The Construction of Reality - Part Two
Back in the 1960s, Stanley Milgram, who was at Yale, did a series of studies concerning obedience and compliance. The results are rather sobering and disturbing.
A newspaper ad was run in a New Haven newspaper which offered $4.50 in exchange for an hour's time of anyone who signed up for the experiment. The ad indicated the study is about memory and learning.
The people who respond to the ad are just average human beings who like the idea of participating in an interesting investigation. These individuals are introduced to a person who is dressed in a white coat and looks like a scientist or academician and appears to be very serious about the project.
In addition, the people who have responded to the ad are introduced to a friendly, affable, fellow participant in the study. The individual conducting the project indicates that the study is designed to focus on the possible effects which punishment has in relation to learning.
One of the participants is to be the teacher, and one of the two individuals is to be a student. Lots are drawn in order to assign the student and teacher roles. Once these roles have been assigned, the two participants are taken into a second room by the individual conducting the study, and the person who has been identified as the student, through the drawing of lots, is strapped into a chair.
An electrode, to which a conductive gel has been applied, is attached to the student's arm. The person running the experiment, then, explains that the electrode is connected to a generator in the other room which, when certain switches are thrown, is capable of delivering an electric shock to the student.
The purpose of the electric shocks is to punish the student for incorrect responses to the test items which are presented to the would-be learner. Naturally, the question is raised about whether, or not, the shocks are capable of doing any permanent damage. The participants are told that although the shocks can be quite painful, no tissue damage will occur.
The student is left in one room, strapped to a chair, and the teacher is taken into an adjoining room containing the shock generator. The machine has a console with 30 switches and each of the toggles is labeled with a voltage, running from 15 volts up to 450 volts. Furthermore, each of the switches also has a label associated with it that indicates the degree of severity for that given level of shock-punishment -- and these labels range from mild to dangerous, and the 29th and 30th switches have an XXX label next to them.
The learning task is described as a paired association task in which the teacher recites a word, and the student must give an appropriate word of association for the original word. Shocks are to be administered by the teacher whenever the learner gives an incorrect response, and, moreover, for each incorrect response on the part of the student, the learner is not only given a shock, but afterwards, the level of shock is increased by 15 volts which is to be delivered by throwing another, 'higher-level' switch among the graduated set of 30 switches, whenever the next incorrect response is given for a subsequent word pair.
Before the experiment begins, the teacher is given a 15 volt shock in order to both test the machine, to be sure that it is functioning properly, as well as to give the teacher a taste of what the punishment feels like at the very lowest level of shock. The shock is sufficient to make the arm of the teacher tingle.
Once the experiment begins, the first several word pairings go easily and without any need of punishment. Eventually, however, a mistake is made by the learner, and a shock is administered. Before very long, the student is making quite a few errors, and with each mistake, the level of voltage applied to the learner becomes higher and higher.
When the voltage of the shock reaches 75 volts, the teacher can hear an audible grunt from the student through the wall which separates the teacher from the learner. Similar sounds are heard when shocks of 90 and 105 volts are administered during subsequent punishment for incorrect responses.
When the level of shock reaches 120 volts, the student indicates clearly that the punishment is becoming very painful. When the shock reaches 150 volts, the learner yells out that he wants to be released and doesn't want to continue on with the experiment. The nature of such protests and exclamations of pain become more intense as the level of voltage is increased.
If the teacher should express reservations or anxieties about what is going on or what she or he is hearing, the experimenter will simply indicate to the teacher that the study needs to be completed or that the learner is being paid for his or her participation or that the teacher must continue and cannot stop. These instructions are given in a detached manner.
As the shocks proceed past 150 volts, the remonstrations of the learner become more and more agonizing. At a certain point, the learner yells the pain is unbearable.
When the 20th switch is reached (300 volts), frantic pounding is heard on the wall behind which the learner is strapped in, and the student begs to be freed from the chair, to be let out of the room. After the 22nd switch has been thrown (330 volts), there is no further sounds emanating from the room in which the learner is situated.
The teacher is informed that silence on the part of the learner is to be interpreted as an incorrect response. With each lack of response to the next word pair, a shock is delivered and, as well, the level of shock continues to be increased by 15 volts, in anticipation of the next incorrect answer by the learner. Once the 30th switch has been thrown, the experiment is over.
Now, before continuing on, I should point out that, in fact, no shocks were ever administered to the 'dim-witted' learners. In fact, the learner was a confederate in the experiment who was playing a role, and everything had been pre-arranged so that the only actual subjects in the experiment were the people who had responded to the newspaper ad.
Independently of the experimental set-up, psychologists and university students were asked to estimate the level of shock at which they, if they had been assigned the role as teachers, would discontinue participating in the experiment. On average, the psychologists who were polled said that if they had been the teacher, they would have dropped out when the level of shock reached 120 volts. The university students who were asked the same question indicated that, on average, they would have stopped at 135 volts.
120-135 volts is the point at which the learners invariably began to complain about the pain they felt from the shocks being administered. No one among either the psychologists or the university students who were polled indicated that they would have tossed all 30 switches.
When asked to predict what other 'teachers' might have done in such an experiment, the university students suggested that, on average, only 1/10th of one per cent of the teachers would go through all 30 levels of shock. The psychologists predicted that 4/10ths of one per cent of the subjects would run through the full complement of switches.
No one was prepared for what actually took place. Over 60 per cent of the subjects in the experiment -- the ones who were the 'teachers' -- went through the full complement of 30 switches.
Many of these people were in obvious emotional distress and agony as they did so. Many of them struggled with the moral issue of what was going on -- that is, having to choose between whether to harm another human being or to continue to comply with the directives of the experimenter.
Many of the subjects stopped numerous times, only to be prodded back into action again by the detached, emotionless urging of the experimenter that the study needed to be completed or that the subject really had no choice but to go on as instructed. Many of the subjects broke down in tears or exhibited signs of anxiety, frustration, trembling, intense conflict, uncontrollable laughter, and indecision, but in the end, over 60 per cent of these average people kept upping the level of what they believed were extremely painful shocks until they ran out of switches to throw.
The same experiment was run in a number of other countries. The number of subjects in these other countries who threw all 30 switches never went below 60 per cent. Furthermore, in some countries, this percentage was even higher than in the United States, reaching 85 per cent of the participants in one country.
In some of the other variants on this experiment, the researchers wanted to study what effect the teacher's proximity to the learner might have in relation to how far a subject would be willing to comply with the experimenter's wishes. In some of these instances, the researchers required the 'teacher' to hold down the hand of the 'learner' on the plate which, supposedly, was delivering shocks, and, they found that such a requirement did not appreciably affect the percentage of people who, if necessary, were prepared to see the experiment through across all 30 switches.
In all of the different variants of the experiment, the subjects were asked, after the experiment had been completed, to indicate, on a scale of 1 to 14 (with 14 being the most severe), how painful they believed the shocks were. Most of them responded with '14', so, they were aware of the pain that was being caused.
One of the reasons for going into such detail in relation to Milgram's research is to help illustrate a certain dimension of the forces which are at work in many of us when it comes to our willingness to comply and be obedient to someone whom we consider to be an expert, or knowledgeable, or whom we perceive to be in authority -- even when we have serious misgivings about what we are being told or about what we see going on. All too many people are prepared to behave in callous, hurtful, irrational ways as long as there is someone to whom they defer -- like a spiritual guide -- telling one that it is all right to proceed, even though people - including the seeker - may be damaged in the process. Moreover, for many of us, when our vested interests are being threatened, then, truth, morality, integrity, decency, and justice frequently become the first casualties.
The subjects in the Milgram experiment were told that although the shocks which might be delivered to a learner could be very painful, no serious or permanent tissue damage would result. Presumably, this assurance may have played a role in helping to comfort or buffer the subjects such that although they believed the shocks which were being administered were painful, nevertheless, no permanent damage would result.
In view of this possibility, perhaps, it should not be surprising if 'seekers' who are troubled by what is going on within a supposedly mystical group, find comfort in the words of an alleged spiritual guide who says that what he or she (that is, the so-called guide) is doing is necessary for the spiritual good of the people in the group, or that even though while on a mundane, worldly level that which 'appears' to be going on may seem deceitful or a lie or manipulative or duplicitous or authoritarian or exploitive or controlling that, nonetheless, the alleged spiritual guide knows what she or he is doing, and, therefore, no permanent damage will result -- only good will ensue.
In light of the Milgram studies, one should not be surprised when average, non-psychotic individuals are willing to participate in 'Divine trickery' which is designed, so the false teacher says, to help separate seekers from their normal modes of consciousness and problematic ways of understanding and engaging Divinity. After all, when people are induced to believe that spiritual reality doesn't have to operate in accordance with the requirements of rational considerations, then, almost anything becomes possible for someone if we believe that such a person is a spiritual being, a friend of God, someone who possesses insight into the mysteries of being.
Fraudulent teachers take a truth -- namely, that there is, most definitely, a difference between the rational and the trans-rational (which is not irrational but transcends normal modes of rational thought and logic) -- and they exploit that truth, twisting it and altering the nature of its reality to accommodate their own distorted purposes. To be sure, rational thought will never, on its own find the way to Revelation or to the spiritual station of a Prophet, or to the mystical understanding of a Rumi, Hafiz, or Ibn al-'Arabi, but this does not entitle someone to take license with the truth by trying to say that anything and everything one wishes to claim about what is, and is not, permissible on the mystical path, thereby, becomes true.
Yet, how is a would-be seeker to know this? If an alleged spiritual guide comes along and, like the authority-figure in the Milgram studies (i.e., the person in the white frock coat with the clip board who is, supposedly, the one conducting the experiment) says, "hey, look, everything, despite appearances, is quite OK," well, shouldn't we leave such things to the experts, the academics, the people in charge, the authorities. Surely, they know what they are doing, and who are we -- the great unwashed and ignorant dregs of humanity -- to suggest otherwise?
The Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, Nazi Germany, Senator Joe McCarthy, Stalin's Russia, Mai Lai, Pol Pot's reign of terror, Jonestown, Sabra & Shatila, the Waco tragedy, Srebrenica, the decades-long debacle of the Catholic Church, along with many other examples of abuse don't 'just' happen. They occur because they are linked to mechanisms, phenomena, effects, processes, and influences within human beings, and to which all of us may become vulnerable under the right set of circumstances.
Less one suppose that intelligence has anything to do with how a person might respond in the 'right' setting, one would do well to consider an experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University during the summer of 1971. The results are, again, very instructive, if rather disquieting.
The experiment was intended to run for two weeks. Students were randomly divided up into two groups -- guards and prisoners.
Within a few days the experiment had to be shut down because the guards were exhibiting considerable sadistic behavior, and the prisoners were becoming deeply depressed and showing extensive symptoms of stress and anxiety.
There are at least two features of interest in this experiment -- that is, aside from the obvious ... namely, the willingness of supposedly intelligent students to become sadistic toward fellow students even while being observed. First, is the relatively short period of time it took for the sadistic behavior to surface, and, secondly, the experiment had to be shut down by the professor, rather than by those who were being abused but were trying to comply with the requirements of what they perceived to be the professor's expectations concerning the study.
Or, consider a study conducted by D.L. Rosenhahn, a professor of law and psychology at Stanford University. In the January 1973 issue of the journal, Science, an article of his was published, entitled: "On Being Sane in Insane Places".
Essentially, Rosenhahn had a number of his students go to 12 hospitals, across five different states, along both coasts of the United States. Eleven of these hospitals were public and funded by state, federal, and university funds, and one of the hospitals was privately run.
The task of these students was to see if they could gain admission as psychiatric patients by presenting only one symptom - hearing voices that were rather unclear with respect to what was being said. All other information which these 'pseudo-patients' gave was to be truthful.
After being admitted, the abnormal symptoms would cease, and they pseudo-patients would seek to be released, which did not always happen - at least, not right away. The resulting experiences of these pseudo-patients revealed a great deal about the institutional depersonalization which occurs during confinement with patients, and the difficulty of doctors to be able to distinguish between sane and insane people -- whether during admission or for purposes of release.
After the first part of the study had been completed, there were several hospitals who learned about the project and indicated that they were highly doubtful that such pseudo- patients could escape their diagnostic detection. The staff at these hospitals were informed by Professor Rosenhahn that at some point, over a given, three month period, there would be a number of pseudo- patients sent to them, and the challenge would be to identify these latter individuals from among all the other people who came to them for diagnosis.
At these hospitals the staff members were asked to rate the potential patients who were being considered for admission as to the likelihood of being a pseudo-patient.
By study's end, there were193 patients who were rated by the staff members of the participating hospitals. 21% of these patients (41) were considered, with a high level of confidence, to be pseudo-patients by at least one staff member of a given hospital. 12% of the 193 patients (23) were suspected of being pseudo-patients by at least one psychiatrist, and 10% of the sample (19) were judged to be possible pseudo-patients by both a staff member and a psychiatrist at the same time.
Actually, Professor Rosenhahn had pulled another fast one. During the three month period in which the study was conducted, no pseudo-patients were sent to either of the two hospitals who had accepted the challenge, and, therefore, there were a fairly large number of false-positives which had been committed during diagnosis by the staff and psychiatrists of these hospitals.
There are a number of lessons to be learned from the Rosenhahn study. Perhaps, one of the most important of these lessons -- at least, in the present context -- is how the expectations of professionals were capable of being manipulated to induce them to see something which was not true and, yet, believe they knew what was going on -- all that was necessary was for the right kind of 'framing' of a situation to take place.
The placebo effect is a well-documented phenomena. If people are led to believe, or to have the expectation, that a pill with no active ingredients is capable of producing certain kinds of effects, precisely those effects will take place in many people.
Consequently, if people are led to believe that a so-called spiritual guide has special sorts of knowledge, quality, ability, and so on, then, many people will experience altered states of consciousness as a function of this expectation. The actual reality of the alleged teacher's spiritual status may, up to a point, be irrelevant to what is transpiring in an individual's life.
Between 1927 and 1932 a research project was conducted at the Hawthorne works of the Western Electric Company in Chicago. While there are many controversial methodological and interpretive issues swirling about these studies, in essence, the investigation attempted to examine the relationship between changes in working conditions and productivity.
A variety of physical and psychological factors were altered to see what impact such changes would have on worker productivity. Oddly enough, they found that whatever changes were introduced, productivity increases ensued.
Harvard Business School professor George Elton Mayo, together with several associates, F.J. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson, concluded, in part, that one way to explain or interpret the observed increases in productivity that took place no matter what physical and psychological variables were introduced was to suppose that what the workers were primarily responding to was the attention being paid to them and that they were trying to respond positively to this attention.
There is an old adage that a change is as good as a vacation. Apparently, there is some indication in the Hawthorne Effect that merely by showing interest in people, the latter people may have experienced enhanced levels of: motivation, sense of importance, self-esteem, well-being, morale, and so on.
People who accept initiation through even a false teacher will often remark about all the great changes which they believe are entering their lives as a result of the 'blessing' or barakah of being associated with a given, alleged teacher. In many of these cases, a combination of suggestibility, placebo effect, together with variations on the Hawthorne, Halo, and Pygmalion Effects are structuring the individual's experience and reality.
There is a certain amount of corroborating data with respect to the Hawthorne Effect. However, the data comes from psychotherapy rather than management studies.
Many researchers have found that the success rate of various kinds of therapy really are almost indistinguishable from one another. As long as these treatment methods contain elements of warmth, acceptance, personal contact, positive regard, support, encouragement, and so on, patients seem to do equally well and make various degrees of improvement with one kind of theoretical treatment as another.
Then, of course, there is the very disturbing bit of evidence - for therapists - that two-thirds of many classes of psychotic individuals experience spontaneous remission, for a time, irrespective of whether anything is done or not. Similarly, many problems which people experience tend to sort themselves, by the Grace of God, quite independently of the presence of a spiritual guide, although fraudulent teachers are very adept at re-framing such realities and taking credit for the positive things, while using on-going problems as case exhibits for the seeker's need to apply herself or himself all that much harder to the mystical discipline.
Moreover, there has been evidence collected which suggests that patients tend to have dreams that reflect the theoretical predilections of their therapists. Should, therefore, we be surprised when a seeker begins to have dreams which reflect the teachings of a fraudulent teacher?
The foregoing discussion is not meant to imply that there is no such thing as real mysticism or authentic guides, or legitimate spiritual experiences. Rather, the intention is quite different since, in truth, I do accept the idea that there are hidden dimensions to life and that there are methods which enhance one's chances, God willing, to be opened to these possibilities -- possibilities which are rooted in the essential identity of human beings, as well as the purpose of life.
In general, there are only two kinds of mistakes a researcher can commit. A scientist may accept a hypothesis as true, when, in fact, it is false, or an investigator may consider an hypothesis to be false which, in reality, is true.
Seekers after mystical truth are, in effect, researchers. They are trying to test various hypothesis and determine whether such and such is, or is not, true.
Is a given Path authentic? Is a given experience a function of imagination or an instance of a actual mystical state? Does a certain dream mean this, or that, or something else? Am I making spiritual progress? Will such and such a practice be spiritually beneficial or harmful? Am I wasting my time? With whom should I associate for best spiritual results? How should I balance the different facets of my life? What is the moral thing to do? Will I achieve Paradise and/or spiritual Self-realization? How will I know whether what I am experiencing is real or illusory or Satanically inspired?
People who have invested heavily in one individual - namely, an alleged spiritual guide -- with respect to all their hopes, dreams, expectations, commitments, beliefs, values, purposes, meanings, and so on, concerning their spiritual future and welfare, often tend to be extremely resistant to any information which indicates there is considerable evidence to lend credence to the possibility that the so-called teacher is nothing more than a clever charlatan, and, therefore, the trust of the former individuals has not been well placed. There are many reasons for this, but part of the answer for such behavior is a function of a phenomenon known as cognitive dissonance.
Back in 1956, Leon Festinger, along with Henry W. Riecken and Stanley Schachter, wrote about a small cult who, long before the X-Files was even a gleam in the eye of Chris Carter, followed the teachings of Mrs. Marian Keech, a housewife, who believed , or made claims to the effect, that she was in touch with aliens and was receiving messages from them via automatic writing. Apparently, the messages described a coming world-cataclysm, from which people, who obeyed the instructions coming to Mrs. Keech from the aliens, might be saved.
Many, if not most, of the followers of Mrs. Keech sold, or gave away, most of their possessions and left the previous life which they had been living. They had put all their trust in one thing -- the alien messages -- and were waiting for the appointed date.
When the predicted date of the cataclysm came and went, but nothing happened, the researchers were interested in what would happen to the cult. The people conducting the study discovered something rather curious.
Contrary to what one might expect, instead of turning their backs on the teachings, the commitment of many of the followers in the group became even more fervent than before the date of the failed 'prophecy'. And, of course, a relevant question to ask is: why should this sort of behavior take place under these kinds of circumstance -- namely, in the face of evidence that a key part of one's belief system has been falsified?
Cognitive dissonance is the study of the dynamics among attitudes/beliefs, experiential data, and behavior -- especially in those case when there is dissonance or disharmony among these three components. Will attitudes/beliefs change, will behavior change, or will experience be re-framed in order to accommodate either the structure of one's attitudes/beliefs and/or the nature of one's behavior?
In many contexts involving groups which have formed around spiritual frauds, merely exposing members of that group to compelling evidence that there is something seriously amiss in, say, the moral conduct of the teacher, will not necessarily be enough to alter either the attitudes/beliefs or behaviors of those members. There are a lot of reasons for why this is so, and one has to look to the personal history, vulnerabilities, emotional character, personality, needs, and motivations of such individuals to gain insight into the particular mechanisms at work in a given person.
In almost all cases, however, one should try to follow the vested interests of these people. In other words, one has to try to understand what such people believe they stand to lose if they accept, as true, what is being said in the way of contradictory evidence concerning the authenticity of their spiritual guide.
Some people believe that salvation itself is at stake. Others may believe that Paradise is being placed at risk, or they see the possibility such as realizing the purpose of life would slip away, or they would become alienated from the truth, or they fear becoming the vassal of Satanic forces should they leave their teacher (indeed, they perceive the presentation of evidence as one of the overtures of Satan), or they fear the lost of access to essential identity, or they do not wish to forego the ego gratification and/or power and/or perks they receive as someone who has been appointed a teacher or shaykh by the fraudulent spiritual guide.
Whenever one is talking about issues and forces as powerful, fundamental, and essential as the foregoing possibilities, it becomes understandable that for some people, the idea of changing either attitudes/beliefs or behaviors to accommodate available evidence is more antithetical to their interests than is re-framing the evidence and labeling the information as lies, or fabrications, or character assassination, or the workings of Satan, or the delusions of a disenchanted, former follower, or the result of some personal defect of the individual who is introducing, or trying to, the evidence.
Some of these 'true-believers' are even proud -- arrogantly so -- of their own willingness to completely ignore truth, reality, evidence, proof, common sense while maintaining an unwavering commitment to the idea that their spiritual guide is authentic even when the evidence says otherwise. They equate dogmatism, authoritarian rigidity, foolishness, ignorance, and a closed heart or mind with the light of faith and are too self-absorbed to understand the differences.
There are two kinds of shirk -- the lesser and the greater. Shirk is the act of associating partners with God by attempting to speak in terms of, or by seeking to refer to, primary causes for why things are the way they are which are other than Divinity.
We all tend to commit mistakes with respect to the lesser form of shirk. Thus, when we accept accolades for something which has been accomplished -- whether career success, athletic achievement, financial/material wherewithal, spiritual progress, or whatever -- this is an expression of the lesser shirk, for, in truth, the doer and accomplisher in all of this is none other than God. It was in reference to this kind of shirk that Rabi'a of Basra chastised a Sufi -- who had been extolling the differences between his lofty opinion of his own form of worship with the paltry nature of the worship of ordinary Muslims -- by exclaiming: "Thy existence is a sin with which none other can compare."
However, those people who refuse to acknowledge and accept the truths of experience which God brings into their lives concerning the fraudulent character of an alleged spiritual teacher are running the risk of committing the greater shirk because these people are maintaining that the teachings and behavior of a human being have a greater claim on reality, truth, and authenticity than does Divinity.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not lie to people; he did not exploit them; he did not manipulate them; he did not try to control them; he did not sexually abuse them; he was not unjust to them; he did not try to use his status as a Prophet of God to gain material or material advantage over others; he was not insincere with people -- whether they were Muslims or non-Muslims; he did not seek to oppress individuals; nor did he try to claim that his exalted spiritual station permitted him to forego observing the basic pillars of Islam or any aspect of spiritual adab. He was kind, compassionate, forgiving, tolerant, forbearing, patient, generous, loving, honest, courageous, steadfast, sincere, protective, just, encouraging, supportive, receptive, considerate, mild, noble, humble, one who hid the faults of others and did not speak ill of them, who was the first to fulfil his obligations, duties, contracts, and the requirements of adab -- with respect to Divinity, as well as with respect to the Creation of Divinity.
In many ways, one should forget what a person, who claims to be a shaykh, says. One should, instead, look to the conduct of that person. Many people have learned how to mimic the lexicon and vocabulary of a supposedly spiritual, knowledgeable individual, but far fewer individuals have become masters of the adab which is expressed through the conduct of beautiful character - especially now, as we are approaching the end of the beginning of the latter days, and in this respect we might do well to reflect carefully on the Qur'an ayat which refers to these 'foremost' among human beings as being only a "few of those of later time." (Qur'an 56:14)
If such conduct does not remind one of the Prophet (peace be upon him), or does not bear a reasonable facsimile to the demeanor of what we know about the behavior of the Prophet (peace be upon him) -- and none of us can hope to bear any more than a reasonable likeness according to our God-given capacity to do so (this is what is meant by "reasonable" in the present context) -- but such an individual claims to be an authentic spiritual guide, then, one should run away from such an individual as fast as possible. However, do not suppose that one can assess the quality of a person's conduct from afar, or through a book, or through taped discourses, or videos, or e-mails, or a Web Site, or through only casual, intermittent, occasional contact.
Many spiritual charlatans are able to maintain their cover of alleged mystical acumen by keeping their distance from people. They limit access to themselves, not for legitimate reasons, but in order that people do not have the opportunity to discover the emperor is, in fact, not wearing any mantel of spiritual authenticity.
I spent 17 years with my first shaykh. During this period of time, I interacted with him, often on an almost daily basis, a great deal. I went on several extended journeys with him to a number of foreign countries. I was able to observe his conduct across a wide variety of circumstances, problems, pressures, and issues. He was a man of complete integrity and elegance - spiritually, academically, socially, as well as a friend and guide.
Pretty much everything I have learned that is of any value arose from the time I spent with my shaykh ... from the things I learned by observing him live life. This was the essential pillar of my spiritual training, and whatever practices I have done in the way of prayers, fasting, seclusions, zikr, contemplation, and so on were rooted in the aforementioned spiritual edifice.
Comparatively speaking, I spent very little time with a second person who, for a time, I considered to be an authentic shaykh. Perhaps, all told, I may have spent 4 or 5 months out of 10 years in close proximity to this second individual, moreover, many of these circumstances were of limited difficulty, consisting of talks or discussions, either individual or among a group of people. Much of my interaction with him was via phone or e-mail.
I have since come to learn that there were a number of things which were staged whenever I would visit this man. In other words, he behaved differently in my presence than he did in the presence of others, and when I came to learn of some of these differences, I knew that things were being hidden from me and that my interaction with him was something of a managed stage play where everyone but me knew the nature of the production which was going on.
I came to know of my first -- and, as far as I know, only -- shaykh's spiritual character by direct exposure to his conduct. I came to learn of the second person's character -- or lack thereof -- by direct exposure to his conduct, especially after the artificial aspects of the relationship had been removed through ensuing events.
Both of the foregoing individuals spoke very well -- although each in his own way - about the theory of tasawwuf. Based on what was said, both individuals appeared to be very knowledgeable about spiritual matters, but the factor which separated the wheat from the chaff was the quality of conduct, and in this respect, one person -- the former individual -- has been nothing but pure joy, while the other individual -- the second person mentioned above -- has become a living nightmare who spews evil where ever he goes, and, for me, it took time to realize that this is what he is all about because of the many techniques he used to re-frame events which were going on, and because of a certain number of degrees of freedom he was granted by me based on an assumption - a false one - that he was an authentic spiritual guide.
Understanding what I do now, I can see how he exploited vulnerabilities and the good-will which I had extended to him based on my foregoing assumption. Understanding what I do now, I have come to recognize the techniques of re-framing, misdirection, compliance, manipulation, misinformation, disinformation, deceit and duplicity he employed to keep me ignorant of what he was actually up to.
People who choose to stay with the this sort of man and refuse to look at, or consider, the evidence which has accumulated concerning the spiritually fraudulent character of that individual, are protecting vested interests of their nafs. As indicated previously, what these interests are vary from individual to individual, and, they are often fairly complicated in structure.
Having tried to apprize them of the dangers of their situation, I have been vociferously rebuffed by a number of them. I do have a certain degree of appreciation with respect to the nature of the dynamics which are in play in such attempts, and some of these processes, effects, phenomena, and forces I have outlined in the foregoing discussion.
The process has been very upsetting, stressful, depressing, frustrating, problematic, and painful. But, I am very thankful to Allah for: having carried me across this spiritual chasm, as well as for having set me down in my current spiritual and geographical location, as well as for the many lessons I have learned in being permitted, by the Grace of Allah, to make the difficult journey across the boundary between where I was and where I am now.
| Part One | Psychology Menu |
|
