatic Reception; for you that situation is Non-being, but for the person beside you it is not Non-being. Certainly in your speech you have said that someone has presence, is present, but when you want to negate, you say "absence of presence" (non-being of presence); meaning I do not experience Ecstatic Reception of their presence, as if they are absent.

Where did human's Ecstatic Reception began? It began from experience; the simplest and most basic experience is sensory experience; meaning when with the senses you possess, you are placed before objects, you experience Ecstatic Reception and traverse the initial stages of Ecstatic Reception. You declare presence, see an object placed before you, it influences your mind, and then you go toward the higher stages, to experience understanding and perception in the highest state. The knowledge you obtain is "Presential Knowledge" (Elm-e Hozūrī)—meaning before you there is the object, without medium, using the facilities you have, you look, experience, and may repeat this experience and continuously raise the level of your understanding; this becomes the "basic experience."

A friend asked me to explain a bit more about Being-in-itself and Being-for-itself; asked what situation animals and plants have, do they not have a situation other than stone and mountain? It is true, but the goal of this session is the discussion about "Being"; I am standing on a corner and saying that mountain is, that tree is, that lake is, or that human is. Pay attention to this: it is you, meaning human, who is declaring that something is; so you are the possessor, you declared the existence of an object. As if if you were not there, such news, such recognition, such declaration of opinion, would not be performed at all. Therefore, when we say there is a tree, I am saying the tree is; but did the tree itself also establish a connection with us, or with other trees? Our studies, as the source of declaring existence, have reached conclusions that yes, plants also have connections with each other; meaning in a shape they declare existence, declare "I have seen you, O tree beside me." In animals too, you see such cases.

But our emphasis is on this: the one who comes and declares this object is, this tree is, this river is, this mountain is, these humans are, is human himself. So we say humans exist, from their own perspective, and see others as Existents. If we want to put foot further and ask whether the rest of existents also have Ecstatic Reception, this is another discussion, very difficult; you must have advanced so much that you can enter the world of plants, live like them and have Ecstatic Reception, and then compare these issues together. Apparently there were those who made such a claim; the same that came in the poetry: "I died to the inanimate state and became endowed with growth, then I died to growth and attained the life of the animal, I died from animality and became human."

Thank you very much for this question. Now let us see this subject from another angle: let us place a human beside another human. We said you say a human is here, so you are in the stage of declaring existence, you are experiencing Ecstatic Reception, perceiving, seeing them and wanting to recognize them; so that human becomes an "Existent" for you. Now, what being do you want to attribute to them before yourself? You say for now they have Being-in-itself, meaning they are placed before you without any action and reaction being seen from them, just standing before you; in this stage, they have Being-in-itself. Meaning our assumption is that for now we do not consider their Ecstatic Reception as to what they think about me; for now, consider only me. I, as a human, am looking at them, declaring they are an Existent, I have experienced Ecstatic Reception, am seeing them, recognizing them; but from my perspective, what being do they have? Being-in-itself.

But in the continuation, what is it that makes me say they too live for themselves? Meaning to go further than my first opinion; what is that? Language. Language is a factor that becomes the bridge of connection between me and the other human. If language does not exist, does the opposing party become aware of my Ecstatic Reception? No; so as if I too am an object for them, I too as if live in a Being-in-itself. When can humans reach a stage where both are placed before each other and both have Being-for-itself? Language means that they must be able, in a method, to perform transfer of meaning; in that case, when I speak from my own knowledge, from my findings and from the Ecstatic Reception I have experienced, for them in the mold of language, they see I am declaring an opinion, and I too see they are in the state of declaring an opinion. So both of us now possess the characteristic of Being-for-itself; I emphasize "for itself," in this direction that when we exchange our knowledge, we see they describe a common scene in a way that is not identical to my description; so they have their world, their Ecstatic Reception, a Being-for-itself, and I too have a Being-for-itself. It is here that when I and they are placed beside each other, based on our beings-for-ourselves, we experience a common life; events may happen, for example, we may suffer from contradiction; I have perceived a common scene in a way, but they declare that their perception is very different from mine.

This was an answer for the friend who asked how the relation of human to human is, what friendship and companionship mean. Naturally, when declarations of opinion close to each other occur and my world and my being find great similarity with their being, a path appears for a dialogue in the state of moderation to take shape. I hope these explanations, though introductory, are useful to you. I am glad I was at your service and we spoke about "Being", "Being-in-itself" and "Being-for-itself". As final sentences, I share a few points with you: does it not seem to you that Mr. Thomas More, in the film "A Man for All Seasons" which was the subject of our first meeting in this chapter, can be a display of Being-for-itself? Meaning compare the level of his perception, the level of his reception of the events around him with the people around him; how much distance does he have? Very much; as if we want to say the rest are objects that have nothing to say.

In the film "A Piece of Bread," that soldier whom everyone thought was a useless individual, the level of his being, his Being-for-itself, the worldview he had for himself, the understanding and Ecstatic Reception he had and which was also seen in his actions, was not comparable with the rest; had much distance. In the film "The Color of Paradise," did you not see that blind boy who as if had a defect compared to others and whom by the way the rest did not take into account; did his level of effort for understanding, for his Being-for-itself to be more effective, not have a better situation compared to his peers and many of the people there? In the film "Where is the Friend's Home?" too, which you saw, although it seemed he was at the beginning of his life, did he not have a higher understanding and perception compared to many of those around him?

We define Being-for-itself in this way: the creation of a mental space, specific to the individual himself, which is comparable with others; so those who are placed in a lower level are as if part of the objects, perhaps even lower than trees. May God be your protector.

*Footnote:*

[1] The teacher’s definition of “being-in-itself” and “being-for-itself” differs somewhat from the definitions given by the existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre.

[2] We invite you to watch the feature film "Jonathan Livingston Seagull".