Pages 25 and 26 -
Chapter 25: "Many Sufis vigorously asserted God’s omnipresent and
immanent oneness and the possibility of union with Him. Others stressed His absolute
transcendence and emphasized the duties of servanthood that arise as soon as we
distinguish between Creator and creation, Real and unreal, truth and falsehood, right and
wrong."
Commentary: Union
with God is not just a ‘possibility’. It is an on-going reality which most
people do not recognize as being present.
Union with God refers to
a condition of unveiling in which the individual becomes aware of the truth being
expressed through Quranic verses such as: "We shall show them Our signs upon the
horizons and in themselves, until it is clear to them that God is the Real." (41:53)
Or, "We are closer to man than his own ventricular vein." (50:16)
Nonetheless, no one who
is a legitimate and informed traveler of the Sufi Path would discuss the omnipresent
nature of Divinity without, sooner or later, providing a parallel, and balancing, context
concerning the transcendent nature of God. Unfortunately, the author’s manner of
stating things in the foregoing quote leaves one with the impression that there were
authentic, aware Sufis who would speak of omnipresence in complete isolation from issues
of Divine transcendence.
Of course, when a given
individual is under the influence of this or that Divine Name or Attribute, then,
everything in that person’s experience tends to be colored by the spiritual hue of
the Name(s) or Attribute(s) by which they are dominated at the time. Therefore, utterances
- whether in spoken or written form - arising from these people during such a period are
likely to be preoccupied with just these ‘colors’ and no others - not because
the other colors don’t exist, but because consciousness is dyed in certain colors and
this is what will be reflected in understanding, speech and behavior.
However, one cannot take
individual experiences which are biased in the direction of this or that Divine Name and
try to claim that whatever is said or written during this juncture of the Path constitutes
an accurate representation of the Path as a whole. The Real is not a function of our
experience, but, rather, our experience is a function of what the Real discloses to us
across time.
The interpretation of
such experiences is another matter altogether. Every interpretation will be a function of
the stage of the Path out of which the interpretation arises.
A number of Sufis have
recounted the story about four blind men who encountered an elephant, and each of the
blind men came up with a different understanding of the reality being engaged depending on
what part of the elephant they touched. Prior to full spiritual arrival and realization,
travelers of the mystical Path are like so many blind individuals whose understanding of
the Path is a function of that part which they are touching and by which they are being
touched.
A person who sets out on
a trip from Los Angeles to Frankfort, Germany, but who gets off in New York, or London, or
Paris, is not in a position to say anything about Frankfort. All they can relate is
something about New York, London, or Paris - and even that will be limited to their
experiences of such places and will not exhaust what there is to know about any of these
other cities.
No Sufi of understanding
would divorce the issue of Divine transcendence from considerations of Divine immanence.
To do so, would distort the teachings of both the Qur’an and the Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him) in a fundamental way.
Contrary to the
contention of the author of Sufism - A Short Introduction,
‘servanthood’ does not automatically arise, ipso facto, as soon as distinctions
concerning "Creator and creature, Real and unreal, truth and falsehood, right and
wrong" are introduced. After all, philosophers, theologians, scientists, and lawyers
- among others - regularly make distinctions about such things, but the existence of these
sorts of distinctions does not necessarily lead those individuals to become servants of
God.
The author seems to be
implying there could be no sense of ‘servanthood’ which arises out of a
realization of being one with divinity. However, to whatever extent the author is tacitly
alluding to this kind of idea, then, he is quite incorrect.
Union with Divinity does
not mean one is synonymous with, or equal to, all that Divinity is. Rather,
‘union’ gives expression to the truth that we are not other than loci of
manifestation for Divine Names and Attributes.
One Sufi shaykh has
characterized the foregoing reality in the following manner. Namely, ‘while , in
essence, we are Divinity, we are not Divinity in Essence’.
As Divinity has made
clear in the Qur’an, the purpose of our existence is to worship God. Those who have
realized this experientially, and not just conceptually, aspire to be servants of God.
Worship is to prostrate -
with our whole being - in sincerity, freedom, love, gratitude, and knowledge - indeed, in
every way - before the Friend, the Compassionate, the Generous, and the Forgiving One, as
well as with respect to the One Who is transcendent, sublime, beyond our comprehension,
independent, and so on. One cannot properly engage worship in relation to either qualities
of transcendence and/or immanence without an awareness and understanding of one’s
status as a servant of Divinity.
Consequently, servanthood
does not arise out of distinctions and transcendence, per se. Servanthood arises out of an
essential realization concerning the nature of our origins, identity, purpose, and
spiritual capacity.
|
