By Yoseph Mulugeta Baba (Ph.D.)*
Part II
(In my previous article, I elucidated the way in which the Oromo system of knowledge essentially takes its starting point from the concept of jireenya—existence—with reference to jiruu-fi-jireenya-nama—ontological characteristic of human being; for the understandingand interpretation of the world, of oneself, and other people. In doing so, I clearly indicated how Oromo’s concept of Reality can best be subsumed under three broad concepts: (a) Uumaa (Cosmology); (b) Waaqa (Undifferentiated-Being); and (c) Saffu (Human Ontology). The present article is a continuation of previous one.)
The Oromo mode of thought “denies” any distinction between thought and things. As a consequence, Waaqa is conceived of as being both transcendent and immanent. This is due to the Oromo concept of Uumaa —creation. Uumaa is a world-of-process. This act of creation —Uumaa— signifies Waaqa’s presence as a natural part of the entire created natural world in the form ofAyyaanaa, which in turn is responsible for the emergence of new creatures —uumama—at different epochs of human history. Ayyaanaa is thus something of Waaqa. In other words, Waaqa is at the same time one and many. In Oromo philosophical thought, therefore, a distinction between the universe of thought and the universe of nature is untenable.
In the absence of such distinctions, however, how to define human nature remains problematic. Such a philosophical question sets the scene for the concept of Saffu. This concept has its origin in the description of human “existence” as being related to one or another kind of human “activity”. As I argued in my pervious article, unlike other things, human “existence” is intrinsically linked to jiruu-fi-jireenya-nama — ontological characteristic of human being. This “activity” can best be a result of having a knowledge of things in accordance with the place assigned to each of them by Waaqa. The Oromo notion of jireenya includes the idea that everything relates to nature outside of itself. As it would be absurd to have this notion about human reason, however, the concept of jiruu-fi-jireenya-nama was developed which enables one to interpret and balance the “paradox” posed by Uumaaversus Ayyaanaa.
Therefore, the concept of Saffu—human ontology—is not only about the Oromo’s moral philosophy, as some scholars have tended to argue. But, it is also an epistemological notion founded on the idea of the jiruu-fi-jireenya-nama— ontological characteristic of human being. The jiruu-fi-jireenya-namaessentially relates to the physical world as well as human society. The concept of Saffu—human ontology—is thus nothing other than a proper understanding and interpretation of one’s state of “existence” as s/he radically relates to both aspects of nature—physical world and human society. It is a critical reflection upon a relationship that ought to exist between each human being and Uumaaas well as Ayyaanaa, on the one hand, and between an individual and human society, on the other. (Raayyaa Horoo, 2008, p. 13)
The above epistemological assertion has two philosophical foundations: (a) seera Waaqa—the laws of Undifferentiated-Being and (b) seera Nama —the laws of human being. The former is not a complete form of knowledge. As I have already argued, the origin of Undifferentiated-Being is wholly “unknown” to the human mind. Yet, coming to some sort of such knowledge is not impossible. This is due to the Oromo’s notion of Ayyaanaa. Ayyaanaa can be “thought of as fractions of Divinity [Undifferentiated-Being]: fractions which arise from the continuous Creation [Uumaa] by which God expresses himself and imposes structure on the world.” (Gudrun Dahl, 1996, p. 170) Hence,knowledge gained concerning the laws of “nature”, for instance, is attributed to Ayyaanaa. These laws are conceived of as fixed and eternal. They are thus immutable.
Seera Nama — the laws of human being—, on the other hand, are subject to change in the context of jiruu-fi-jireenya-nama—human “existence”. Although the seera Waaqa —the laws ofUndifferentiated-Being—underlie every jiruu-fi-jireenya-nama—at different epochs of human history, yet; the understanding and interpretation of the seera Nama—the laws of human being—may differ considerably between individuals. In the Oromo concept of Reality, however, this difference need not be seen as a “contradiction”; unless such an interpretation goes against the concept of Saffu—human ontology. That is to say, the denial of Saffu is the failure of the individual to keep a balancebetween seera Waaqa—Ayyaanaa—and seera Nama—Uumaa. This “activity”, as indicated already, is generally called the jiruu-fi-jireenya-nama. The clear assumption is that, although one has a considerable difficulty (in) overcoming this “contradiction”, there is always room for theinterpretation and understanding of the case in question to keep a balance between all things: Saffu, which finally leads, to pluralistic interpretations of the universe, despite the fact that there is just oneuniverse.
Accordingly, the Oromo have adopted and developed a philosophic method of enquiry to identify and determine the tenable form of interpretation whenever various competing interpretations arise. This mode of investigation is called an ilaa-fi-ilaamee-philosophic-mode-of-thought. With such foundations in mind, let us, in the following subsection explore the justification of this form of enquiry. In order to do so, I would single out Gumii Gaayo as justification of the case in point.
(to be continued)
References
Note: The responsibility for the article is entirely mine.
Galatoomaa!
*Yoseph Mulugeta Baba received his B.A; M.A; and Ph.D degrees in Philosophy from the CUEA. His research areas include Metaphilosophy, Oromo Philosophy, Continental Philosophy, Post-colonial African Political Philosophy, Postmodernism, and Ethiopian historiography. Currently, he is completing his forthcoming book (CUEA PRESS)—on The Ilaa-fi-Ilaamee Philosophical Method of Enquiry. He can be reached at kankokunmalimaali@gmail.com.
Previous article The Oromo Concept of Reality or Dhugaa-Ganama, Part I
