Judgement
Practitioners of the Sufi path believe that, with the exception
of a relatively small group of individuals drawn from
different backgrounds and historical periods, all people will
face a Day of Judgement after death. The exceptions noted
above are those people who God will exempt, for reasons
best known to Divinity, from going through the judgement
process and who, in addition, will be beneficiaries of Divine
favor.
The rest of us will be required to give an accounting of our
deeds and misdeeds in this life. Moreover, the Sufi masters
indicate that on the Day of Judgement we will not be called
upon to describe what we did or didn't do. Instead, we will be
queried concerning the nature of the motivations and
intentions which stood behind our acts of omission and
commission.
For those individuals who are skeptical about, or disbelieve
in, the possibility of a Day of Judgement, the issue, in a sense,
is a very empirical one. All one has to do is wait and see what
happens.
If nothing happens - that is, if death is the entrance way to
oblivion and the cessation of all consciousness and
experience for the individual concerned, then both believers
and non-believers will be in exactly the same situation. More
specifically, each person, regardless of beliefs, will have done
what she or he wanted to do, but there will be no opportunity
for joy or regret at having made the correct or incorrect
choice.
If, on the other hand, death is not an entrance to oblivion,
but, instead, is a gateway to further consciousness and
experience, then further possibilities arise. One such
possibility is, as Sufi masters have stated, we will have to
face a Day of Judgement.
To be held accountable for our actions in the foregoing
sense, means there is a functional relationship between what
goes on in the present life and what may happen in the life to
come. In other words, the choices of this world will have a
shaping and conditioning effect with respect to what could
transpire in life after death.
In fact, all major religious traditions maintain there is a
functional relationship between what goes on in this life and
what goes on in life to come. Whether the spiritual tradition
is theistic or non-theistic, whether the tradition allows for
reincarnation or does not, all the major faiths contend that,
in one way or another, each of us will have to face the
consequences, whether to our advantage or to our
disadvantage, of our deeds and misdeeds in this world.
One could express the foregoing set of possibilities involving
believers and non-believers in terms of game theory
strategies. If one were to do this, there seems to be a clear
difference in the degree of "rationality" exhibited in the two
approaches to the issue of, let us say, judgement.
For example, let us assume, for the sake of argument,
non-believers are correct and believers are incorrect
concerning the nature of what happens (nothing or
accountability of some kind) after death. What, if anything,
follows from this?
To begin with, non-believers would not be in a position to
ascertain the truth or falsity of their position. Confirmation
concerning the terminal nature of death requires
consciousness, intelligence, experience, and understanding.
Yet, if death marks the end of our consciousness,
intelligence, experience and understanding, then the
non-believer never can have what he or she needs to prove
her or his beliefs to be true. All the non-believer can do is to
assume the correctness of his or her beliefs in this regard and
proceed through life accordingly.
Furthermore, if there is no life after death, then aside from
the consolation of having believed correctly about this issue,
nothing substantial really turns on it. All people, whether
believers or non-believers, experience: birth, pain, difficulty,
hunger, struggle, thirst, adversity, doubt, illness, pleasure,
understanding, meaning, hope, fear, desire, passion, anger
jealousy, pride, friendship, loneliness, alienation, ambition,
likes and dislikes.
Our beliefs are the vessels we construct to sail through the
ocean of life, with all its beauty and terror. Most vessels are
seaworthy in some minimal fashion since they enable the
individual to get from birth to death with varying degrees of
pleasure, security, pride, accomplishment, comfort, direction,
interest and so on.
To be sure, there may be different theories of boat building
floating around, but when one suddenly finds oneself in the
ocean of life, one tends to make do with whatever
circumstances make accessible to one and proceeds to hold
on for dear life. If what appears to be a better theory of boat
building drifts by, then, if we can, we may make a decision to
undertake building a different kind of ocean going vessel.
The vessel of a non-believer, whom we are assuming is
correct, is not any more seaworthy then the vessel of a
believer. At best, there is a certain aesthetic superiority to the
architecture of the non-believer's vessel relative to the
structural character of the believer's vessel.
Nevertheless, if a believer persists in sticking with his or her
aesthetically less pleasing vessel, or if a believer switches
from one aesthetically inferior architecture to another (i.e.,
changes faiths but still believes in accountability), what really
rests on all these aesthetically incorrect choices? The answer
is absolutely nothing.
If what non-believers say concerning accountability or
judgement after death is true, we still all become so much
dust blowing across the footnotes of history. Dust is: neither
correct nor incorrect; happy nor unhappy; satisfied nor full of
regrets; wise nor ignorant. Not only would non-believers not
get to say: "I told you so", but even if this sentiment could be
broadcast into the graves of dead believers, it would fall on
deaf ears.
One might even argue that, if the non-believer is correct,
then, within certain limits, a certain amount of delusion of the
incorrect believer may prove to be a more watertight
material for ship construction than is the truth with which the
non-believer builds her or his vessel. A person who believes
life has a purpose, even when it doesn't, may be less likely to
spring deadly leaks of despair then one who believes life has
no purpose, even when this belief is true.
If what non-believers hold to be true were, in fact, true, all
values, identities, purposes, meanings, plans, moralities,
hopes, aspirations, understandings, projects, methodologies
and philosophies become relativized. If there is no system of
accountability after death, then all systems of accountability
prior to death become arbitrary.
Everything becomes measurable by individual likes and
dislikes. One pays one's existential money and is consumed
by life in accordance with the metabolic character of the way
one chooses to engage life. End of story.
If, however, what the believer holds to be true is, in fact, the
case (if, that is, life, of some kind, really does continue after
death), then the non-believer is going to face a process of
accountability irrespective of what he or she believes. There
will be no escape from this, nor will denial do the
non-believer any good.
Various believers may have different ideas about what the
nature of the judgement or accountability process will be.
These believers even may hold diametrically opposed
positions concerning what is the true nature of such
accountability.
Nonetheless, they all believe accountability becomes a crucial
fulcrum around which the conduct of life in this world pivots.
Consequently, how one chooses and what one chooses and
why one chooses become central themes orienting all of life's
judgements and activities.
If we sum up the foregoing comments in the form of a game
theory decision matrix, both non-believers and believers are
faced with two broad possibilities in relation to the issue of
accountability or judgement:
On the basis of the available choices, the worst the believer
can do is a neutral or null result. This will occur if the
non-believer's assumption proves to be correct.
As indicated previously, the reason this possibility is given a
neutral or null designation for both parties is because,
ultimately, everything turns out the same way for believers as
well as non-believers in the event death is the end of the line
for us. The only real difference between the two is a highly
argumentative and inconclusive consideration concerning the
aesthetics of the style of boat with which one will sail into
oblivion.
On the other hand, if what the believer considers to be true
is, in fact, the case (i.e., there is some kind of judgement or
accountability after death), then the believer is in a position
to try to take advantage of this possibility. Consequently, the
believer has an opportunity to gain (+) by trying to discover
those things which will constructively affect one's after-death
status and, then, acting on them to the best of her or his
ability.
Of course, the opportunity or advantage noted above is only
a potential one. If the believer operates on the assumption
there is a system of accountability which kicks in after death
with respect to one's actions in this life, there is no guarantee
the believer will be operating in conformity with the actual
nature of the system of accountability which is in place.
In general terms, however, if the assumption of the believer is
true, then the believer, hopefully, will be seeking to modify
intentions, attitudes, understanding, and behavior to reflect
the reality of things after death. The non-believer, on the
other hand, will not be interested in even trying to get his or
her intentions, attitudes, understanding and behavior to
reflect the requirements of some post-death accountability or
judgement system.
In terms of "rational" decision making, the believer can
adapt to either reality (i.e., judgement or no-judgement) and
come out no worse than a null result as far as general
possibilities are concerned. This is not true for the
non-believer.
The best the non-believer can do, in the light of the available
possibilities, is a neutral or null result. This occurs when the
non-believer is correct in supposing there is no accountability
or judgement after death.
The non-believer might wish to argue that from the point of
view of, say, aesthetics, this outcome is not neutral. In other
words, whether or not one's moral/value choices reflect, at
least in part, the truth of things (e.g., there is no
accountability after death), does affect the quality of integrity
or authenticity with which life is lived.
Nevertheless, a non-believer probably would have a difficult
time convincing other non-believers that a particular theory
of aesthetics was "the" proper framework from which all
non-believers should build the conceptual boats which will
carry them through life. In fact, a non-believer might not be
able to offer a conclusive reason to other non-believers why
one should bother striving for a life of integrity or
authenticity in the first place.
One cannot necessarily argue the non-believer is doomed if
there is a system of accountability which will be applied to
the individual, whether they like it or not. After all, there may
be factors inherent in the actual system of ontological and
metaphysical accountability which might place various
actions of the non-believer in a positive light.
All one can say is that on the basis of what can be proven
conclusively (which we are assuming to be nothing at all) and
in terms of the possibilities open to the individual concerning
accountability and non-accountability, the non-believer may
not be operating as rationally as the believer is as far as
decision strategies are concerned. On the other hand, in
terms of general principles, and in terms of the options cited,
the believer really doesn't have any losing outcomes relative
to the non-believer and might be in a position to gain,
depending on the character of the accountability or
judgement system which is in place.
The non-believer, on the other hand, really doesn't have any
winning outcomes relative to the believer (unless one
considers an aesthetically flavored technical victory to be a
winning outcome). Yet, the non-believer might be in a
position to lose if there is accountability or judgement after
death.
In addition to comparing believers and non-believers in
relation to the issue of accountability or judgement, one also
might construct a game theory decision matrix with respect
to exoteric and esoteric possibilities concerning the same
issue of accountability. One, of course, could choose any
number of themes to use as a basis of comparison between
the two perspectives. However, the theme being selected for
purposes of reflection in what follows revolves around the
ideas of true identity and false identity.
Whether one is exoterically or esoterically inclined, false
identity is a losing proposition. To be caught up in
machinations of the ego, desire, passions, anger, habit, the
world, or Satan is counterproductive as far as post-death
systems of accountability or judgement are concerned.
Indeed, these sort of entanglements are universally
condemned by all the major spiritual traditions, both
exoterically as well as esoterically.
Sufi masters maintain the most secure (but not necessarily
the only) way of trying to satisfy the conditions of
accountability or judgement with which we will be confronted
on the Day of Judgement is to die to our false self before we
die a physical death. By dying to our false self, we open up
the possibility of having our true self unveiled.
From the perspective of the practitioners of the Sufi path, if,
God willing, the true self becomes ascendant, all of our
intentions will be colored, shaped, and oriented by the
spiritually pure and sincere manner in which the true self
manifests submission to God. The highest expressions of:
spiritual excellence, gnosis, true witnessing, adab, love and
servanthood all come through the true self.
As a general principle, and although there may be exceptions
to the rule, exoteric methods cannot bring to full realization
our true, essential identity. In fact, according to Sufi masters,
exoteric methods were never offered to human beings for this
purpose.
Exoteric methodology was intended as a starting point for
engaging the life of spirituality. Exoteric methodology was
intended to provide a path of salvation for the generality of
believers. Exoteric methodology was intended to provide a
set of principles, practices and parameters through which to
bring our varied manifestations of passion and anger into
harmony with Divine Command.
On the whole, however, exoteric methods alone cannot lead
to the realization of true identity and essential capacity. For
this, God willing, to be possible, one needs to supplement and
complement exoteric practices with an esoteric approach to
spirituality.
Since the realization of true identity is considered by Sufi
masters to be the surest way, God willing, to satisfy the
criteria of accountability which will become effective after
death, then exoteric methodology, taken in and of itself,
scores a zero, relative to true identity, as far as providing the
individual with the best opportunity for preparing oneself for
the demanding requirements of the Day of Judgement.
Nevertheless, considerations of what may be the best method
for preparing for post-death accountability, should not be
thought of as being the only way to prepare oneself for that
Day.
Consequently, the foregoing comments should not be
construed to mean exoteric methodology is not an effective
vehicle for seeking to please God or for trying to prepare for
the Day of Judgement. Clearly, Sufi masters believe the
exoteric dimension of spirituality to be eminently suitable in
both respects.
Furthermore, from the perspective of Sufi masters, the
intention behind seeking to realize the true self should not be
a matter of trying to position oneself to score favorably in the
post-death accountability process. Seeking to realize our
essential capacity and true identity should be a journey of
love which is independent of all considerations beyond that
journey taken on its own terms.
Fulfilling the purpose of life may coincide, happily, with a
passing grade on the Day of Judgement. However, neither a
desire for such a passing grade, nor a fear of failing to obtain
that passing mark, ought to be the reasons why a Sufi wishes
to fulfil the purpose of life.
| Return to Streams Menu |
|
