Page 2 - Chapter One:
"The modern studies of Sufism reflect the disagreements over the word found in the
primary texts. Scholars do not agree among themselves as to what the name means, and any
number of definitions and descriptions can be culled from their studies. I will not add to
this confusion by providing my own definition, but I will use the word because it seems
less inadequate than the alternatives. My purpose, however, will be to try to get at the
reality behind the name..."
Commentary: The
primary texts of the Sufi tradition are the Qur’an and the life of the Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him). There are absolutely no disagreements over this word (i.e.,
Sufi) that can be found in these texts.
What the author is
calling "primary texts" are, in actuality, the secondary and derivative
materials which are rooted in the true primary texts that have been noted above.
Furthermore, what the author is referring to as "disagreements" are, for the
most part, merely indicative of the manner in which different teachers chose to
characterize some dimension of the ‘reality without a name’ for purposes of
initiating discussion and reflection amongst those who either had, or might have, an
interest in seeking that ‘reality’.
Where one begins, on the
Sufi Path, is vastly less important than where one ends up. Characterizing the term
"sufi" in one way or another is not so much intended to serve as a definitive
rendering of this word, as it is meant to serve as a doorway through which to begin the
process of exploration.
The fact one teacher may
invite individuals to the ‘reality without a name’ through one door rather than
another is more a reflection of teaching style than it is of any disagreement over the
meaning of a term. The differences among modern scholars concerning the significance of
the ‘sufi’ term is less a reflection of the disagreements existing in the
secondary and derivative textual materials of Sufi shaykhs than it is a failure to
understand that different shaykhs chose to use different starting points as a matter of
individual teaching style and not because there was any basic disagreement about where all
these doors eventually led.
The author indicates he
will not add to the confusion of modern studies by introducing a definition of his own
with respect to the word "sufi", but, he goes on to assert that, nonetheless, he
will use this term "because it seems less inadequate than the alternatives". The
reasoning underlying this decision is not at all apparent since the author really
hasn’t even attempted to give any of the alternatives a fair hearing. Instead, he
has, as pointed out in a previous Commentary, merely rejected such
possibilities out of hand, vaguely referring to the "notorious vagueness" of
such terms in passing.
If the author wishes to
use this term without specifying a definition but, rather, as a word which seems to be at
the hub of a lot of ideas and concepts which he feels are relevant to his discussion, and,
therefore, has heuristic value, then, this is a perfectly valid place for him to begin his
examination. However, this decision has absolutely nothing to do with any alleged
‘inadequacy’ of some of the alternative terms which he mentioned but did not
develop.
|
