Part of our weekly Sufi Wisdom series. As militant Islam does its level best to discredit the religion, it's important to remember that there are other voices within the faith. This one is from The Way Of The Sufi, by Idries Shah.
The Sufi Abdal Ali Haidar said:
"Many people practice virtues or associate with wise and great people, believing that this is the pursuit of self-improvement. They are deluded. In the name of religion, some of the worst barbarities have been committed. Trying to do good, man has done some of his worst actions.
The flaw comes from the absurd assumption that mere connection with something of value will convey a corresponding advantage to an unaltered individual.
Much more is necessary.
Man must not only be in contact with good; he must be in contact with a form of it which is capable of transforming his function and making him good. A donkey stabled in a library does not become literate.
This argument is one of the differences between Sufi teaching and the attempted practice of ethic and self improvement in other endeavours.
The point is generally neglected by the reader or student. Talib Kamal said: "The thread does not become enobled because it goes through the jewels." And: "My virtues have not improved me, any more than a desolate place is made fertile by the presence of a treasure."
A treasure is a treasure. But if it is to be put to work to [rebuild] a ruin, the treasure must be used in a certain way.
Moralizing may be a part of the process. The means of transforming the man is still needed. It is this means which is the Sufi secret. Other schools, very often, are not at the point where they can see beyond the first stage; they are intoxicated with the discovery of ethic and virtue, which they therefore conclude constitutes a panacea."
Why is that discovery important? What are its limits? And in what ways does that discovery interfere with the necessary next steps? Any examples you can think of?
"A donkey stabled in a library does not become literate."
Yes. and it's not entirely the fault of the donkey--he's a donkey. Though that epigram can easily become dismissive, as with the "This book is a mirror. When an ape looks in, no sage looks out" saying.
This particular (wisdom/salvation-by-association) slant reminds me of the idea of sleeping with a textbook under your pillow hoping the info will somehow seep in to your head.
Or I think of a "transporter error" ("n to beam up") during the rapture...
This deserves a really long essay, Joe. Thanks for adding to my task load :).
Nort
"Many people practice virtues or associate with wise and great people, believing that this is the pursuit of self-improvement. They are deluded."
I think that they are correct.
"In the name of religion, some of the worst barbarities have been committed."
Atheism has surpassed the barbarities of religion in extent (megadeaths), though not in duration (millennia). For intensity, we have reached something like the ultimate at our present level of technology. (So of course people are striving to improve the relevant technology.)
Also, which religion is not a matter of indifference. Remarkably few crimes were ever committed in the name of the Roman religion. Compare the religion of the Aztecs. Again, Confucianism has a decent record, probably because the character of the founder of a religion has a great influence on it, and Confucius was a decent man. Mohammed was a man of an entirely different character, and his religion has had a different effect.
Obviously, striving to draw nearer to the spirit of a good man or a good woman has a different effect from striving to draw nearer to the spirit of a wicked one. Therefore, do all you can to approach the good, and firmly reject the evil.
"The flaw comes from the absurd assumption that mere connection with something of value will convey a corresponding advantage to an unaltered individual."
An individual connected is not unaltered.
I remember a story of a woman who showed up for jury duty in her Star Fleet Academy uniform. She was allowed to wear it, and a good thing too. To her, Star Trek star-ship crew were an ideal of uprightness. In putting on external symbols of that ideal, she was making herself ready to be the best and fairest juror she could possibly be. The visual image may be funny, but the ideal of incorruptible justice is not, and that's what matters.
"Much more is necessary."
In becoming good, or at least better than you were, it is often less rather than more that is necessary. Less pretence and elaborate theory, fewer guru games, fewer slippery words, and more daily practice of simple kindness, truthfulness and practical help.
"Man must not only be in contact with good; he must be in contact with a form of it which is capable of transforming his function and making him good. A donkey stabled in a library does not become literate."
Since both gods and men are demonstrably capable of making attentive human beings better or worse, depending on whether the influences are virtuous or vicious, this is not a problem.
"This argument is one of the differences between Sufi teaching and the attempted practice of ethic and self improvement in other endeavours."
Then Sufi teaching has (again) effectively distinguished itself from what is right.
"My virtues have not improved me, any more than a desolate place is made fertile by the presence of a treasure."
Batman, in Batman Begins (2005): "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me."
"Moralizing may be a part of the process. The means of transforming the man is still needed. It is this means which is the Sufi secret. Other schools, very often, are not at the point where they can see beyond the first stage; they are intoxicated with the discovery of ethic and virtue, which they therefore conclude constitutes a panacea."
This is only a sales pitch based on an empty pretence of superiority.
"Why is that discovery important? What are its limits? And in what ways does that discovery interfere with the necessary next steps? Any examples you can think of?"
Let me put this bluntly.
In seeking religious wisdom, I've encountered a variety of teachers with a variety of sales pitches. Many of them claim to transcend morality, or in more slippery words "conventional morality". They do this in the name of a variety of mysterious things, including magic. And what I've found, so convincingly that I now treat this as an absolute rule, is that "transcendence" of moral action is a sure give-away of crooked doctrine and crooked hearts.
For good news Saturday, I'll put this in Jewish terms: "Justice, justice shall you pursue."
David, this is a very worthy post. It's important to examine any esoteric (or claimed-esoteric) system -- to check out the Kool-Aid in a lab, so to speak.
It's what the gurus do that defines them, too. I find some value in stories of Rumi and Nasrudin. I'm not really a nonattached Buddhist or a Sufi or anoth other sort of practicing mystic. I'm trying to grow a soul. And I am confident that that will result in part from building my character. I take some of what the Sufis say as having value in that endeavor.
But I don't down the whole cup of Kool-aid; there might be Rohypnol in it. :)
Thank you, Nortius Maximus. I'm flattered that my post was praised by someone who keeps up such a thoughtful blog.
"It's what the gurus do that defines them, too." You're so right about that.
The most impressive argument you can make for any doctrine is simply: good people, people who are kind and virtuous in ways that stand up to examination. People like that are worth learning from. Even if you are mostly antagonistic to their doctrine, there must be some spark of light there or it wouldn't be influencing them in a good way, and every spark of goodness is precious.
Condemnation is cheap, seeing genuine virtue where others don't see it is in itself a great virtue.
This doesn't mean that you accept that what they think is important is right. I was highly impressed with the Lubavichers (a Jewish sect) when I grew acquainted with them, because of the way handicapped people are fully and respectfully integrated into the religious life of the community, not covertly shuffled aside. This never made me think there was any probability whatever that the Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson was the messiah.
I hope the stories of Rumi and Nasrudin continue to profit you, Nortius Maximus. And more, I hope you will make the best use of all your powers so as to be effective in the world.
The questions I've posed are directed at Nortius Maximus but for others that want to join in feel free to add your own responses.
Now I'm curious as to what your definition of soul is. From a religious perspective the soul is an entity that is inherent at conception / birth (depending on point of view) that remains with the physical body until death. There are no physical qualities of a soul in the sense that one can not touch it, see it or determine its' existence as a state of tangible mass. One could interpret the soul as a spirit which is the essence of life. That which provides animation in humans and is weightless, odorless and transparent to some degree. Transparent to most except those that claim to see auras, ghosts or spirits if you prefer which could be likened to the wandering souls of those that are deceased. This opens up a realm of questions concerning the deceased, the essence of a soul and whatever roles we may assign to the sole during our allotted time of physical existence. As an aside this also brings into question as to whether man is the sole proprietor of a soul. I could certainly be wrong here but I have not heard or read any material that indicates living organisms other than humans maintain a soul.
A classic symbol of justice being the blindfolded koura holding a scale, DB, persuades me that there are other ways than attaching oneself to an admirable mentor to become admirable by association.
I see a lot of cars bearing fish symbols blatantly violating the rules of the road and of common politeness, and fear we are all too inclined to think we are virtuous because we joined a religion or foundation that promotes good causes, so having paid our dues we can behave any way we please.
USMC:
The strict Janes took the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" so literally that they walked along sweeping ahead of themselves to avoid treading on a living thing by accident.
As to moral transcendence, I saw a reference today to 'following the command-meants', wryly commenting on our various interpretations of the same. However, having heard Pat Robertson leading a prayer for 'more vacancies on the' SC, I trust my own interpretations more than I trust that view of religion.
Soul: when you have it you can dance.
Ruth: "A classic symbol of justice being the blindfolded koura holding a scale, DB, persuades me that there are other ways than attaching oneself to an admirable mentor to become admirable by association."
I don't understand what you're saying. Can you explain more? And could you post a link to a picture that shows what you mean?
Just in case you misunderstand me: I don't claim that associating yourself with an admirable mentor is the only way to go.
On the contrary, I think education prior to action plays a very subordinate part in being an authentic good person. You see a situation that calls for moral action, you recognise the facts and the moral call, and you respond wholeheartedly (or as best you can, give or take fear and other distractions) - that's what makes the hero, and the ordinary good person too.
But, we don't constantly live in such crises, thank God. And while there is free time we can educate ourselves for good or ill. And one of the good ways to self-educate is to approach an admirable model - human, divine, even fictional. The play acting people go through in doing this should not be mocked. If something looks stupid and it works, it isn't stupid.
Sorry, DB, I often am expressing myself in shorthand because of a time crunch. Image: www.dla.mil/dg
The blindfold which is so typical of Justice's image suggests that the truest justice is blind, or not visually gifted. My read on the relationship between that image and the concept of learning/deriving virtuous behavior from mentors is that we aren't can't count on seeing/understanding the qualities we want. That may still be a little dense.
What you say is close to my meaning: "You see a situation that calls for moral action, you recognise the facts and the moral call, and you respond wholeheartedly (or as best you can, give or take fear and other distractions) - that's what makes the hero, and the ordinary good person too."
I suppose I do associate 'play-acting' with the 'groupie', for good or ill.
Long ago, I wrote:
And USMC responded in the vein of:
...etc., etc.
Well. I finally noticed that he'd written (sorry).
There's a sect of a sect that I think might have some Sufi connection that suggests that a person's "soul" at birth is kind of like a nonphysical mustard seed, and that the task of living a virtuous life is the task of "growing" that soul. They might further claim that if your soul is big enough you get into heaven -- me, I dunno about that.
I don't claim that such a thing exists. I find the image and notion to have value in my explorations and attempts at gaining "grace", which I describe in experiential and social terms on my blog here (scroll down a bit or read the whole thing, your choice).
As M. Simon wrote:
I hope so. On my "grace"ful days, it sure seems that I can. :)