Sufi Reverberations Podcast - Episode #16 - Anab Whitehouse

Sufi Reverberations Podcast - Episode #13 - Anab Whitehouse

Good Without God: A Sufi Response

Recently, I began reading a book entitled: Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe by Greg M. Epstein who is the Humanist chaplain at Harvard University. The following discussion constitutes something of a critical review in relation to at least the introduction of that work.

I should begin by saying that the reason for critically engaging Chaplain Epstein’s book is not because I feel threatened by anything that he says concerning a nonreligious approach to life … any more than I would feel threatened by the religious ideas of someone with whom I might disagree.  The purpose of any exercise in critical reflection should be to try to: Explore possibilities, raise questions, probe problems, clarify issues, and enrich discourse.

Moreover, I don’t look at people such as Chaplain Epstein as enemies, evildoers, or individuals who are headed for perdition. I can sincerely say that I have no idea what the future holds – in this world or beyond -- for either Chaplain Epstein or myself.

We both are committed to exploring what it means to be a human being. The fact that we have come up with different perspectives concerning that issue and what, if anything, this means in the grander scheme of things entail considerations that are above my pay grade.

At one point during the introduction to his aforementioned book, Chaplain Epstein notes in passing that according to some opinion polls atheists are among the most reviled groups in America. He might, or might not, take heart to discover that I have come across the results of various opinion polls in which atheists are rated more favorably than Muslims in the United States.

Bragging rights aside concerning the identity of which group resides at the bottom of this or that favorability poll, Chaplain Epstein does say something in the introduction to his book with which I am in agreement. More specifically, he states: “The enemy … is not faith – the enemy … is hate, it is fear, it is ignorance, it is the darker part” that resides in every human being.

According to Chaplain Epstein, among other things, Humanists consider themselves to be “free thinkers, rationalists, skeptics” as well as naturalists. I find this description somewhat mystifying since it seems to imply that in order to be a freethinker, rationalist, skeptic, or naturalist, one must be someone who does not believe in God.

Free thinking, rationalism, skepticism, and naturalism can be rooted in both a nonreligious or religious context. Everything depends on the intentions underlying, and purposes for which, such cognitive activities are being used. 

For example, a naturalist is considered to be someone who believes that everything is a function of some set of natural causes or phenomena and, as well, believes that all references to supernatural and spiritual realities are ill considered if not irrelevant to establishing the truth concerning the nature of existence. Sufis maintain there is no reality but Divinity, and, therefore, such reality constitutes the only sense of naturalism that is possible … a sense in which it is wrong to distinguish between the natural and the supernatural since the natural gives expression to whatever the nature of reality makes possible.

Moreover, under the right sort of circumstances, even some mystics make use of reason just as Humanists do. However, there are differences in understanding between the two groups concerning the nature of reason, its possible limits, and how to apply reason to any given issue.

As far as the quality of being skeptical is concerned, part of the training of a Sufi is to develop a healthy and constructive skepticism concerning the reliability of the ideas, values, purposes, meanings, intentions, desires, and emotions that arise in one’s own consciousness as well as in the phenomenology of other individuals. There are many forces capable of leading one away from the truth – whatever that might turn out to be – and, consequently, one should refine one’s capacity for skeptical engagement of oneself and life in order to try to minimize -- as much as this can be accomplished -- the degree of distortion and error in one’s understanding of things.

If one wishes to adopt a skeptical stance toward life, then, one needs to be prepared to apply such skeptical inclinations to everything … including one’s own ideas, values, beliefs, and behaviors. To question just the religious ideas of other individuals is to invoke a biased and skewed form of skepticism.

One also must be skeptical with respect to nonreligious ideas as well. In fact, one should be prepared to be skeptical toward skepticism itself because, on occasion, we are able to uncover certain truths, and, therefore, being skeptical about what is true is the sort of hobgoblin of consistency that is characteristic of truly narrow minds.

In my opinion, there is no form of skeptical methodology that is more rigorous than the Sufi mystical path. At the same time, Sufi methodology indicates that skepticism is a means, not an end … that is, while adopting a skeptical stance toward much that takes places within the phenomenology of lived life is a very important thing to do, nonetheless, within limits, being able to arrive at a correct understanding concerning certain aspects of Being is, as intimated earlier, still possible.

Chaplain Epstein claims that the central issue is not about whether, or not, it is possible for someone who does not believe in God to be moral, perform good deeds or develop strong character traits. He believes that such possibilities are very real and, furthermore, he believes there are many examples to which one could point in defense of such a perspective.

He feels that the more interesting question is what makes such moral behavior, good deeds, and character possible. In other words, how does someone who does not believe in God go about being moral, or having character, or performing good deeds?

The question that Chaplain Epstein is raising is a good one … perhaps better than he supposes is the case. As a former professor, one of the issues that I had to consider with respect to any given student was whether, or not, the assignments handed in by that individual were his or her own work.

Did the person cheat on a given test? Did that individual plagiarize material from sources that were not properly cited in the notes or bibliography accompanying the main content of the essay or paper?

I didn’t start out with an orientation of suspicion when grading exams or papers. However, during the course of reading through what some students handed in, certain things might trigger such a concern.

I tried my best to get to know the students through interchanges both within and outside of classes. Many of my classes usually consisted of between 35-40 students, and by the end of the term, I knew them all by name as well as had a sense of what they were, and were not, capable of doing within the context of a given course.

Chaplain Epstein claims that he is interested in the question of how people can be good without God. I am interested in that question as well.

We are not necessarily the architects of our own capacities for: Consciousness, language, reason, logic, memory, intellect, creativity, understanding, or emotion. In fact, for a number of years in both Canada and the United States, I taught a variety of courses in psychology – and, consequently, I was able to develop a fairly informed insight into the epistemological status of the understanding of modern sciences – biological or physical – concerning what makes any of the aforementioned capacities possible or how they came into being.

All manner of hypotheses, theories, and models exist concerning such issues. What is missing is conclusive evidence that any of those ideas are correct, and contrary to the claims of some individuals, science is not even close to resolving the many mysteries that permeate our attempts to understand the origin and nature of either human existence or human capabilities.

If someone has doubts about the tenability of the foregoing claim, she or he might like to take a look at several books which I have written – such as Volumes I, II, and III of the Final Jeopardy series or the book: Evolution and the Origin of Life. All of the foregoing books go into considerable detail concerning different facets of particle physics, quantum mechanics, cosmology, evolution, and more that are not well-understood by modern science… and I might add in passing that none of the foregoing discussion pits some form of creationism against some form of secular materialism but sticks to just probing science per se.

So, when someone maintains that human beings exhibit moral behavior, good deeds, and/or quality character absent the presence of God, this triggers something in me that is similar to what used to occur when I was grading the test or term paper of some of my students. Namely, I wonder if the individuals who are making claims about what is possible without God might be committing a form of plagiarism in which they are taking credit for something that is not their own work and are failing to cite the proper sources that make their ideas and actions possible.

Where do the ideas come from that end up being expressed through good deeds or which result in moral behavior of this or that kind? What makes the compassion, love, aspiration, courage, patience, perseverance, and so on possible that permits one to understand, for example, the plight of others and, as a result, want to do something about such situations? Where does the will come from to carry through on the original ideas and intentions? Where do the intellect, memory, understanding, reason, and logic come from that helps to shape the realization of the original intention? Where do the means and opportunities come from that permit one to be in a position to help others? What caused the circumstances of someone to be in a condition of need and why?

Individuals who are inclined in either a nonreligious or a religious manner both tend to want to consider themselves to be the source of good deeds, moral behavior, and quality character traits.  However, neither group can prove that they are the primary causal agent for any of the foregoing events … all they can do is to indicate that on a given occasion a certain individual was the locus of manifestation through which such properties were realized.

Chaplain Epstein notes that thousands of innocent lives are ripped away by hurricanes, earthquakes and other “acts of God”. He indicates that an increasing number of people have come to conclude that the world does not have competent moral management and that, consequently, they feel they must become “superintendants” of their own lives and try to resolve the many problems that beset human beings … but they wish to do so in a way that can be considered to be constructive and, therefore, described as being “good”.

To contend that because thousands of allegedly innocent lives are destroyed through so-called “acts of God” and, therefore, suggest that God -- if God exists -- is not a competent moral manager is an arbitrary judgment based on complete ignorance concerning the nature of existence. Simply because one doesn’t understand why things are the way they are doesn’t necessarily mean that what occurs is due to incompetent moral management.

Moreover, one wonders why Chaplain Epstein should limit the “acts of God” to events such as earthquakes and hurricanes. If God exists, then, sooner or later, every human being dies through one or another act of God, and we have no better insight into the nature of our individual demise than we have with respect to the deaths of thousands of people via the way of floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, droughts, volcanic activity, and other natural disasters.

Someone dies at a very young age. Or, someone dies through no apparent fault of his or her own. Or, someone dies a slow, agonizing death.

What are we to make of any of this? A lot depends on whether, or not, one has the full story concerning such happenings.

Those who believe that the universe is operating through some form of incompetent moral management believe they have all the facts concerning such situations. One wonders how those individuals would go about proving that they are in possession of all relevant information about any given tragedy or death.

Human beings are notorious backseat drivers. We tend to kibitz about the way another person – or God – does things irrespective of whether, or not, we understand what we are talking about. We always tend to give preference to our own take on things and believe that one’s own understanding is the most reliable means for judging life events.

This is the way of the ego. Such an inclination is at the heart of the dark side of being human that Chaplain Epstein warned his readers about in the introduction to his book and about which I voiced my agreement earlier in this commentary.

In addition, implying that God – if God exists – is an incompetent moral manager because thousands of innocent lives are lost through “acts of God” such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, and the like suggests that Chaplain Epstein knows of some absolute form of moral management which is independent of God and through which the actions of any god that would permit the destruction of innocent lives can be evaluated impartially and objectively. If so, one would like to know what the nature of that absolute form of moral management is and what constitutes its source of authoritativeness.

All we really know is that we are not in control of many, if any, life events, and such knowledge tends to leave us with a sense of helpless frustration. So, there is a tendency within us to adopt the existential stance of most politicians and state: “You know what’s wrong with the world, I’m not in charge.”

There are at least two things that are very evident when it comes to human existence. First, reality has a very stubborn tendency to resist our efforts to make it conform to our likes and dislikes, and, secondly, we are almost completely ignorant about why things are the way they are.

One can be as cynical, skeptical, rationalistic, and freethinking as one likes. Nevertheless, after the dust from all our cognitive activity ends, we tend to be as ignorant about the ultimate nature of reality as we were before engaging in such activities.

Operating out of a condition of ignorance will not shed light on whether, or not, the world is being governed through morally incompetent management. All of our speculations, theories, ideas, models, and conceptual systems concerning how we would do things differently if we were put in charge is so much spitting into the mysterious and unpredictable winds of existence that are buffeting our being.

I am interested in trying to find out what or why a billion nonreligious people believe what they do for the same reason that I am interested in finding out why billions of religious people believe what they do. I am interested in finding out whether someone – or any person -- is right concerning such beliefs, and I consider this to be the number one issue facing a human being … to try to determine – to whatever extent this is possible -- the location and character of whatever truths are accessible to human existence.

I don’t merely want to have an understanding in which to believe and through which to develop a purpose or be able to fashion a morality of some kind or find some sort of meaning concerning life. I want to know – if this is possible -- which purpose, form of morality, and meaning actually reflects the nature of reality.

This is the problem with which we all grapple and for which we all are seeking answers and for which we all – one day – might, or might not, be held accountable. Are the numerous decisions that we have made along the way and that have affected others in different ways … are such decisions ones for which we will have regrets if the truth is ever disclosed to us?

The song “My Way” has the line: “Regrets, I’ve had a few … but, then, again, too few to mention”. These are the words of a person who seems to be looking at life through the filters of his or her own myopic view of the truth of things … some one who is viewing life through the very rose-colored, self-serving glasses through which the ego engages life.

Wisdom begins to appear on the horizons of one’s existence when one is prepared to acknowledge the possibility that “My Way” might not be the best way to engage existence. One must be ready to really listen to what reality might be trying to tell us about its nature rather than imposing our own brand of ignorance on to the problems of life.

According to Chaplain Epstein, Humanism “means taking charge of the often lousy world around us and working to shape it into a better place”. This seems to indicate that he knows what “better” means, and if so, then, it tends to leave unanswered the question of what to do when people disagree about what constitutes the nature of “better”.  The foregoing issue also faces those who believe in religion … all too frequently, they assume they know what “better” means and, consequently, often do not critically reflect on the issue of what to do when two senses of “better” collide.

Chaplain Epstein indicates that Humanism “rejects dependence on faith, the supernatural, divine texts, resurrection, reincarnation, or anything else for which we have no evidence.” The issue of rejecting dependence on: Faith, the supernatural, divine texts and so on revolves about the problem of determining what is going to count as evidence and how to interpret such evidence.

Rejecting something as evidence, or citing it as evidence, is a meaningless exercise until one looks at the framework through which something is going to be counted as evidence or rejected as such. Furthermore, one has to ask about the degree of arbitrariness present in such a framework of epistemological or hermeneutical evaluation … and this is as true for religious believers as it is for nonreligious believers.

Wikipedia describes “arbitrariness” as the quality of being "determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle". However, this leaves a question in the wake of such a definition as the latter makes its way through epistemological waters.

More specifically, one can’t help but raise the following question: How arbitrary is a given person’s notion of “necessity, reason, and principle”? Or, asked in a different way, what is it that makes any given notion of: “necessity, reason, and principle” be something other than arbitrary?

Presumably, the answer to the foregoing questions would be a function of the truth. Any notion of necessity, reason, and principle that does not reflect and is not rooted in the truth is arbitrary. In short, arbitrariness is that which is based on something other than the truth.

Humanists insist that the journey from the womb to the tomb is all that we have … but they have no evidence to demonstrate the truth of their claim. They – like most of the rest of us – have only a deep, pervasive ignorance concerning such matters, and, yet, they appear to want everyone to proceed as if the Humanist understanding of things is the only necessary, reasoned, principled take on life, and, perhaps not so strangely, the Humanist position really is just a variation on the manner in which many, if not most religious people proceed as well.

No one wants to admit that they are ignorant about almost everything that matters. Consequently, no one wants to address the issue of how do we collectively proceed given such ignorance. How do we pursue and make allowances for what we don’t know without getting problematically entangled in each other’s lives?

According to Chaplain Epstein, “humanism is a cohesive world movement based on the creation of good lives and communities, without God.” Irrespective of whether one wishes to exclude God or include God in our lives and communities, the notion of what constitutes “goodness” is a long-standing problem.

Quite frequently, our ideas concerning “the good” merely reduce down to our likes and dislikes. Therefore, such notions tend to be quite independent of necessity, reason, or principle except to the extent that we like to throw such words around as we try to persuade one another that our system of likes and dislikes is better than your system of likes and dislikes.

Chaplain Epstein claims that for most people, “religion is not about belief in an all-seeing deity with a baritone voice and a flowing beard. It is about family, tradition, consolation, ethics, memories, music, art, architecture, and much more.” First, Chaplain Epstein’s reductionistic depiction of God is quite argumentative and narrow in scope.

More importantly, I am willing to venture that for many people who have a genuine commitment to the idea of God’s existence, their central concern is about a sense of relationship with Divinity via the mind, heart and soul rather than merely being a function of arbitrary images – auditory or visual -- of one kind or another. Even where images are present, I am inclined to feel it is the sense of relationship with Divinity that pervades such images that is of utmost importance rather than the images per se … that is, the images stand for something beyond the images themselves … something ineffable and hard to put in words … it is the dance of one’s phenomenology with a mysterious, unseen – but very much sensed – Partner.

Secondly, even if one were to agree with Chaplain Epstein that for many people religion is much more about family, tradition, ethics, memories, music, art, and architecture than anything else, one still might raise the issue of whether such people have missed the essential point of religion or spirituality. In other words, irrespective of however important family, tradition, memories, and so on might be within a religious context, nonetheless, to restrict spirituality to such considerations tends to obscure the following possibility – namely, that the opportunity for, and the journey toward, realizing one’s essential potential might constitute the primary purpose to which religion and spirituality are seeking to draw our attention.

I am not trying to say that what goes on in the world is unimportant. Rather, in the latter part of the foregoing paragraph, emphasis is being given to the idea that life might be a means to, and occasion for, a process of spiritual development rather than being an end unto itself.

Even if we all engaged the world as a project for pursuing goodness in this life and were successful in agreeing on, and realizing, such a project, if the world turns out to exist for something other than, or is transcendent to, such Earthly interests, then, however good we make the world, we might have missed the purpose for which life on Earth came into being. Living the ‘good life’ – whatever this might mean – has to reflect and be rooted in the truth of reality’s nature … we cannot arbitrarily decide what the meaning and purpose of Earthly life are and expect that everyone should submit to such an approach to things … anymore than we can arbitrarily decide that the purpose and meaning of life should be lived in accordance with some arbitrary theological notion.

Chaplain Epstein claims that we need what can be found or created in a Humanist community – “… a place where family, memory, ethical values, and the uplifting of the human spirit can come together with intellectual honesty, and without a god.” I have no doubt that Humanists can come up with ideas concerning goodness and community that have meaning, value, and purpose for them … but how intellectually honest and defensible any of this might be is another set of issues altogether.

One could agree with the Humanist perspective that the journey from womb to tomb is unique and only comes our way once. However, acknowledging such a perspective does not require one to conclude that: “Family, memory, ethical value, and the uplifting of the human spirit can come together with intellectual honesty without a god.”

Of course, a similar sort of criticism can be leveled at those who find meaning, value, and purpose in this or that theology and, as a result, seek to play their own kind of zero-sum game with anyone who is unwilling to accept their edicts concerning the nature of reality. The commonality that ties all of us together – the people who are committed to some version of religious reality as well as the people who are committed to some nonreligious way of life – is our collective ignorance about so many of the key issues of life … an ignorance that we often do our best to deny, and a denial that tends to come at great cost to ourselves and the people amongst whom we live.

Despite the many accomplishments of modern science, we still have no demonstrable proof concerning how either the universe or life came into being. In addition, we do not know the how and why underlying the origins of consciousness, logic, reason, insight, memory, creativity, talent, language, and emotion. To claim that science offers the best account of the universe and its many mysteries is to arbitrarily inflate the status of the opinions and speculations of a group of very fallible individuals whose primary modus operandi appears to be its capacity to improve upon – within limits -- some of its many previously incorrect theories concerning the nature of the universe, life, and human potential.

This might be a sound strategy if one had an infinite amount of time to wait on some sort of final answer concerning the nature of reality. Unfortunately, this is not the situation in which we find ourselves since irrespective of whether one is inclined in a religious or nonreligious way, the time we have available to try to solve the mysteries of life is very limited … and, for unknown reasons, this constraint is much more severe for some individuals than it is for others.

Chaplain Epstein refers to Humanism through the filters of the European term: “lifestance”, and he claims that this term refers to something that is more than a philosophy but is not a religion.” One wonders in what sense a “lifestance” is more than a philosophy but other than a religion.

Such a statement seems to involve little more than playing around with the ambiguities of language and, thereby, making claims that can’t be spelled out in clear, defensible terms. To contend that Humanism is a lifestance and, therefore, neither a philosophy or a religion tends to ignore an obvious question … namely, if the Humanist lifestance is neither a philosophy nor a religion, then, what is it and from whence does it derive the sort of intellectual and moral authority that would warrant anyone, or everyone, to subscribe to its tenets?

Chaplain Epstein claims that: “Faith in God means believing absolutely in something, with no proof whatsoever. Faith in humanity means believing absolutely in something with a huge amount of proof to the contrary.” To claim that people who have faith in God believe in something with no proof whatsoever is an attempt to reduce to nothingness the life experiences of people who believe ... it is an attempt to claim that because Humanists don’t recognize something as a proof, then, that something has no probative value … it is an attempt by Humanists to set themselves up as the arbiters of what is true and what is not true … and, even more importantly, it is an attempt to try to frame what human experiences have probative value and what human experiences don’t have such probative value. And, unfortunately, many individuals who believe in religion of one sort or another are often guilty of doing the same sort of thing.

Furthermore, one also would like to know just what is meant by the claim that Humanists have faith in humanity despite a great deal of evidence to indicate that such faith is not warranted. Just what is it in human beings that Humanists have faith in and how and where did this something come into being? Can Humanists prove that whatever dimension of being human in which they have faith came into existence and derived its potential from something other than Divinity?

For Humanists to claim that they want to do whatever they do without the idea of God raises a question … and it is a question that must also be asked, as well, of anyone who believes in religion of some kind. To what extent are one’s beliefs delusional in nature … that is, to what extent do one’s beliefs stray from the truth of things … for that is what a delusion is … a belief that is false … a belief that does not accurately reflect the actual nature of reality.

We all have our values, purposes, meanings, reasons, principles, and moral systems. Yet, we all lack the sort of definitive proof that would permit us to demonstrate to the satisfaction of any other presumably reasonable person that our values, purposes, meanings, reasons, principles, and systems of morality accurately reflect the actual nature of reality.

If there is no afterlife, then, what someone believes in this life has no causal relation to what transpires after we die. Irrespective of what we believe, we disappear into the abyss of non-existence, and that is the end of the matter.

If there is no God, then, talking about the good life is just an exercise in arbitrariness in which one tries to justify – without having any universally defensible basis for doing so – one’s own lonely, desperate need to have a sense of existential value, purpose, and meaning. This remains true independently of whether our definition of the good life is rooted in a religious or non-religious perspective.

However, if there is an afterlife and if there is a God, then what follows? Actually, nothing automatically or necessarily follows.

What becomes critical is discovering the truth – to whatever extent this can be done -- concerning the nature of the afterlife and the existence of God. Truth is not about having theories, hypotheses, speculations, opinions, beliefs, or a lifestance with respect to such matters … truth is a matter of accurate knowledge and understanding concerning reality.

Unfortunately, most of us are steeped in ignorance when it comes to the truth about the ultimate nature of reality. Even the precision of this or that science or the promises of this or that theology is helpless when it comes to answering what, if anything, existence is all about.

If I wanted to know what energy a certain species of sub-atomic particle might have when it engages in a certain kind of interaction with some other kind of particle, I would ask a quantum physicist. If I wanted to know about the nature of a given religious perspective with which I was unfamiliar, I would ask a theologian who knew about such matters.

However, when it comes to the ultimate nature of existence, scientists, humanists, and theologians are as ignorant as the rest of us are. Yet, depending on how open to a free-flowing dialog a given scientist, humanist, or theologian might be, I would be prepared to constructively explore with them what our collective options might be in the face of such ignorance and uncertainty.

Sufi Study Circle Podcast #6

The newest edition (#6) of the Sufi Study Circle Podcast is now available for both free downloading and streaming. It contains a recitation of Surah 92, The Night, from the Qur'an, a Friday Thoughts commentary entitled: "Everest", a poem by Shaykh Ahmad al-Alawi, a meditative essay with the title: "Beliefs", a traditional reading from the 100 Letters of Sharafuddin Maneri, and more. Click on the artwork above.

The Sufi Study Circle Podcast #5 is Now Available

The fifth edition of the Sufi Study Circle is now available for those who are interested. This edition consists of Quranic recitation, sufi poetry, floetry, a Friday Thoughts entitled: 'The God Virus", a meditative essay bearing the title: 'Humility', and a reading from the writings of Hazrat al-Qushayri. Either click on the artwork below or go to: Sufi Study Circle Podcast #5 .

To Listen to a New Edition of the Sufi Study Circle Podcast

The third, and most recent, edition of the Sufi Study Circle Podcast -- #3 -- is now available. You can either click on the artwork below 

or you can type the RSS feed -- 

http://anab-whitehouse.com/Circle/Sufi.xml 

-- into the pod catcher of your choice, or you can go to iTunes: 
and subscribe to the podcast. The choices are many. The results are the same.

Listen to the Sufi Study Circle Podcast #2

The Sufi Study Circle Podcast has just released its second program. One can access that podcast through either a download or streaming version by going to: Circle. Alternatively, one can subscribe to the podcast through the generic RSS feed: http://anab-whitehouse.com/Circle/Sufi.xml, as well as by using the following iTunes feed: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/sufi-study-circle-podcast/id1034941022 .

Autonomy - A Sufi's Perspective

The struggle to establish control over our lives is a theme which is intimately woven into the fabric of our existence. In one way or another, we all seek to carve out a place on which we can stand and defend ourselves against intrusions into, and possible threats to, our space, our privacy, our movements, our choices, our time, our possessions, and our identities.

From the very earliest days of our developmental odyssey, the story of our growth is influenced greatly by skirmishes and battles concerning the perceived locus of control in our lives. Our relationship with parents, siblings, relatives, playmates, neighbors, religious figures, school mates, teachers, adolescent friends, bosses, work mates, clients, romantic liaisons, in-laws, and children frequently revolve around problems of whom gets to set the agenda for how, or if, the relationship will proceed and under what set of conditions.

We tend to define who we are and aren't according to the character and outcome of all the different kind of locus-of-control issues which run through our lives. How serious were they? How intense? Were they protracted? What tactics were used?

How important was control in any given instance? Was it an atmosphere of take no prisoners or were there civil negotiations? How long were the periods of relative peace between significant differences of opinion concerning locus of control problems? Were there peaceful alternatives available to hostile encounters? Did the confrontations do lasting damage, or were they no big deal?

The answer to all the above questions, and many others of a similar nature that might be asked, will have a profound impact on us. They will affect our sense of: identity, integrity, self-esteem, and ability to function effectively in a variety of social settings.

If we are lucky, we come out of all this with, perhaps, a few bruises and a couple of scars. However, our basic feeling about ourselves as, in some nontrivial sense, worthwhile human beings is still intact.

One might even argue our sense of self has been enhanced by the rigors of, and lessons learned from, that developmental process. Moreover, we have " war" stories to swap with other people - stories that both link us to, as well as differentiate us from, other people who have gone through their own operational theater of developmental conflicts.

If we are unlucky, we end up as casualties. Even worse, we may end up creating other casualties.

We may survive these wars, but we do not always do so free of the horrendous ramifications which may ensue from the seemingly unending years of conflicts. Emotional trauma, arrested psychological development, inability to form intimate relationships with others, poor self-esteem, various kinds of stress syndrome, under-achievement, over-achievement, ambivalence, confusion, inability to commit oneself, debilitating anxiety, and a free-floating malaise are but a few of the dysfunctional possibilities which we may carry with us as mementos of the 'campaigns' marking different stages of our formative years.

There is a very fundamental sense in which much of what goes on in politics, economics, marriage, and other social institutions is dominated by contentious forays into battlefields strewn with bunkers of resistance involving locus of control, perceived or actual. Such battlefields are disasters waiting to happen because they bring together a highly volatile mixture of unresolved or problematically resolved locus of control issues from our collective developmental processes.

Issues of: right or wrong; just or unjust; democratic or undemocratic; equitable or inequitable; legal or illegal; and, reasonable or unreasonable often form only the playing field in which locus of control issues become the game within the game. We talk in terms of values, rights, freedoms, truth and the 'good' as being the reasons for struggling in, say, the political or economic arena. Yet, in reality, we frequently use such language in order to shift attention away from the fact that, more often than not, the issue which actually is being contended is a matter of locus of control in and of itself.

We want to do whatever appeals to us, and we want to do it whenever it appeals to us to do so. Moreover, what appeals to us may not be a function of what is, ultimately, actually true or good or right or just; rather, what appeals to us tends to be a function of our own desires, independent of considerations of truth, justice, and so on.

Indeed, we often try to argue that our desires necessarily reflect what is true or good or just or right. As a result, we convince ourselves that the alleged equivalence between our desires and all that is good and true justifies the locus of control being under our tender, fiduciary care.

From the Sufi perspective, true autonomy is not primarily a question of how we fare in conflicts involving locus of control issues vis-a-vis other people, whether in the past or the present. A Sufi is only free when she or he has realized the essential self and acts in accordance with that nature.

For the Sufi, an individual could be in prison or in chains or limited by the constraints imposed by others. Yet, the individual still could have autonomy if the person were to respond to those conditions in terms of the individual's essential nature and true self.

On the other hand, a person might, seemingly, possesses the locus of control concerning the lives of other people. Nevertheless, this individual might have no substantive autonomy because the person's essential nature was in bondage to, and imprisoned by, the person's own desires - the entity which actually is setting the agenda.

Such an individual may be " free" to desire. However, this person does not have autonomy over those desires.

The Sufi does not seek control over the lives of other people. The Sufi does not enter into conflict with others over matters of locus of control.

The true locus of control is with God. The Sufi attempts to discern how that locus of control is being manifested in any given set of circumstances. Once this has been determined, then, the individual, according to the person's capacity and God's support, will merge horizons with the structural character of that locus of control as it unfolds over time.

The locus of control is a manifestation of God's will and gives expression to the passion play of existence. The more attuned one is to God's will, the greater will be one's ability to detect, and adapt to, the shifting currents of the manifestation which are being expressed through the passion play as it reflects the will of God.

We adapt ourselves to the will of God not by trying to change or control others but by changing, and having autonomy over, our desires and intentions and attitudes. In fact, the great tragedy of so much of the developmental process is that very few people involved in the struggle over issues of locus of control have any understanding of, or insight into, what the real issues of locus of control are.

More specifically, the issue is not about which of the people engaged in a conflict is able to win the battle of dominance in any given set of circumstances. The issue is how do we collectively realize our essential autonomy so we can find harmonious and creative ways to align ourselves with the will of God as it manifests itself through the currents and eddies of the passion play of existence in which we are participant observers.

There is something deeply, intrinsically attractive about those people who are able, by the Grace of God, to accomplish this kind of transformation. In fact, it is deliciously ironic that such people who do not seek or wish to have control over others end up influencing the desires of so many people who are inspired by their example and want to follow in their footsteps and seek the same sort of transformative essential autonomy exemplified in the lives of individuals such as the Sufi masters.

A new book from Bilquees Press: Science, Spirituality and Symmetry by Bill Whitehouse

The premises at the heart of this 100 page extended essay are the following: (1) the principles that constitute the methodological processes of science and spirituality/mysticism closely mirror one another; (2) in addition, both sets of methodological processes entail the property of symmetry -- which, reduced to its essential nature, involves the preservation of invariant properties (that, hopefully, reflect some aspect of truth) across the set of transformations that give expression to the respective methodologies of science and spirituality. In the process of developing the foregoing two premises, this book also takes the reader through an overview of a number of the unsolved mysteries of modern science, together with a biographical synopsis of some of the life events that led the author along the path toward formulating the ideas which make up the essence of this work.

This book is now available in the Amazon Kindle store:

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Spirituality-and-Symmetry-ebook/dp/B005V253WM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318607020&sr=8-1

This ebook is also available at Barnes and Noble and will soon be available in the iBookstore and Kobo Books.

Spiritual Capacity - A Sufi's Perspective

Spiritual Capacity

 

From the perspective of the Sufi path, every human being has a unique spiritual capacity. However, not every capacity necessarily will be realized to its full extent, or even in part.

Life is the opportunity provided by God to become busy with doing the things required for bringing one' s essential capacity on line. Whether or not we take advantage of the chance extended to us, is a matter of choice and an exercise in free will.

Spirituality is only one of the potentials we have been given. We each have been outfitted, so to speak, with other non-spiritual capacities. For example, the capacity for life itself is expressed through our biological nature. Our bodies, including the brain, have been equipped with sensory and locomotor modalities. In addition, we have, in varying degrees: intellectual abilities; creative capacities; a spectrum of emotional possibilities; talents of one sort or another, and a capacity for language.

The Sufi masters also sometimes talk of a wide variety of other powers and capabilities which are, under the right circumstances, available to human beings. These capacities range from: the ability to dream, to various kinds of so-called psychic and occult powers.

Many of these latter kinds of capacity are so infrequently accessed or encountered in any direct way, they are considered to be fictional in nature by most of us. Nonetheless, although such abilities are not really part of, nor pertinent to, the Sufi path, the masters of the way do confirm their existence.

Our numerous capacities generate a multiplicity of experiential possibilities, each of which is conducive to extended exploration. In fact, as human beings, we have such a diverse set of capabilities, potentials, capacities, and powers available to us, we easily become confused about, or distracted from, the purpose of life.

According to the Sufi masters, even if we succeed in developing a whole slew of our many abilities, yet, ignore our spiritual possibilities, we will have failed in life' s primary mission. On the other hand, if we sincerely attempt to realize our spiritual capacity, but fail in relation to some of the other capacities, we, nevertheless, will have chosen the right priorities in life as far as the Sufi path is concerned.

To be sure, there are individuals who, by the grace of God, realize their spiritual capacity and, as well, realize one or more other capabilities. These people may be great musicians or artists or poets or leaders and, yet, not have neglected their spiritual dimension.

The foregoing sort of people tend to be relatively rare. They certainly are individuals of immense ability and good fortune.

They are not necessarily the standard by which most of the rest of us ought to gauge our lives. We can appreciate such lives without either feeling compelled to emulate them or feeling one' s life is somehow impoverished for not having been as accomplished as them in various ways.

The primary focus should be on realizing our essential, spiritual capacity. Indeed, according to the Sufi masters, if one goes about the task and challenge of spiritual realization properly, one, generally, will have little interest in, or inclination toward, doing anything else - except in some minimally necessary manner that still will permit justice to be done to other facets of one' s life.

When one becomes absorbed in God, everything else becomes arranged and organized as a function of that absorption. Priorities are set, and attention is given, in relation to how possibilities and activities can be accommodated to, or become expressions of, one' s spiritual orientation.

God may inspire us to do great things. Nevertheless, this is God' s will acting on us for Divine purposes. For us, on our own, to seek to do great things above and beyond the business of realizing one' s spiritual capacity is a sign of the presence of ego. Many of us sometimes mistake the call of the ego for the call of God.

God has a part waiting for us in the Divine passion play. Whether we opt for the role of the fool who squanders his or her spiritual potential, or we strive for the part of the servant of God who struggles to realize her or his essential spiritual capacity, will make no difference to the beauty and majesty of the play.

In either case, we will bring our own, inimitable style to the existential stage. In success or failure, our contribution will be unique.

Either kind of uniqueness will fit equally well into the unfolding of the play. Our choices will neither improve nor diminish the quality of the production or staging process.

There is room for heroines and heroes. However, villains and villainesses are welcome as well. If anything, the presence of antagonistic forces merely heightens the dramatic tension of the whole affair.

In one sense, the choice of roles is entirely up to us. On the other hand, there are a variety of twists, turns and mysteries involved in the plot line.

Sometimes we can have our heart set on playing the bad guy and, suddenly, our world is turned upside down and we start acting, much to our disgust, the part of the hero or heroine. At other times we may be quite prepossessed with being on the side of right and good only to find ourselves falling head first into the underside of life.

Some of these role reversals are temporary. Some of them are permanent. In all cases, they are reflections of capacities within us, and we all wonder where we will end up when the music stops and the house lights are turned on.

We have a unique potential to know God and to experience Divinity. We each have a unique capacity to give expression to the Names and Attributes of God.

Sufi masters maintain that human beings, alone in all of creation, have the capacity to reflect all the Names and Attributes of God. Other aspects of creation do reflect various dimensions of the Names and Attributes of God according to their capacity, but none of the rest of creation has the potential given to human beings.

As indicated previously, there are differences in spiritual capacity among human beings. However, each of these capacities, if realized, can reflect the full, infinite spectrum of Divine Names and Attributes. Each has the potential to do so in a unique fashion.

Because spiritual capacities are unique, there really is no basis for comparison. All jewels have their own beauty and appeal. Each jewel brings something that cannot be offered by any other jewel.

The only ground for comparison lies within the individual. The sole criterion for such comparison is what a person has been able to actualize in the way of spiritual realization, as measured against that individual' s essential spiritual capacity. The degree of success or failure in life is a function of the status of the ratio of these two factors

Baqa - A Sufi's Perspective

Deep within us there is a longing for permanence and stability. We dream of a place or condition in which we can feel completely at rest in some fundamental way.

In our heart of hearts we fervently hope that an abiding, essential sense of peace and security will somehow come into our lives and embrace us. We scan the horizons within us and around us for some trace of the very archetype, as it were, in which the idea of home, in the best sense of the term, is rooted.

This deep sense of longing or dreaming or hoping shadows us for much, if not all, of our lives. It is pervasive and persistent, and, yet, seems like a will-o'-the-wisp which cannot be pinned down in any concrete, determinate manner.

We have a feeling we might be able to recognize the object of this longing if we ever were to come face to face with it. However, in the meantime, the longing just manifests itself as: an ineffable emptiness waiting to be filled; or, as an amorphous cosmic alienation waiting to be dissipated.

Many of the activities we pursue throughout our lives are actually attempts to satisfy the aforementioned longing. We entertain a wide variety of candidates during the course of our existence on Earth.

We seek to derive experiences of essential belonging in different organizations, groups, political parties, institutions and communities. We try to resolve the longing through relationships, marriage, sexual intimacy and families. We look to careers to fill the emptiness which haunts our waking hours.

Sooner or later, most of us discover that none of the foregoing, either individually or in combination, are capable of satisfying our longing. As a result, many of us pursue activities which will either anesthetize the pain or distract us from such pain.

Thus, some of us drink to excess and take drugs. Some of us become promiscuous. Some of us take up hobbies. Some of become sports fanatics.

Some of us gamble. Some of us go shopping. Some of us become inveterate party-goers or fitness buffs. Some of us bury ourselves in our work and so on.

Sometimes we plunge into these sorts of activity as a kind of distant consolation. In other words, they don't necessarily quench the longing inside, but we find them enjoyable and, perhaps, even satisfying in certain ways.

Many of us, for the most part, have given up on ever finding a way to resolve our essential longing. Therefore, we try to find whatever small consolations in life we can and let it go at that.

In addition, due to our lack of success in locating the key or keys that will unravel the puzzle of unrequited longing, many of us gravitate toward bitterness, frustration, and disillusionment. As a result, we become prone to depression and cynicism.

Furthermore, since many of us are ill at ease with ourselves due to our feelings of alienation from things in general, as a result of our inability to experience a sense of being at home within ourselves and within the universe, many of us become easily annoyed with other people. Consequently, we tend to become involved in endless rounds of bickering, conflict and disputations.

Most of us may not even have any inkling why we do these things. They kind of just happen. We have plenty of rationalizations but no real answers.

In fleeting moments of reflection, we may feel the reverberations of the longing. However dimly we understand its significance, we often sense that satisfying that hunger is the key to many of our problems.

Yet, the solution to our dilemma remains as elusive as ever. Time moves on. The reverie evaporates before our eyes.

We long for stability and permanence, but we are inundated by transience and instability. Whatever happiness we find, it does not last. Whatever joy we find, it comes to an end. Whatever peace we stumble onto is but a brief reprieve in the eye of life's storms.

Like a roller coaster, our lives creep ever so slowly up the track to that first peak. Childhood and adolescence seem to last forever. Suddenly, our stomachs slam into our throats, and the descent of our lives takes us careening down the track through a few twists and turns to the end of the line.

We cannot get off. We cannot stop it. We only get one ride.

Desperately, we try to make sense of the ride. However, this is very difficult to do because everything is changing so quickly. Moreover, almost all of our attention and energies are spent screaming and trying not to regurgitate our lunch.

The Sufi masters indicate that essential permanence (baqa) can be realized, if God wishes, under certain circumstances or conditions. The Sufi path gives expression to these circumstances and conditions.

To find permanence and stability in the midst of fluctuation, one must permit God, through the exercise of one's free will, to remove everything except the will of God from one's soul, heart and essential being.

God alone is permanent. Consequently, everything which veils the presence of such permanence must be dissolved.

The guidance of the Sufi masters, the practices, the moral training, the struggle, the litanies, and so on are all supports provided by God to assist the individual to work toward permanence. Permanence is realized when the true self is, and the false self is not.

Only the true self is capable of giving expression to the will of God in an undistorted fashion. Only the true self is capable of participating in the quality of permanence. Only the true self has the capacity for essential and complete servitude before God. Only the perfect servant is able to reflect the will of God as God wishes it to be reflected through such a capacity.

God desires permanence for us. This is so because through permanence human capacity realizes its purpose and potential as an expression of God's will.

The reality of permanence cannot be described. It can only be experienced. Nonetheless, the experience of permanence colors, directs, shapes, informs and orients everything which the individual thinks, says, feels, does and is. This is what is entailed by those whom abide in God's permanence and, as a result, journey with, and by, Divinity.

Sufi Reflections Podcast No. 39

Sufi Reflections Podcast No. 39 is now available for downloading.  We hope you'll join us! This is our new staff member at Bilquees Press and the Interrogative Imperative Institute, Yuri, becoming acquainted with the podcasting microphone.

Sufi Reflections Podcast No. 36 is now available.

 

Download: SufiReflections36

Sufi Reflections Podcast No. 35 is now available.

 

Download: Sufi Reflections 35

Intoxication - A Sufi Perspective

Both spiritually induced intoxication, as well as intoxication induced by spirits of alcohol, involve departures from the realm of rationality. However, each does so in a completely different way from the other. Moreover, each form of intoxication leads an individual to totally different results and ramifications.

Alcohol is a general depressant of biological functioning, in general, and of neurophysiological functioning in particular. Different factors affect how quickly, and to what extent, any given person's biological functioning will be affected.

Nonetheless, on the whole, most people do not have to drink a great deal before their memory and thinking faculties become impaired. Not only does one begin to lose the ability to concentrate on, and carry out, a variety of logical/rational operations, but one's capacity for making different kinds of judgement also is diminished after drinking a certain amount of alcohol.

After drinking, all too many people get in their automobiles and cause death and tragedy, of one sort or another. Almost invariably, this is as a result of their impaired: reflexes, reasoning abilities and capacity to make rational judgements.

In addition, there is a strong link between the consumption of alcohol and both spousal abuse, as well as, the sexual and physical abuse of children. This sort of abuse may go on even independently of the presence of alcohol, but the problem becomes much worse when the influence of alcohol is added to the equation. Furthermore, the presence of alcohol consumption may, in many cases, induce abusive behavior with respect to one's spouse or children which might not happen were the abuser not under the influence of alcohol.

There also is a long history between consumption of alcohol and sexual assault. Perhaps alcohol is used as an excuse by some in order to diminish the moral blame associated with such acts. Maybe these people would indulge in acts of sexual assault even without the alcohol, but the alcohol becomes a convenient scapegoat. Alternatively, due to the diminished capacity induced by alcohol intoxication, people often find themselves doing things which would be repugnant and horrifying to any rational person.

Even when no sexual assault is involved, many people end up doing degrading, demeaning things to themselves and others while operating with impaired reasoning processes due to alcohol intoxication. People wake up the morning after the previous night of intoxication only to discover they have done terrible things of which they have either no, or only a foggy, recollection. One does not have to commit criminal acts in order to seriously injure, emotionally and psychologically, others or oneself.

None of the foregoing necessarily touches on the more complex problem of alcoholism. In other words, one does not have to be an alcoholic in order to become involved in the sort of problematic ramifications of alcohol consumption which have been outlined in the foregoing examples of impaired rational thinking and judgement.

Many people who get intoxicated may never, ever do anything injurious to anyone. Whatever impairments of reasoning and reflexes which occur with these people may be just harmlessly amusing. Nonetheless, this is just not so for millions of other human beings.

The nature of spiritually induced intoxication is an entirely different kettle of fish. Although this kind of intoxication also involves a departure from reasoning processes, this is not due to any sort of impairment of rationality or judgement.

In the case of alcohol induced intoxication, there is a sense in which one cannot keep up with the realities and requirements of rationality. On the other hand, in the case of spiritually induced intoxication, the processes of rationality cannot keep up with the realities and requirements of transcendence.

In relation to the condition of spiritual intoxication, rationality actually constitutes a state of diminished capacity. In fact, some Sufi masters liken the condition of rationality to a state of being inebriated with the wine of logic. No matter how good the vintage of this wine may be, it impairs one's spiritual judgement and interferes with mystical understanding.

The practitioners of the Sufi path note, however, that mystical understanding does not interfere with rational processes. Rather, such understanding informs and illuminates those processes.

Mystical understanding helps place rationality in its proper perspective. Mystical understanding shows some of the limitations of rationality.

When one spends time with Sufi masters, the nature of their logic, judgement and reasoning is impeccable. The counsel and advice they give is very practical, logical and down-to-earth.

Inwardly, these people are spiritually intoxicated, but outwardly they are sober. The outer sobriety entails an understanding of the nature of this world and how it works. The inner intoxication entails an understanding of the nature of the spiritual dimension of things and how that affects worldly matters.

Sufi masters use reason, logic, and rational judgement to help people with their worldly and spiritual problems. Nevertheless, in order to be of help, the reason and logic must be infused with, and oriented by, the realities of spirituality and mystical transcendence.

Rational processes, in and of themselves, are not enough. One cannot reason one's way to spiritual truth or wisdom.

Mystical truth and wisdom only can come through mystical experiences and only after these experiences are properly understood. Spiritually induced intoxication is one medium or channel through which such truth and wisdom come.

People who are spiritually intoxicated in the Sufi sense of the term never sexually assault anyone. Those who are in a condition of spiritual intoxication do not abuse their spouses or children. Somebody who is spiritually intoxicated does not get in her or his car and proceed to maim or kill others or herself or himself.

Although there may be certain theologians who would disagree, a person in a state of spiritual intoxication does not do anything to degrade or demean oneself. Moreover, a spiritually intoxicated individual does not sober up later on only to discover some terrible deed or deeds which had been committed while in an intoxicated condition.

At best, a person who becomes intoxicated through the consumption of alcohol may get a certain amount of relaxation and enjoyment from the experience. There are no deep truths or wisdom which arises out of alcohol intoxication. One is pretty much the same after the experience as one was before it.

Spiritual intoxication brings overwhelming ecstasy and joy. One comes away from the experience with a very different perspective concerning the nature of reality and one's relation with reality. In addition, there are deep truths and wisdom which are communicated during the experience of spiritual intoxication.

Not all conditions of spiritual intoxication are of the same intensity or depth. The vintage of the spiritual wine being imbibed by the individual will make a big difference in the quality and character of the experience of spiritual intoxication. Furthermore, the spiritual level of the individual who goes into a state of ecstasy is also an important factor affecting the intensity and depth of such experiences.

According to Sufi masters, outward manifestations of spiritual intoxication are, under certain circumstances and conditions, perfectly acceptable. Indeed, such mystical states are a sign of God's grace.

Nonetheless, Sufi shaykhs indicate that when an individual is permanently in a state of outwardly manifested intoxication, this condition is problematic as far as making continued spiritual progress is concerned. Such people are, in a sense, transfixed by their overwhelming experiences of spiritual intoxication.

Consequently, they are unlikely to move on to further stages of the mystical path. Their progress is arrested at a particular stage and state. Spiritually speaking, their permanent condition of intoxication sacrifices movement toward the full realization of human potential for the bliss and ecstasy of the on-going condition.

Although such permanently, spiritually intoxicated individuals are harmless and, quite often, are sources of blessings for many who come into contact with them, in their own way, many of these people (but not all) are the alcoholics of the spiritual world. This is so in the following senses.

These people are irresistibly drawn and, in a sense, addicted to the continuously intoxicating experiences with which their spiritual condition is saturated. Moreover, like their worldly alcoholic counterparts, those who permanently are in a condition of outwardly manifested intoxication frequently lose the capacity to function in a "normal" way in society and the work-a-day world.

Sufi shaykhs recommend travelers of the Sufi path should become outwardly sober, while remaining inwardly spiritually intoxicated. In other words, one needs a foot, so to speak, in both the physical world and the spiritual world in order to be a fully effective human being in both worlds.

Sobriety is expressed through the observance of spiritual etiquette. To be sober in the spiritual sense, one must fulfil one's spiritual duties and obligations on all levels of existence. Nevertheless, one cannot perform these duties properly unless sobriety is underwritten by the truths and wisdom of spiritual intoxication.

Sufi Reflections Podcast No. 33

 

Download: SufiReflections33

States, Stations, Stages, and Practice

To borrow a phrase from fractal mathematics, the Sufi path tends to be ‘self-similar’, rather than ‘self-same’, when considering the experience of different individuals. In other words, since every human being is unique, even while sharing in the general set of properties which differentiate human beings from other species of being, and since the tajalli of Divinity (the descent or rupture of Divine modalities into manifested form) do not repeat themselves in any self-same manner, one cannot necessarily speak of suluk, or spiritual travel, as consisting of a linear sequence of states (hal) and stations (maqam).

Different individuals have outlined the path in varied ways which reflects their own experience of suluk rather than necessarily reflecting some set of hard and fast steps which must be taken in a ‘just so’ order. Thus, some people say the Sufi path consists of ‘x’ number of states and ‘y’ number of stations, while other commentators say that tasawwuf entails ‘r’ number of states, and ‘t’ number of stations.

In addition, there are, sometimes, disagreements about whether a certain stage of spiritual travel involves a hal or a maqam. Again, such variation in opinion are more indicative of the differences which people bring with them to the path than they are necessarily reflective of ‘truths’ independent of human engagement of reality.

Generally speaking, a hal is characterized as a temporary spiritual condition in relation to which intentional effort of striving has not been expended or directed, and, therefore, comes as a gift of Divinity. Maqam, or station, on the other hand, is often characterized as more permanent than are hal, and, as well, are said to be spiritual conditions for which struggle and striving must be exerted in a concerned manner. As such, maqam tend to be described as spiritual conditions which must be earned, while hal are not earned, per se.

However, since spiritual effort does not cause spiritual progress, but is, at best, a necessary condition, then, whether one is talking about states or stations, these are both gifts of God and could not be experienced or sustained without Divine succor. Moreover, although there are instances in which individuals who are not on any particular spiritual path are recipients of Divine Grace in the form of this or that manner of hal, the likelihood of undergoing one or another spiritual hal tends to be increased when one is actively and sincerely pursuing the mystical path under the guidance and care of an authentic shaykh.

Yet, one might keep in mind that the Qur’an stipulates: “If Allah were to take humankind to task for their wrong-doing, God would not leave hereon a living creature, but God reprieves them to an appointed term.” (16:61) So, whether one is talking about hal or maqam, neither is deserved but comes by the Grace of Allah.

Finally, some expressions of hal are longer lived than are other manifestations of hal. Therefore, whether one believes one is talking about a condition of hal rather than maqam may be somewhat arbitrarily decided.

Spiritual conditions share some of the same qualities as dreams. This is especially so in the sense that both dreams and spiritual conditions require the presence of insight by an experienced guide or knowledgeable and Divinely supported individual in order to properly appreciate the nature of what is transpiring through either the dream or a given spiritual condition.

Najm al-Din Razi (may Allah be pleased with him), in his book: The Path of God’s Bondsmen from Origin to Return uses the example of fire to illustrate the complexity of the problem. Someone who is traversingthe path of tasawwuf may see the attribute of fire and, depending on the nature of one’s spiritual condition, this attribute will have a different meaning in different states and stations.

For some, the appearance of fire is an indication that the quality of anger is dominant. For others, the presence of fire may signify the light of zikr or the individual’s ardor for the spiritual quest. For still others, the fire may exemplify the presence of guidance as with the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him), or it may give expression to the quality of devilry as with Iblis. And, for still other individuals, the quality of fire may symbolize the condition of gnosis or love or witnessing. There also are additional modalities of fire which indicate the presence of other manner of states and stations.

The attribute of fire is but one of many, many qualities which may emerge within an individual’s experience and serve as a tell-tale sign of a person’s spiritual condition. However, as with dreams, insight is needed to understand the significance of the presence of a given quality.

Similarly, when an individual passes through stations involving the attributes of clay, water, air, fire, firmaments, heavenly bodies, the malakut (or soul) of the planets and the stars, animals, and a thousand other realms, different kinds of tajalli may be manifested according to circumstances and an individual’s spiritual condition. Just as there is no reliable book of dream interpretation in which all one has to do is scour the index for a given dream and, then, proceed to the page with ‘the’ correct interpretation, so, to, there is no standard dictionary of spiritual states and stations which always are manifested in the same way across individual experiences.

I recall, once, when my shaykh, Dr. Baig (may Allah be pleased with him), talked about such matters. He indicated that in very special cases - and he referred to such instances as being among the most supreme of spiritual conditions - an individual may traverse the journey of suluk and not have even one ‘mystical’ or anomalous, non-ordinary experience. These are individuals from whom God has kept secret the nature of their own spiritual condition.

Many people speak about the alleged great differences between, say, the doctrine of Wahdat-i-Shuhud (the Unity or Oneness of Witnessing) and Wahdat-i-Wujud (the Unity or Oneness of Being). In fact, great controversies have been instigated on the basis of such differences of approach to the hermeneutics of experience, and, yet, again, I remember that my shaykh, Dr. Baig (may Allah be pleased with him), said that after all was said and done, there really wasn’t much difference between the two.

I might add a brief note at this point to indicate that Dr. Baig (may Allah be pleased with him) wrote his doctoral dissertation on the life and teachings of Ahmad Sirhindi (may Allah be pleased with him). The latter shaykh was a champion of the doctrine of Wahdat-i-Shuhud. One of the examiners for Dr. Baig's (may Allah be pleased with him) thesis was no less an authority than A.J. Arberry who considered the thesis to be the best exposition of the Sufi path to be written in the English language up to that time.

Following many of his 40-day seclusions, Dr. Baig (may Allah be pleased with him) would set about revising and improving his thesis on the basis of what had been experienced and disclosed during the previous period of seclusion. In many ways this was a life-long project for him which never saw the light of day - that is, it was never released to either the general public or even to his mureeds.

Among other things, the process of constant revision in the light of subsequent experience is a hallmark of the path. This process of needing to continuously revise one's understanding represents one of the reasons why one should refrain from speaking about the path as if it were a static thing in which one can sum up its components in some simple, linear fashion.

When I first stepped onto the path, more than 30 years ago, I must confess that my head was filled, to a certain extent, with ideas of ‘wondrous deeds, powers, exalted, non-ordinary states of consciousness, and other such artifacts of ignorance. Dr. Baig (may Allah be pleased with him) had an interesting way of dealing with such nonsense.

To those who came to the path from a very conceptually- laden direction - treating the Sufi Path as if it were just another species of philosophy about which one could read, learn, and debate - Dr. Baig (may Allah be pleased with him) would assign some treatise of one, or another, Sufi Shaykh which was of such a difficult nature that the individual would soon come to the realization that he or she didn’t really know much of anything, irrespective of how much they had read. To others, such as myself, whose heads were preoccupied with other-worldly states and stations, he would assign the book Introduction to Islam by Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah (may Allah be pleased with him) which was quite excellent, but very down-to-earth, dry, and rooted in practicality.

Many people are familiar with the following prayer of Ra’bia of Basra (may Allah be pleased with her). “O Lord, if I worship Thee out of desire of Paradise, then, deny me Paradise, and if I worship Thee out of fear of Hell, then, throw me into Hell, but if I worship Thee out of love for Thee and Thee alone, then, grant me Thy vision.”

Without wishing to criticize this great saint - because I really am not fit to carry her sandles (if she had any) - nevertheless, I do have a question. Why make the last part of the prayer conditional?

Is not Divinity present in the state and/or station of sincere love? Is not Divinity present in every aspect of experience, and, indeed, experience is not possible without giving expression to the underlying play of Divine Names and Attributes which makes such experiences possible and provides them with their structural character?

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said: “This world is prohibited to the people of the next world, and the next world is forbidden to the people of this world, and they are both forbidden to the people of Allah.”

Seekers are seeking what? They are seeking something beyond what they believe to be present, and, yet, what they are actually seeking - as a poem of Hazrat Muin-ud-deen Chishti (May Allah be pleased with him) points out - is with us night and day ... hiding in plain sight. And, yet, we go seeking - from horizon to horizon - for what is already present.

Instead of seeing Divinity, we see veils. The veils, of course, mark the presence of Divinity, as well, but we want an unveiled look at Divinity, when, in truth, we can only see what God has given us the capacity to see at any given time or instance.

All practices - from: shahadah, to: prayers, zikr, fasting, seclusion, fatiha, hajj, contemplation, meditation, sacred turning, various forms of charitableness, service to the shaykh, and the performance of good deeds - have one thing in common: namely, the realization and expression of truth. Each kind of practice engages the truth, reality, Haqq from the perspective of its own form and character.

When we exclude practices, then, we cut ourselves off from ways of engaging different facets and dimensions of the truth. As one friend of Allah said, ‘there are many keys to spiritual realization, if one key does not work, then, try another’ - and one might add, if it is not already implicit in what was said, one should not just try a given key once but on many different occasions, because one never knows when all the tumblers will fall into place and be receptive to the use of a given key.

Similarly, each state and station serves as a locus of manifestation for the kind of truth to which such a state or station gives expression. The truth of expansion is not the truth of contraction. The truth of patience is not the truth of repentance. The truth of longing is not the truth of arrival. The truth of love is not the truth of dependence. The truth of difficulty is not the truth of ease. The truth of chastisement is not the truth of ascension.

Yet, when one weaves together all of these different modalities of truth in the form of experiential tajalli, then, an individual approaches the fullness of truth as a limit, and in mathematics, as in life, a limit is a function which approaches more and more closely to a given point, without ever reaching that point except, theoretically, at infinity. However, in the latter case, the Qur’an has something of relevance to say here: “and over every lord of knowledge, there is one more knowing.” (12:76)

The truth - reality - cannot be exhausted. It is infinite, and, consequently, there are no set of stages, states, or conditions which can encompass the infinite.

We engage truth according to our essential capacity, fitra, or ‘ayn al-thabita. We engage truth according to the condition of being veiled which constitutes our spiritual condition and degree to which our spiritual potential has been realized.

Different individuals have different capacities. The spiritual capacity of the Prophets is not the spiritual capacity of non-Prophetic saints, and the spiritual capacity of ordinary believers is not the spiritual capacity of the saints, whether Prophets or other manner of awliya. Moreover, within these different categories of human beings, there are gradations - as indicated in the Qur’an: “We have made some of these prophets to excel others” (17:55) and, “We raise by grades (of Mercy) whom We will.” (12:76)

Mind, heart, sirr, ruh, kafi, and aqhfah are potentials of fitra. Consequently, these potentials cannot exceed their limits.

On one occasion, the son of Ahmad Sirhindi (may Allah be pleased with him) came to the shaykh and presented something of a conundrum to the shaykh. The young man indicated that he had an experience in which he seemed to rise higher than the station of the Prophets, and, since this contradicted what was understood to be possible, the young man was confused by the experience.

Ahmad Sirhindi (may Allah be pleased with him) resolved the problem in the following manner. He said that associated with every human being, there are two points - one marking the station of origin and the other marking the station of ascension.

He further indicated that, on occasion, the ascension of a non-Prophet might rise higher than the station of origin of a Prophet. However, in no case would the station of ascension of a non-Prophet ever rise higher or approach the station of ascension of a Prophet of God.

Thus, for each of us, the station of origin and the station of ascension are fixed within the degrees of freedom which are permitted by Divinity. Consequently, the ways in which mind, heart, sirr, kafi, ruh, and aqfah are given expression depends on the character of the fitra or fixed form in question.

Some people define heart, mind, spirit, and soul in ways which are all-inclusive. In other words, for such people, the heart constitutes our entire potential for realizing the truth, and, then, they proceed to describe different stages, states and stations of the heart which outline the path to ultimate realization - such as: (a) breast, (b) qalb, (c) the aspect of the heart which is preoccupied with the love of human kind; (d) fo’ad (the seat of vision), (e) the dimension of the heart which gives expression to an exclusive love for Divinity; (f) the core of the heart which involves spiritual kashf or unveiling concerning the realms of the unseen about which angels have no knowledge; and, finally, (g) mohjat al-qalb which, when realized, gives expression to the lights of Divine attributes.

Other people do this in conjunction with the nafs. For example, people speak in terms of: (1) nafs-i-ammara (the soul which commands to evil); (2) nafs-i-mulhameh (the soul which is inspired by God with knowledge of lewdness and God-fearing; (3) nafs-i-lawwama ( the reproachful soul); (4) nafs-i-mutma’inneh (the tranquil soul); (5) nafs-i-radiya (the contented soul in which God is well pleased with them, and they are well-pleased with God); and, (6) nafs-i-safiya, the pure soul.

Others talk about the attributes of the spirit: (1) luminosity (with its branches of hearing, speech, and vision); (2) love (with its branches of sincerity, yearning and seeking); (3) knowledge (with its branches of will and cognition); (4) forbearance (with its branches of modesty, tranquility, dignity, and endurance); (5) familiarity or uns (which gives expression to a primordial intimacy with one’s Creator and encompasses the branches of compassion and pity);(6) permanence or baqa (with its branches of persistence and steadfastness); and, finally, (7) life (with its branches of intelligence and understanding).

However one parses human nature - and, therefore, irrespective of where in one’s theoretical typography one locates such faculties as mind, heart, sirr, ruh, kafi, and aqfah - there have been different practices which have been recommended by shaykhs down through the ages as aides to drawing out the potential of such faculties. For example, the practice of zikr is often mentioned in conjunction with the qualities of the heart - as the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said: “There is a polish for everything which takes away the rust of that which is polished, and the polish for the heart is the remembrance (zikr) of God.”

Nevertheless, there are many forms of zikr, and different shaykhs go about this in different ways. Zikrs vary in length, content, whether they are open-ended (said as many times as one likes), or closed-ended), said aloud or quietly, as well as the time of day and circumstances in which they are said.

Moreover, the nature of zikr may not be encapsulated within a certain Quranic formula. In other words, since every event is a word in the lexicon of the All Merciful which is Self-referential, there are many ways of doing remembrance which are not necessarily tied to the saying of phrase or ayat from the Qur'an.

Furthermore, some may suppose one can remove a zikr from the context of its spiritual ecology and the zikr will continue to operate with the same efficacy as is the case when that zikr is recited within the context of a specific spiritual ecology - that is, having a relationship with an authentic shaykh in a given silsilah. This is not necessarily so, and one proceeds at one’s own risk.

Another practice is that of muraqabah. This is described, alternatively, as a careful watching of, or over, of the condition of the heart or as an emptying out of the sirr which, when the latter is operating properly, is said to guard the heart from being receptive to any influences which are other than the remembrance of God.

Alternatively, there is the process of fana in which - seemingly sequentially, but, in reality, these are all different variations on the same theme - one ‘passes away’ in a loving awareness of one’s shaykh, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and, ultimately, Divinity. There is no one way or no one set of steps which leads to the evaporation of self (small-s)-awareness.

Ahmad Sirhindi (may Allah be pleased with him) described the process of fana in the following way. If one is outside at night on a clear evening and far from the lights of a city, one can see the stars very clearly. But, when the sun rises, the starts are no longer visible to the naked eye due to the over-powering radiance of the sun.

Similarly, when something of the reality of one’s shaykh, the Prophet, or Divinity rises in one’s consciousness, then, awareness of the self disappears. Yet, the self still exists just as the stars continue to exist despite being rendered invisible by the presence of the sun.

There are many ways to help an individual to struggle toward fana. There are many ways to induce an individual to remember Allah. There are many ways to assist a person to empty the sirr of all other influences other than Allah and to keep a close watch on the condition of the heart. There are many ways to illumine the heart. There are many ways to traverse the stations of repentance, longing, dependence, sincerity, gratitude, patience, piety, and love.

How does one clean and furnish a house? One uses whatever works as long as such means fall within the code book for permissible house cleaning practices, and as long as the method of equipping the house takes into account the structural limitations of that house .

Similarly, there is no set recipe for spiritual realization, although there are a variety of general guidelines which are intended to be used in flexible ways within variable contexts. Everything depends on the nisbath or relationship between an authentic shaykh and the seeker.

Whatever is given, whatever is undertaken, the purpose is always to provide one with another opportunity to engage the Real and to revise one’s understanding of the True and to act in accordance with what one knows on the basis of what has been disclosed to one through direct experience. There are many ways, God willing, of helping to transform the nafs, or purify the heart, or illumine the spirit. These ways are overlapping, reinforcing and not mutually exclusive in the sense that, for instance, what helps the heart, helps the nafs to transform, and the spirit to be enlivened, and, similarly, what transforms the nafs also has benefits for the heart and spirit, and so on.

Ultimately, the only thing which really matters is the presence of Divine Grace. Talk of methodology, states, stations and stages have their place, but one should never confuse the surface phenomenon for the Realities which make such contingencies possible.

One follows the teachings and practices of a shaykh because, God willing, these have the capacity to help open us up to the barakah which courses through these practices and teachings as extensions of the presence and support of a silsilah rooted in the Prophetic tradition. These practices and teachings are the excuses which Divinity uses to extend different kinds of blessings to us, and through these blessings our understanding and behavior are affected.

Once, back in my days of even greater ignorance, I happened into a store in a rural area and, along with some friends, got an ice cream cone - one which was hand-scooped by one of the employees of the store. The ice cream cone I got was enormous, and I muttered words to the effect of: “Boy, I’ll have to remember this place.” The person behind the counter responded with: “You should remember the person who gave you the cone.”

Many people think aboutf the Sufi path as a supply depot from which one can acquire whatever one needs in the way of teachings, practices, and format in order to be able to make progress on the spiritual path. In truth, as with the ice cream story above, one needs to remember the person through whom one gets whatever one gets for it is the person who, by the Grace of Allah, makes all the difference ... not the place.