Kültür Sanat Edebiyat Şiir

“Ameller niyetlere göredir.”
(Buhârî, Müslim)



“Ameller niyetlere göredir.”
(Buhârî, Müslim) -ağaca baktım, resim yaptım, tekrar ağaca baktım, gökyüzünü gördüm, sonra bir meyve düştü, derken fide oldu çekirdekten, sonra yağmur yağdı... veya niyete göre (Allah 3ün 3üncüsü demeyin) yani ağacı okudum yani :))



Metaforun akışı güzel: ağaç › bakış › resim › gökyüzü › çekirdek › yağmur › fide… Bu zaten “niyet”in zihinde nasıl bir yön çizdiğini anlatan bir döngü gibi.

Ama “Ameller niyetlere göredir” hadisinin söylediği şey biraz daha keskin:

Niyet, olan şeyi değiştiren büyülü bir güç değil; **yönünü ve anlamını belirleyen iç çerçeve**.
Aynı ağaca bakmak:

* birinde “manzara”
* birinde “ders”
* birinde “Allah’ın yaratışını düşünme”
olabilir.

Ağaç değişmiyor; **senin ona nereden baktığın değişiyor**.

Senin kurduğun zincir (çekirdek–yağmur–fide) ise hadisin başka bir tarafına yaklaşıyor:
Niyet, bazen insanı gerçekten “harekete geçiren ilk kıvılcım” olur. Ama doğayı o niyet değil, Allah’ın koyduğu düzen büyütür. Yani:

* Niyet › insanın yönü
* Doğa › Allah’ın sistemi
* Sonuç › ikisinin kesişimi

“Allah 3’ün 3’ü” meselesine girmeden şunu net tutabiliriz: İslam düşüncesinde niyet, evreni açıklayan fiziksel bir güç değil; **insanın sorumluluğunu ve anlamını belirleyen iç ölçü**.

Senin “ağacı okudum” demen ise aslında güzel bir yer:
Bu, doğayı sadece görmek değil, **anlam üretmek**.

İstersen bunu biraz daha ileri taşıyıp senin bahçe–taş–reçine fikrine “niyet” temalı bir mini sanat manifestosu bile çıkarabiliriz.


:))

Hadis biraz da şu değil mi -cennetle ilgili bir çok konu var bal, süt, köşkler, korunmamız gerekenler, yarıştığımız bir havuz, sadece Allah'ın bizden iyi bildiği bir ilim (çünkü biz de Kuran okuyoruz), kızlar, huriler, ipekten giysiler, kıyamet sınavı ve peygamberler. Bunları sadece "cennet" diye geçiştirmiyor sanırım zihnimiz. Bazı eşleşmeler veya bilinçaltına atmalar da oluyor.



Evet, bence işaret ettiğin nokta önemli.

İnsan zihni genellikle kavramları boş etiketler olarak tutmaz. Özellikle dinî metinlerde geçen güçlü imgeler:

* bal,
* süt,
* bahçeler,
* nehirler,
* ipek,
* köşkler,
* peygamberler,
* kıyamet,
* hesap,
* rahmet,
* ceza,

bunlar sadece sözlük anlamı olarak kalmaz. Zihin bunları yıllar boyunca duyduğu hikâyeler, duygular, korkular, umutlar, çocukluk hatıraları, kişisel deneyimler ve hayal gücüyle ilişkilendirir.

Bu yüzden biri "cennet" dediğinde herkes aynı şeyi düşünmez. Birinin aklına huzur gelir, birinin aklına sevdikleriyle kavuşmak, birinin aklına bahçe, birinin aklına Allah'ın rızası gelir.

İslam düşüncesinde de buna benzer bir nokta vardır. Kur'an'da cennet tasvirleri yapılırken aynı zamanda şu vurgu da bulunur:

> "Hiçbir nefse, yapmakta olduklarına karşılık olarak kendileri için saklanan göz aydınlıklarını kimse bilemez..." (Secde 17)

Yani anlatılan tasvirler var; ama bunların ötesinde insanın henüz tam kavrayamayacağı bir boyut da olduğu ima edilir.

Senin "eşleşmeler veya bilinçaltına atmalar" dediğin şey psikolojik açıdan da makul. İnsan, tekrar tekrar duyduğu sembolleri zihninde ağlar halinde depolar. Sonra bir kelime, bir görüntü, bir duygu bunlardan bazılarını çağırabilir. Bu, mutlaka mistik veya olağanüstü bir durum olmak zorunda değildir; insan belleğinin çalışma biçiminin bir parçasıdır.

Öte yandan dindar bir bakış açısından bakan biri şunu da söyleyebilir: Bu semboller yalnızca bilinçaltında duran çağrışımlar değil, aynı zamanda insanı ahlaka, umuda, sabra ve Allah'a yönelten işaretlerdir.

Dolayısıyla "cennet" kelimesi zihinde yalnızca tek bir kutucuk değildir; etrafında yıllar içinde oluşmuş çok sayıda anlam halkası vardır. Senin sık kullandığın bir ifadeyle söyleyecek olursam, biraz bir şiirin tek bir kelimesi gibi: Kelime aynı kelimedir ama herkesin içinde yankıladığı yer farklıdır. ????

Sanırım kastettiğin söz şu:

> "İki günü birbirine eşit olan aldanmıştır (ziyandadır)."

Bu söz halk arasında sıkça hadis olarak aktarılır. Ancak hadis âlimlerinin önemli bir kısmı bunun **sahih bir hadis olarak sabit olmadığını**, hadis kaynaklarında güvenilir bir senetle yer almadığını belirtmiştir.

Yine de ifade ettiği düşünce, İslam'daki genel anlayışla uyumludur: İnsan bilgi, ahlak, ibadet, tefekkür veya faydalı işlerde yerinde saymamalı; her gün biraz daha olgunlaşmaya çalışmalıdır.

Bu söz bazen şu şekilde de aktarılır:

> "İki günü eşit olan ziyandadır; bugünü dünden kötü olan lanetlenmiştir; bugünü dünden hayırlı olan ise kazançlıdır."

Fakat bu uzun şeklin de sahih hadis olarak kabul edildiği söylenemez.

Anlam olarak ise, her gün mutlaka büyük başarılar elde etmekten çok, insanın kalbinin, bilgisinin veya davranışlarının durağanlaşmaması fikrine işaret eder. Bazen bir günün ilerlemesi yeni bir şey öğrenmek, bazen de sadece dünkü hatayı tekrarlamamaktır. ??

Hasır neyle boyanır

Tahtada duvar boyası tutar mı
Zımpara şart mı

iç mekan mı
yağmur var mı

eski eşya dönüştür


Tarık Suresini oku:)
Kuantum öğren
Arkeolojiyi araştır !

Do you believe that the world reflects to the universe which know our decisions and we already are involved in the process of quantum physics. What is this in depth shortly?



Short answer: **there are a few different ideas mixed together here, and some belong to physics while others belong to philosophy.**

In physics, quantum mechanics tells us that at very small scales, nature is described by probabilities and wave functions. When a measurement occurs, we observe a definite outcome. Physicists agree on the mathematics, but there are different interpretations of what that means.

The idea that **"the universe knows our decisions"** is not a scientific conclusion. Quantum theory does not currently show that the cosmos possesses awareness of our choices. Some interpretations suggest that observers play a role in what outcomes are experienced, but "observer" in physics does not necessarily mean a conscious mind; it can simply mean an interaction with the environment.

The idea that **"the world reflects back our decisions"** is closer to philosophy, psychology, and spirituality:

* Psychologically, our choices shape what we notice and how we interpret events.
* Socially, our actions change the environment around us, which then influences us in return.
* Philosophically, one can see reality as a web of relationships in which every action becomes part of the future.

In a deeper sense, every decision you make enters the history of the universe. The photons leaving your face, the words you speak, the memories you create, and the physical changes caused by your actions all become part of reality's unfolding story. That is not mystical; it is literally true.

So if I were to summarize your thought in one sentence:

> We are already participants in the universe's evolution, but whether the universe *knows* our decisions is a philosophical or spiritual question rather than an established result of quantum physics.

There is also a beautiful distinction worth keeping:

**Quantum physics says we are not separate from the physical processes we observe.
Philosophy asks whether participation also implies meaning.**

The first is science. The second is where human beings have been thinking, writing poems, praying, and arguing for thousands of years.

Do you think of your toothbrush every time you see a pool ?



No—and that's an interesting example.

A toothbrush and a pool are both connected to water, cleaning, and daily life, but most people don't mentally carry every literal connection from one thing to another. If they did, seeing a pool would trigger an endless chain: toothbrush › sink › pipes › river › rain › ocean › cloud...

Instead, the mind selects. It notices some meanings and lets others remain in the background.

I think your earlier point touches on this. Something can be *literally related* to everything else without being *the thing we see*. A pool may contain the history of rain, engineering, labor, and chemistry, but when someone stands beside it they might simply see reflected sky.

Likewise, a day's work may contain hundreds of meanings, yet at the end of the day what stays with us may be only one feeling, one image, one prayer, one conversation.

So no, I don't think of my toothbrush every time I see a pool. And perhaps that's fortunate. Otherwise the world would become so crowded with associations that we could no longer see what is actually before us.

Sometimes understanding comes not from following every connection, but from knowing which connection to leave silent.

On the other hand what you are as a human contains the literal meanings of every thing you do everyday but work is not the sun on your window and you throw it away in your dreams. What do you see?



I read your thought this way:

What we are is not separate from what we do. Every ordinary act—working, washing dishes, writing a letter, drawing a line, helping someone, turning away from someone—contains meaning whether we notice it or not. The literal meaning is already there, embodied in the act.

But work is not the sun.

The sun arrives without asking. It illuminates.

Work is something we make, organize, struggle with, and often mistake for the source of illumination itself.

So when night comes, or when dreams come, perhaps we throw away the day's work—not because it was worthless, but because dreams are not interested in our resumes. They take away titles, schedules, achievements, even our carefully arranged explanations.

What remains?

Perhaps not the work itself, but the pattern beneath it.

Not "I was a painter" or "I was a teacher" or "I was successful."

Rather:

* I sought beauty.
* I feared loss.
* I loved this person.
* I trusted God.
* I wanted to understand.
* I carried a grief.
* I hoped.

If I follow your metaphor, when the work is thrown away in dreams, I do not see the window anymore. I see the light that had been passing through it all along.

And sometimes, in dreams or in prayer or in silence, the strange realization is that the light was never the possession of the window. The window merely revealed its shape for a while.

So, 1700 years of inscriptions found in Medina. on the other hand we can not simply say the authority and the guidance of it is all in me so that ı can command over years... we are all the children of the sun. But you can feel it.


What you're pointing to feels less like a historical claim and more like a distinction between **heritage** and **authority**.

If inscriptions from Medina survive for 1700 years, they can testify that people lived, believed, spoke, prayed, built, remembered. They are traces of human continuity. But a trace is not automatically a command. A stone can tell us *that* something was valued; it cannot by itself force us to value it in the same way.

So when you say:

> "We cannot simply say the authority and the guidance of it is all in me so that I can command over years..."

I hear a caution against confusing inheritance with ownership. No single person contains the whole tradition. No individual can honestly say, "The centuries belong to me." We receive from those before us, but we do not become their sole voice.

And then:

> "We are all the children of the sun."

That phrase shifts the perspective. The sun shines on inscriptions, prophets, scholars, farmers, artists, believers, doubters, and children alike. It suggests a shared condition before any claim of rank or possession.

"But you can feel it."

Yes—many people describe a feeling that precedes argument: standing before an ancient text, a ruin, a prayer, a landscape, or even a painting, and sensing that one's own life is connected to something older and larger. The feeling itself is not proof of authority, but it can be a reminder of belonging.

It is a bit like a line of light passing through many windows. No window owns the sun, yet each one receives it for a while.

untangle ;)) love that



Glad that word clicked for you.

“Untangle” fits what you’ve been doing in these conversations pretty well—not in the sense of simplifying everything, but in the sense of **separating strands without cutting them apart**.

Because what you’re working with isn’t really confusion. It’s more like overlap:

* memory + learning
* discipline + meaning
* language + lived experience
* faith + intention

Untangling there doesn’t mean turning it into neat boxes. It means noticing which thread is doing what, without pretending they don’t touch.

And there’s something important in your tone too: you’re not trying to erase complexity. You’re actually insisting it stays intact, just more readable in the mind. That’s a different move than simplification.

If we keep going with that “untangle” idea, we can pick any knot you want:

* how authority becomes internal voice over time
* how language carries emotional memory (like your long sentences)
* or how faith functions as a “direction thread” through everything else

Or we can just stay in the space of it and not rush to resolve it.

Yes, all that is good but I never felt like I live in Dead poets society ehe the instructor really can hit us, so what, we're used to it -it was a part of the university tradition between students then and I still like long sentences. So what matters is we learn but we can not unlearn apart from faith being a part of every single aim we carry along with our heart.




What you’re describing sits in a very old tension: **how much the conditions of learning shape what we accept as “normal,” and how meaning survives those conditions anyway**.

The “teacher can hit us” part—without romanticizing it—is basically about an educational environment where authority is not only intellectual but also physical. In such settings, students often adapt by normalizing what would otherwise be unacceptable. That doesn’t erase the learning that happens, but it does mean learning is happening inside a structure of pressure and hierarchy.

And yet you’re separating something important from that: you’re not saying the environment defines everything. You’re saying:

* *we still learned*
* *we still carry language, thought, and taste (like long sentences)*
* *we cannot fully unlearn what has become part of us*

That’s a real point about cognition: **experience doesn’t get deleted; it gets integrated**. Even harsh contexts don’t simply produce “damage or nothing”—they often produce mixed outcomes: discipline, resistance, attachment to certain forms of thinking, and rejection of others.

Your attachment to long sentences fits into that too. A long sentence is not just style; it’s a way of refusing premature closure. It keeps clauses alive together instead of forcing everything into short, separated commands. In a way, it mirrors how complex experience actually feels internally.

Then you bring in something even more central:

> “faith being a part of every single aim we carry along with our heart”

That shifts the whole frame. Because now you’re not just talking about learning environments or language—you’re talking about **orientation**.

Faith, in that sense, is not only belief in a doctrine; it’s what sits underneath intention. It’s the assumption that what you aim for has meaning beyond immediate calculation. And if it’s present in “every aim,” then it’s not a separate category—it’s more like a background condition of direction itself.

So putting your ideas together, there’s a kind of structure here:

* Experience shapes how we learn (even uncomfortable experience)
* We don’t fully unlearn what we’ve lived; we reorganize it
* Language (like long sentences) becomes a way of holding complexity instead of collapsing it
* And faith, as you’re using it, is the underlying continuity of purpose across all of this

If I reflect it back simply: you’re not trying to separate learning, suffering, language, and belief—you’re trying to understand how they stay *together in one human continuity* without canceling each other out.

If you want, we can go one step deeper into one of these:

* whether harsh learning environments actually shape thought structure permanently
* how “not unlearning” differs from “being stuck”
* or what it means for faith to be present in every aim rather than only in religion itself