What is Kabbalah and Sufi?

[meltzerboy]

Furthermore, Meltzerboy, my sincere apologies are in order if I have offended you, or anyone else by referencing this website. At the time, I thought it was authored by a person of Jewish faith, as my only motive was to list the number of individuals who have delved into the Kabbalah and have been led astray as a consequence.

I understand the desire for spiritually sensitive individuals for seeking a deeper communion with G-d, or a deeper understanding of their scriptures. Such desire can lead to all sorts of revelations, enlightenments, deceptions, or delusions no matter the faith of the seeker.

No offense taken, mercytruth. I was only pointing out the source of the website so that readers might take what it has to offer with large grains of salt. I realize it was not your intention to mislead. The inaccuracies I speak of are numerous so I would prefer not to list them at the moment and take this thread in another direction. If you want to discuss the article further, please PM me.

 

[Vouthon]

As far as Kabbalah is concerned, you have genuine, authentic Jewish Kabbalah as typified by the Zohar and a fake, New-Agey version of Kabbalah which is the one Madonna is a member of.

Authentic Kabbalah is simply the mystical dimension of the Jewish faith founded upon a mystical understanding of Torah as a path to Union with God, who is viewed through a kind of 10-scaled series of manifestations of Himself, ranging from Ein Sof - God as the Unknowable, formless, Divine Essence to Malkhut. God is unknowable in his endless, Ein Sof state however he is knowable to his creation in a sense through his manifested state in the Sefirot that kind of 10-scaled series of attributes stretching right up to *Ein Sof * at the top.

The individual Sephirah are:

Sephirah:

Above-consciousness

1 Keter-“Crown”

Conscious intellect

2 Chokhmah-“Wisdom”
3 Binah-“Understanding”

Conscious emotions

4 Chesed-“Kindness”
5 Gevurah-“Severity”
6 Tiferet-“Beauty”
7 Netzach-“Eternity”
8 Hod-“Splendor”
9 Yesod-“Foundation”
10 Malkuth-"Kingship

Kabbalah sees the human soul as being a reflection of the Divine One and more broadly, it views all created things as reflections or vestiges of their life source in the sephirot, the Divine realm of ideas or exemplars. Therefore, the sephirot also describe the spiritual life of man.

There is also a heavy emphasis placed upon direct experience of Ohr - Divine Light which is equivalent to the Christian mystics experiences’ of the Uncreated Light of God that fills ones soul and unites it with its maker.

Blessed Ramon Llull was a Christian Kabbalist, as were many Catholic scholars during the Renaissance such as Picco Mirandola and Marsilio Ficino. Yes there are really Christian Kabbalists, its very ancient in Catholicism - at least from the 12th century onwards.

Elements of it are certainly compatible with Catholicism as they stand, whereas others should probaby be re-interpreted in light of the Christian revelation or “baptized” so to speak.

The New-Agey type Kabbalah is utter rubbish Avoid it please at ALL costs. Read the Zohar to get real Kabbalah.

There is a good translation of the Zohar with readable commentary by Rabbi David Channan Matt:

amazon.com/Zohar-Annotated-Explained-SkyLight-Illuminations/dp/1893361519

 

[Vouthon]

Oh and I know that Kabbalah is very important in Hasidic Judaism, an 18th century denomination of the Jewish faith founded by a great mystic from Eastern Europe known by the title of the Baal Shem Tov. Hesed that is loving-kindness is the essential emphasis of this form of Judaism, which was a reaction against the legalism of the period.

 

[Vouthon]

Historically there’s not much debate–Sufism was mainstream Islam for centuries. (There’s plenty of debate about the origins of Sufism, mind you.)
Edwin

Hmm I would question that Contarini in all honesty

My understanding is that Sufism definetly was anything but mainstream although this changed a little during the time of Al-Ghazali (1058–1111), the great Islamic scholar who attempted to synthesise Sufism and Sunni Islam proper. I’m not entirely sure that his attempt worked quite as well as you claim. Certainly Sufi missionaries were essential in the spread of Islam in Africa and India, where it absorbed many Hindu concepts and kind of spoke the language of the people. In Pakistan there is still, despite great repression, many important Sufi tariqahs. However while Sufism in the Middle Ages was certainly popular with many ordinary people in Islamic lands, it was not the same among the clerics. Orthodox Islam has always been antagonistic towards mysticism in general, with a very strong legalistic bent. The only exception to this would say be, maybe, in Shi’a Iran where the Qezelbash - a band of warrior Sufis - were essential in bringing to power the ruling Safavid Dynasty. The military power of the Safavids of the 1500s and 1600s lay in the fighting prowess of these very Sufi but also - oddly enough - extremely violent Turkic warriors. To this day ordinary Iranians are quite Sufi in temperament even though the government officially proscribes and represses Sufism, many ordinary Iranians can even quote large portions of Sufi poems by Hafiz or Rumi off-by heart. Ayatollah Khomeini was actually a Sufi in his youth and penned poems criticizing Orthodox religious piety. Although Ibn Arabi’s concept of the Ideal Man stayed with him as a defining influence throughout his life, he abandoned Sufism for Orthodox Shi’ism and Iran has suffered the consequences ever since.

As to the origins of Sufism, well during the eighth century AD these mystics gathered a lot of their ideas from native Persian Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Christian monasticism and Iranian Buddhism to form a very mystical, all-embracing, semi-universalist (alhough not quite at heart) religion within the Islamic world that has been terribly persecuted by Orthodox Muslims. Sufism, however, is very different from Orthodox Islam - Al-Ghazali in the 11th century tried to make an Orthodox form of it, as I said earlier, to the extent that he agreed with Orthodox Muslims that there must be Jihad against unbelievers - he stated that it was legitimate to catapult non-believers! Thus we have a real destruction of the true essence of peaceful Sufi mysticism.

In its essence though, Sufism is a mystical movement of pluralism within the Islamic world, however it is very, very different - as a result of its many inherited teachings from other religions - from orthodox Islam. Sufis took the Qur’an and mystically interpreted it, yes like Nizari Muslims, however unlike Nizaris they understood it through the lens of concepts which they had inherited not from within Islam but from Zoroastrianism, Buddhism and Christianity. Sufism was in my opinion a new religion that arose within the Islamic religion or rather a religion that has developed within an Islamic milieu. Sufi poetry abounds with criticism of Islamic piety; of the Kaaba; of imams and mosques; of the five pillars of Islam and it exults in wine imagery, spiritual drukenness, music (which is banned under Islamic law) and dancing (which is also banned under Shar’iah law).

Sufism was a reaction against the worldliness of early Islam as typified by the Abbasid Caliphate, and the lack of spirituality and the literalism. The Sufi robe is said to be of Buddhist origin.

The Sufi concepts of *Union with the Divine *and * fana *(self-annihilation) which is the ultimate goal of the Sufi path, has no basis in the Qur’an or the Hadith and are described by historians such as Homa Katouzian and Malika Mohammada, among others, as being derived from the Upanishads. They first appear in Islamic history in the utterances of Abu Yazid of Bistam, a 9th century Persian mystic who had heterodox views and was a convert from Zoroastrianism (of Zoroastrian ancestry), who took with him his native religious beliefs into Islam, to try and make more mystical a religion that was initially and essentially anatagonistic to the mystical impulse and with a heavy (almost overbearing) literalism and legalism.

 

[meltzerboy]

Oh and I know that Kabbalah is very important in Hasidic Judaism, an 18th century denomination of the Jewish faith founded by a great mystic from Eastern Europe known by the title of the Baal Shem Tov. Hesed that is loving-kindness is the essential emphasis of this form of Judaism, which was a reaction against the legalism of the period.

And that legalism, often mistakenly equated with rabbinical Judaism, is in fact contrary to mainstream Torah Judaism BEFORE its being further shaped by Kabbalistic thought. Acts of loving-kindness had already been the principle message of Isaiah’s warning to the Jewish people as he told them these were their only means of atonement and salvation in place of the ritual sacrifices in the Temple. The latter, as you know, were no longer accepted on Yom Kippur as evidenced by the fact that the scarlet ribbon, symbolizing the sins of the people, only rarely turned white in the thirty to forty years following the death of Shimon HaTzaddik and preceding the crucifixion of Jesus. Isaiah beseeches the Jewish people to turn away from their wicked deeds and, by so doing, G-d will turn their blood-red sins into the purity of white snow. The main point of this is the emphasis on love and compassion regarding one’s neighbors, rather than on legalistic rituals.

 

[Vouthon]

And that legalism, often mistakenly equated with rabbinical Judaism, is in fact contrary to mainstream Torah Judaism BEFORE its being further shaped by Kabbalistic thought. Acts of loving-kindness had already been the principle message of Isaiah’s warning to the Jewish people as he told them these were their only means of atonement and salvation in place of the ritual sacrifices in the Temple. The latter, as you know, were no longer accepted on Yom Kippur as evidenced by the fact that the scarlet ribbon only rarely turned white in the thirty to forty years following the death of Shimon HaTzaddik and preceding the crucifixion of Jesus. Isaiah beseeches the Jewish people to turn away from their wicked deeds and, by so doing, G-d will turn their blood-red sins into the purity of white snow. The main point of this is the emphasis on love and compassion regarding one’s neighbors, rather than on legalistic rituals.

Oh I agree

I never equated, or intended to equate, this “legalism” with orthodox Judaism. I was merely speaking of the kind of legalistic tendencies common to segments of all world religions which often result in reaction and the birth of mystical movements. This happened in medeival Catholic Europe and in the Islamic world.

I asure you that I wasn’t inferring anything bad about orthodox Rabbinical Judaism, rather I was merely trying to explain the reasons Hasids give for their origins.

I am thoroughly agreed with you as to the emphasis placed upon chesed/hesed by the sublime, divinely inspired prophets of Ancient Israel.

Indeed to read the Pirke Avot one also sees much emphasis placed upon loving-kindness in the Oral Torah, much of which precedes or is contemporary with Jesus.

 

[Contarini]

Hmm I would question that Contarini in all honesty

My understanding is that Sufism definetly was anything but mainstream although this changed a little during the time of Al-Ghazali (1058–1111), the great Islamic scholar who attempted to synthesise Sufism and Sunni Islam proper. I’m not entirely sure that his attempt worked quite as well as you claim.

What scholars of Islam are you drawing on?

The impression I get from folks like Marshall Hodgson and John Esposito is that something like Ghazali’s synthesis was normative, mainstream Islam for centuries.

However while Sufism in the Middle Ages was certainly popular with many ordinary people in Islamic lands, it was not the same among the clerics. Orthodox Islam has always been antagonistic towards mysticism in general

Well, you can certainly define “orthodox Islam” as “Islam that is hostile to mysticism,” and then you are right–but only by adopting a circular argument.

I don’t think it’s true that the ulama as a whole were hostile to Sufism during the later medieval centuries or the early modern period, but I may be wrong on that.

As to the origins of Sufism, well during the eighth century AD these mystics gathered a lot of their ideas from native Persian Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Christian monasticism and Iranian Buddhism to form a very mystical, all-embracing, semi-universalist (alhough not quite at heart) religion within the Islamic world that has been terribly persecuted by Orthodox Muslims.

Terribly persecuted? All-Hallaj, sure. And modern groups like the Wahhabis. But what examples of this terrible persecution can you find between, say, 1200 and 1700?

Also, I think you’re defining Sufism by its most radical exemplars, and that’s one of the reasons we’re talking past each other. You’re not defining it as it has been historically defined within Islam. You’re defining it as it is defined by modern non-Muslims who like Sufism but dislike Islam (to some extent I’d count myself among that company!) and by anti-Sufi Muslims belonging to rationalist reform movements. And of course if you set out by defining it that way, you’ll wind up with an opposition between Sufism and “orthodox Islam”–especially if you are simultaneously defining “orthodox” by the standards set by modern Muslims opposed to Sufism.

Sufism, however, is very different from Orthodox Islam - Al-Ghazali in the 11th century tried to make an Orthodox form of it, as I said earlier, to the extent that he agreed with Orthodox Muslims that there must be Jihad against unbelievers - he stated that it was legitimate to catapult non-believers! Thus we have a real destruction of the true essence of peaceful Sufi mysticism.

But this “essence” is essentially an abstract construction created for ideological reasons. It’s not the result of empirical observation. I’m speaking as a historian, describing the phenomenon that has historically been labeled Sufism–and to the historians I’ve read the opposition you describe does not appear. Sufism historically has not been purely “peaceful.” We would like it to be, so it’s tempting to create an abstract concept called “pure, peaceful Sufism” and say that Al-Ghazali “destroyed” it. But that’s not how historians talk.

Whether Sufism depends on outside sources as much as you claim is a matter of debate. Sufis themselves, in my experience, deny this, claiming that their movement is intrinsic to Islam and has always been present within Islam. I’m sure that there were non-Muslim influences, but that hardly makes Sufis different from other forms of Islam. All religions are inevitably syncretistic–traditions are influenced by other traditions all the time, even if they have ideological reasons for ignoring the fact.

Sufi poetry abounds with criticism of Islamic piety; of the Kaaba; of imams and mosques; of the five pillars of Islam and it exults in wine imagery, spiritual drukenness, music (which is banned under Islamic law) and dancing (which is also banned under Shar’iah law).

Again, you’re defining “orthodox Islam” by the standards of those who oppose Sufism. But if you observe the phenomenon historically called “Islam” and the phenomenon historically called “Sufism,” you see that this second phenomenon has mostly functioned as a respected, integral, mainstream part of the first. It therefore makes more sense, historically speaking, to describe Sufism as a form of Islam–and certainly not a marginal or dubiously authentic form at that. Then we can note that many folks within Islam, particularly in recent centuries, regard Sufism as dubiously Muslim. But speaking as if there is an essence of “Islam” and another essence of “Sufism” is, I think, both historically and metaphysically wrong and misleading. (Metaphysically, it seems to me that religions surely only have “essences” insofar as they are true. Religions aren’t things created separately as individual realities by God.)

The Sufi concepts of *Union with the Divine *and * fana *(self-annihilation) which is the ultimate goal of the Sufi path, has no basis in the Qur’an or the Hadith

So you say. So non-Sufi Muslims say. But Sufis say otherwise.

Many Protestants say that distinctively Catholic doctrines have no basis in Scripture. But it would be hasty and unjust for a non-Christian to assert this as an objective truth, even if the non-Christian in question found Protestant exegesis of Scripture more convincing than Catholic.

and are described by historians such as Homa Katouzian and Malika Mohammada, among others, as being derived from the Upanishads.

There may well be such influence. Again, that’s how religions develop–they feed on all sorts of influences and transform them. That doesn’t make Sufism a “different religion.”

Edwin

 

[Jan_Sobieski]

As far as Kabbalah is concerned, you have genuine, authentic Jewish Kabbalah as typified by the Zohar and a fake, New-Agey version of Kabbalah which is the one Madonna is a member of.

Authentic Kabbalah is simply the mystical dimension of the Jewish faith founded upon a mystical understanding of Torah as a path to Union with God, who is viewed through a kind of 10-scaled series of manifestations of Himself, ranging from Ein Sof - God as the Unknowable, formless, Divine Essence to Malkhut. God is unknowable in his endless, Ein Sof state however he is knowable to his creation in a sense through his manifested state in the Sefirot that kind of 10-scaled series of attributes stretching right up to *Ein Sof * at the top.

The individual Sephirah are:

Sephirah:

Above-consciousness

1 Keter-“Crown”

Conscious intellect

2 Chokhmah-“Wisdom”
3 Binah-“Understanding”

Conscious emotions

4 Chesed-“Kindness”
5 Gevurah-“Severity”
6 Tiferet-“Beauty”
7 Netzach-“Eternity”
8 Hod-“Splendor”
9 Yesod-“Foundation”
10 Malkuth-"Kingship

Kabbalah sees the human soul as being a reflection of the Divine One and more broadly, it views all created things as reflections or vestiges of their life source in the sephirot, the Divine realm of ideas or exemplars. Therefore, the sephirot also describe the spiritual life of man.

There is also a heavy emphasis placed upon direct experience of Ohr - Divine Light which is equivalent to the Christian mystics experiences’ of the Uncreated Light of God that fills ones soul and unites it with its maker.

Blessed Ramon Llull was a Christian Kabbalist, as were many Catholic scholars during the Renaissance such as Picco Mirandola and Marsilio Ficino. Yes there are really Christian Kabbalists, its very ancient in Catholicism - at least from the 12th century onwards.

Elements of it are certainly compatible with Catholicism as they stand, whereas others should probaby be re-interpreted in light of the Christian revelation or “baptized” so to speak.

The New-Agey type Kabbalah is utter rubbish Avoid it please at ALL costs. Read the Zohar to get real Kabbalah.

There is a good translation of the Zohar with readable commentary by Rabbi David Channan Matt:

amazon.com/Zohar-Annotated-Explained-SkyLight-Illuminations/dp/1893361519

Here’s why I think all the “mystical” practices are utter hogwash. Henry Ford and Nikolai Tesla were too busy shaping the real world to spend any time on baloney like kaballah or such. It’s a do nothing belief and it doesn’t produce anything of value, except the people practicing it still want material possessions.

 

[meltzerboy]

Here’s why I think all the “mystical” practices are utter hogwash. Henry Ford and Nikolai Tesla were too busy shaping the real world to spend any time on baloney like kaballah or such. It’s a do nothing belief and it doesn’t produce anything of value, except the people practicing it still want material possessions.

Great industrialist that he was, Henry Ford made no bones about being antisemitic, as he wrote about the Jewish problem in his publication “The International Jew.” A little Kabbalah study wouldn’t have hurt him.

 

[Contarini]

Here’s why I think all the “mystical” practices are utter hogwash. Henry Ford and Nikolai Tesla were too busy shaping the real world to spend any time on baloney like kaballah or such. It’s a do nothing belief and it doesn’t produce anything of value, except the people practicing it still want material possessions.

How do you know that the people practicing it still want material possessions?
And why do you think that only material possessions are of value?

Edwin

 

[MatteoRicci]

Here’s why I think all the “mystical” practices are utter hogwash. Henry Ford and Nikolai Tesla were too busy shaping the real world to spend any time on baloney like kaballah or such. It’s a do nothing belief and it doesn’t produce anything of value, except the people practicing it still want material possessions.

You might want to read up on the latest bits in neuroscience research and its crossover with certain “mystical practices” - specifically meditation.

At least in those particular cases - its hardly a “do nothing belief that doesn’t produce anything of value.” Quite the contrary - it has some rather positive effects on the physiological functions of the brain.

 

[Vouthon]

My dear brother Contarini

I think that we have both to an extent misunderstood each other. I am pushed for time, so will have too reply to your post about Sufism in more depth tommorrow but just a few points:

• John Esposito, I know of and am not exactly a fan. I will explain why tommorrow. The other Orientalist (I assume?) I have never heard of but will read up on.
• I do deny that after the time of al-Ghazzali, a Ghazalian Sufism which fully accepted Shar’iah came into being. What I deny is that the clerics (ulema) ever approved of this as truly Orthodox in the way they saw themselves as being. What Ghazzali allowed to occur was this: The Orthodox Muslims were less likely to accuse the Sufis of outright heresy, and the Sufis were less likely to go to extremes (Ie pantheism) in their teachings. However this is very different from saying as you did that Sufism was mainstream Islam for centuries. That is simply not true.
• I believe that you are exaggerating the extent to which Sufism was ever mainstream. The sufis and the ulema tolerated each other at times, at other times their was persecution, for example of the great Indian Sufi Sarmad and his disciples. Sarmad was executed for heresy in the 1600s under the Mughals at the behest of the ulema. Ironically his murderer, the infamous tyrant Aurangzeb, was himself a Sufi and influenced by a different form of Sufism, the Ghazzalian one that I am speaking of. But they were never cordial or united. I will cite historians tommorrow to demonstrate this.
• There actually is no mainstream in Islam. Each denomination and school believes the other to be heretics. So Sufism had no mainstream to enter in the first place. Islam is not the monolith outsiders think. All there is, all that we have, is the orthodoxy of the Qur’an and Hadiths which all these different streams draw on for their authority. And when read, whether in Sunni Hadith or Shi’a Hadith, they are not - with the exception of perhaps one important saying in the Hadith Qudsi about God being the hidden treasure - receptive to mysticism and outright contradict many Sufi ideas imported from other religions.
• I am not blind to the militantism of forms of that Ghazzalian Sufism. That form of Sufism is exemplfied even by one of the most revered and so-called liberal of Sufis after Ghazzali, Rumi. He is popular with New Agers today, because of Coleman Bark’s free-style paraphrases of his works. However he was given at times to very Orthodox statements too:

"…Since the Messenger of Allah was the Prophet of the sword, (the people of) his community are heroes and champions. In our religion the right thing is war and terror; in the religion of Jesus the right thing is retirement to cave and mountain…”

- Jalaluddin Rumi (1207 – 1273), Sufi Muslim mystic

However that is Rumi when he has his Orthodox hat on. Here is the other side of him that we like and (rightly) admire in the 21st century west:

I profess the religion of love,
Love is my religion and my faith.
My mother is love
My father is love
My prophet is love
My God is love
I am a child of love
I have come only to speak of love

- Jalaluddin Rumi (1207 – 1273), Sufi mystic

How he and other Ghazzalian Sufis managed to reconcile these two views is beyond me though.

• In India Sufis were among the worst persecutors of Hindus, and proponents of forced conversions and destruction of Hindu temples and holy books. I am not blind to this, as you seem to think. But I regard this as Ghazzalian Sufism.
• The greatest, most liberal Sufis were hardly Orthodox Muslims. Hafiz and Al-Halaj come to mind, and yes I do have great admiration for these men and their mysticism.
• And no, before you think it, I have not invented the idea of Ghazzalian Sufism. Its a common turn of phrase, used retrospectively by moderns, to describe some forms of that vast array of the phenomenon we know of as Sufism. It is these forms that were very in lign with Shari’ah and which you seem to think were mainstream.

I loo forward to discussing this with you tommorrow in greater depth. I hope that we can also respect our differences in this respect! I see you as a very intelligent and I respect, deeply, your knowledge of this subject.

 

[Vouthon]

BTW I meant to write in my initial above post, “I do NOT deny…” vis-a-vis Ghazzalian Sufism not “I do deny”…

I like to call the above second quote from Rumi, less Orthodox Rumi. And then you get outright heretical Rumi which is the one the Turkish government tried to hide when it was allowing Westerners translate the Diwan of Rumi into English in the 70s. They confiscated one book of Rumi poems that were clearly opposed to traditional Islamic dogma, from the end of Rumi’s life, when had clearly shown some more of his true colours, so to speak. And those colours weren’t very traditionally Islamic, I’ll tell you that.

Rumi remained a devout Muslim throughout his life but he clearly moved from Ghazzalian Sufism to the heretical kind, or else he was also secretly of the more liberal bent.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Here’s why I think all the “mystical” practices are utter hogwash. Henry Ford and Nikolai Tesla were too busy shaping the real world to spend any time on baloney like kaballah or such. It’s a do nothing belief and it doesn’t produce anything of value, except the people practicing it still want material possessions.

In response to this, I give you the inimitable Evelyn Underhill from her book Practical Mysticism: A Little Book for Normal People which you can find online here via Project Gutenberg. The following is part of an explication of her definition of mysticism as “the art of union with Reality.”
It is notorious that the operations of the average human consciousness unite the self, not with things as they really are, but with images, notions, aspects of things. The verb “to be,” which he uses so lightly, does not truly apply to any of the objects amongst which the practical man supposes himself to dwell. For him the hare of Reality is always ready-jugged: he conceives not the living lovely, wild, swift-moving creature which has been sacrificed in order that he may be fed on the deplorable dish which he calls “things as they really are.” So complete, indeed, is the separation of his consciousness from the facts of being, that he feels no sense of loss. He is happy enough “understanding,” garnishing, assimilating the carcass from which the principle of life and growth has been ejected, and whereof only the most digestible portions have been retained. He is not “mystical.”

But sometimes it is suggested to him that his knowledge is not quite so thorough as he supposed. Philosophers in particular have a way of pointing out its clumsy and superficial character; of demonstrating the fact that he habitually mistakes his own private sensations for qualities inherent in the mysterious objects of the external world. From those few qualities of colour, size, texture, and the rest, which his mind has been able to register and classify, he makes a label which registers the sum of his own experiences. This he knows, with this he “unites”; for it is his own creature. It is neat, flat, unchanging, with edges well defined: a thing one can trust. He forgets the existence of other conscious creatures, provided with their own standards of reality. Yet the sea as the fish feels it, the borage as the bee sees it, the intricate sounds of the hedgerow as heard by the rabbit, the impact of light on the eager face of the primrose, the landscape as known in its vastness to the wood-louse and ant–all these experiences, denied to him for ever, have just as much claim to the attribute of Being as his own partial and subjective interpretations of things.

Because mystery is horrible to us, we have agreed for the most part to live in a world of labels; to make of them the current coin of experience, and ignore their merely symbolic character, the infinite gradation of values which they misrepresent. We simply do not attempt to unite with Reality. But now and then that symbolic character is suddenly brought home to us. Some great emotion, some devastating visitation of beauty, love, or pain, lifts us to another level of consciousness; and we are aware for a moment of the difference between the neat collection of discrete objects and experiences which we call the world, and the height, the depth, the breadth of that living, growing, changing Fact, of which thought, life, and energy are parts, and in which we “live and move and have our being.” Then we realise that our whole life is enmeshed in great and living forces; terrible because unknown.
Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Vouthon]

I ADOTRE EVELYN UNDERHILL

If Anglo-Cathoics could be declared Catholic saints she would be my number 1. Her book on Mysticism: The study and exploration of spiritual conciousness is my favourite on Catholic mysticism.

She didn’t convert to the Catholic Church, even though she wanted too, because her husband would not allow her and because she felt that the Latin Church’s (then) strigent opposition to all forms of modernism did not gel with her beliefs.

I love her so much. I hope that one day Anglo-Catholics can be recognised as saints in Catholicism in a similar way to how Orthodox saints are, even though Anglicanism has no formal canonization process. Because I am sure that Evelyn is in heaven.

 

[Hypatia]

• I do deny that after the time of al-Ghazzali, a Ghazalian Sufism which fully accepted Shar’iah came into being. What I deny is that the clerics (ulema) ever approved of this as truly Orthodox in the way they saw themselves as being. What Ghazzali allowed to occur was this: The Orthodox Muslims were less likely to accuse the Sufis of outright heresy, and the Sufis were less likely to go to extremes (Ie pantheism) in their teachings. However this is very different from saying as you did that Sufism was mainstream Islam for centuries. That is simply not true.

I don’t want to jump in too deeply on a good conversation that the two of you are already having, but it seems to me the distinction between “sufi” and “orthodox” is way too facile and, as has already been pointed out, “orthodox” in this case is being defined in a manner that conforms to the modernists’ definition of “orthodox”. What makes one Muslim is fairly broad and hardly uniform (even the pillars are not uniform across all groups). As you point out Islam is too complex and diverse for such an easy distinction and being sympathetic to the “sufis” doesn’t necessarily guarantee some sort of wider agreement. On the one hand, this allows us to insist simply that we are Muslims, and the differences are all overcome in our surrender to the One, but it also means that Islam is incredibly diverse.

Nonetheless, practices associated with Islamic mysticism, including saints, forms of prayer, understandings of revelation, etc. permeate most of the Islamic world, and until recently (in the grand scheme of history), the anti-tasawwuf party has not been especially dominant.

Moreover the claim that it is another religion entirely seems patently false. All practice has to find its root in the fact that one’s being rests in God (that God is more intimate to me than I am to my own self). This is the ground of all Muslim life. “Obedience” that arises out of something other than that is not obedience but shirk. A practice that takes any sort of egoism as its foundation is false.

Ghazali is even a bit of a late player. I think it is wrong to see him normalizing something that was abnormal. It seems more accurate to me to see him as embodying and trying to reconcile (not altogether successfully) multiple tensions present within the Islamic tradition of his own time. But to say that one side of his synthesis was Islam and another was some other reality called Sufism is, again, a false dichotomy. He feels pressure to reconcile legal, exegetical, mystical, and wisdom traditions because they are all expressions of Islam.

The multiple hats theory also seems false. It is not as if someone like Melvana is Muslim when he writes one thing and some sort of pseudo-Muslim when he writes another. The whole is his (and many others) understanding of Islam. Even someone undisputeably marginal like Hallaj begins by memorizing the Qur’an and understands himself to be doing nothing other than preaching Islam. Their inner life and outer are one life.

Finally, ascetic practices are present within the original community (Hasan al-Basri), and light passages in the Qur’an should be more than enough to justify any sort of Islamic mysticism (and become foundational for illuminationist philosophy and devotion), but there are also basic distinctions between surface appearance and meaning made (esp. with respect to the material world), anda stress on the intimacy of God that require the type of devotional life that takes its most sophisticated forms in the organization of the various tariqa. That these paths only become officially organized a few centuries later is not grounds for concluding that they are foreign (any more than the arrival of monasticism around 300 is grounds for suggesting that the monks are secretly practicing a new religion).

 

[mercytruth]

I am finding Contarini, Vouthon and Hypatia’s comments interesting, eventhough they are over my head.

Yet, this statement by Hypatia resonates: “A practice that takes any sort of egoism as its foundation is false.” This would seem to sift the charlatans from the true seekers, but how many of us can really separate ourselves from ego?

Your comparison with monasticism is quite appropriate.

I hope to read more from your discussions.

 

[Yohanan]

thats a cool website that offer kabbalah red bracelets