بررسی دیدگاه‌ شارحان درباره عوامل ابهام و تغییر بی‌قرینۀ مخاطب در دفتر دوم مثنوی (ابیات52 تا60)

The Masnavi is referred to as the outcome of a lifetime studying of the Quranic teachings, and has claimed the Holy Quran as its most important model. Just as in the verses of the Quran, there are parallels and similes, and some of them are difficult and must be deciphered. Precisely, some of the Masnavi verses follow this trend, and multiple investaiations have been taken into account by the researchers on the Masnavi and Mowlavi's lyrical fields to find out about the causes and factors and the ways to unravel it. In addition to a library review and with a descriptive-analytical method, experts’ opinions have been addressed in a case-by-case manner. Verses from the introduction of the second book, which are ambiguous and controversial in researchers’ and reporters’ opinion have been examined and the differences of views, especially in terms of its address and change, have been stated. While examining such viewpoints, it was found that due to Mowlavi's special style and the predominance of passion and mania in some verses of Masnavi, the audience changes from time to time without the presence of recitation in the verses, and the readers may face great difficulty. Furthemore, each of the commentators have chosen a special meaning to overcome this difficulty, and some have even pointed out the existence of various possibilities in the verses and the controversy and difficulty of determining a single audience and the type of audience. Differences in manuscripts and the oldness of the text alongside interfering with the mystical or philosophical view of commentators in understanding or imposing meaning on the text are among the other cases of ambiguity. Furthermore, disregarding the spiritual states of the poet and his passion and language and expression style in the mentioned verses various interpretations about the verses are also worth-mentioning. 
Introduction:
The Masnavi is known as the outcome of a lifetime studying of the Quranic teachings, and has claimed the Holy Quran as its most important model and found to be very close to the Quran, as it is expressed. Just as in the verses of the Quran, there are “mohkamats” and “moshbehats”, and some of them are difficult and ambiguous to understand and have many verbal and semantic complexities and must be deciphered. Some of the Masnavi verses are of the same type, and the researchers of the Masnavi and Mowlavi's lyrical fields have been investigated and analyzed a lot so as to find about its causes and factors and the ways to untangle it. Also, contrary to its appearance and the view of the seers, it is not only an anecdote and a story that can be satisfied by its appearance. Rather, as experts such as Homayi, Zarin Koob, and Purnamdarian have stated, the Masnavi has various levels of meaning and, in some of its verses, it is not possible to reach the depth of Mowlavi's thought except by reflection and scrutiny. Mowlavi, sometimes in the height of ecstasy and mystical state, forgets that he is teaching the principles of mysticism, and in this state of sokr and fana. He does not even pay attention to the audience in terms of assembly and its state, and sometimes addresses a perfect human being. Sometimes, it is Hesam-al-Din or Shams-al-Din, and sometimes it is connected to the main source, and his speech is addressed to Rabb al-Arbab. In this change of discourses, the reader of the verses is lost and is unaware of Moulavi's pronoun, and this itself is one of the factors of ambiguity in some of Mowlavi's words. On the other hand, the issue of ambiguity is one of the most important linguistic and literary issues today, and ancient Persian texts can be reread and scrutinized from this point of view. Ambiguity, in language and literary work, has various factors such as the ambiguous nature of some literary techniques, techniques related to the science of semantics, meanings related to the science of expression, linguistic twists, the oldness of the text and the version of the substitutes, the multiple meanings of some words and Combinations, ambiguity in the author's mind that is transferred to the audience, author's death, brevity, syntactic abnormality, syntactic and semantic defamiliarization, etc.
Materials and Methods:
In the initial sections of the second book, which is associated with the opening and re-opening of Masnavi and the composition of Masnavi after a delay, many verses can be found that the audience of which is not clear to us, and can be counted as one of the main causes for the divergences in the views provided by commentators and narrators of this book. Verses have been made. An example of these verses is in verses 52 to 60 of the second book, where Mowlavi leaves the reader in his inner thoughts and those in his spiritual journey, he expresses verses that he only knows about. It is not the analogy or reference which helps the reader find out who the target audience is, and this is the reason for the ambiguity of some verses, especially in the mentioned verses. In this article, while reviewing the library and descriptive-analytical and comparative method and the opinion of experts, is meant to analyze and differentiate the views (especially in terms of changes) in the form of case-by-case verses from the opening part of the second book (Masnavi), which according to many researchers and reporters, is one of the ambiguous and controversial cases.
Results and Discussion:
In these verses, the addressed audience of Mowlavi is not tangible and each of the commentators have had their own interpretations, and based on that, they have determined the audience and interpreted and reported the verses. This has led to multiple interpretations of the commentators. In some cases, when they have started to justify and argue their interpretation, the commentators have sometimes considered a specific audience in all the verses and have proceeded with this audience up to the end of the story. In such cases, the meaning of the verses was not very smooth and acceptable in alignment with this audience, and they have tried to provide justifications for that to be considered acceptable. This group of commentators have faced more difficuly. The audience of each of these groups is also the same in all verses, however, it is different. For example, some people consider the audience in all the verses to be a perfect human, some consider them as God, and some, like Mulla Hadi Sabzevari, consider them as spirits. These commentators are definitely facing a challenge and inevitably reach for justifications and interpretations to prove the intended meaning, and naturally some justifications are not acceptable. However, some who are familiar with the method of Mowlavi and the change of address in the mystical state of ecstasy, present, and secret, have realized that it is not possible to interpret the verses with the same audience. Precisely, it has been explained in detail that some verses are addressed to God. Also, they have interpreted it by addressing the perfect human being and some by addressing the soul, and in the author's opinion, they have gone on the right path and had a more complete understanding of Mowlavi's way of expression. Bearing in mind that Rumi does not speak very consciously in expressing the mystical content and details and in the position of mystical destruction, and at the same time, the audience changes in the mind of Mowlavi, the language of speech continues without any comparison and the audience (either normal or special) will have problems in this respect.
Conclusion:
As the result of examing these views, it was found that due to the special style of Mowlavi and the predominance of passion and mania in some of his verses, sometimes the audience changes without the presence of the verses, and the reader and narrator of the verses face a great deal of difficulty. Furthermore, each of the commentators have chosen a specific meaning to overcome this difficulty, and some have even pointed out the existence of various possibilities in the verses and the controversy and difficulty of determining the single audience and the type of audience. Among the commentators, those who did not consider the verses necessary in all verses and paid attention to the change of address in Masnavi have chosen the right way. Among other cases and factors of ambiguity in the mentioned verses and various interpretations of the text by the commentators, the following can be mentioned. The difference between the manuscripts and the oldness of the text is that the interference of the mystical or philosophical point of view of the commentators in the understanding of the text or the imposition of meaning, and, throughout the text, neglecting the spiritual states of the poet and his passion, breaking the foundation and the logical process of the speech by the poet are evident