Pages 34 and 35 -
Chapter Three: "Many Sufis maintain, in fact, that true understanding of God
can only be achieved through perplexity and bewilderment. The paradoxical and sometimes
scandalous utterances that tend to emerge at this loss of rational distinctions manifest
inner awe, wonder, and astonishment. One of the favorite Sufi expressions of perplexity
goes back to Abu Bakr, the close Companion of the Prophet and the first caliph after his
death - ‘Incapacity to perceive is perception.’
"The Sufis who
stress paradox and bewilderment tend to fall on the side of intoxication, while those who
speak in more measured terms keep their sobriety. The eye of imagination, unveiling, and
gnosis revels in God’s presence and throws away all pretensions to sober judgement
and logical precision. The eye of reason knows nothing of God’s presence, because its
analytical approach can only dissect endlessly and reach the conclusion that God is
nowhere to be found."
Commentary: In
the foregoing quote, the author has translated the statement of Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah
be pleased with him) as: "Incapacity to perceive is perception." Others have
translated that same statement quite differently.
For instance, some have
rendered the assertion as: "The realization of one’s inability to attain
comprehension of God is, itself, comprehension." Others have translated the statement
in terms of an ‘awareness’ of one’s inability to comprehend Divinity and
that this very awareness is a form of understanding.
Quite frankly, as it
stands, the author’s translation does not make a whole lot of sense. Furthermore, the
uses to which the author seeks to put that translation make even less sense.
More specifically, he
wishes to claim that: "We perceive the things of this world by perceiving them, but
we perceive God by the clear perception that we do not and cannot perceive Him." This
way of saying things does fit neatly into the author’s belief that Sufis, supposedly,
are fond of paradoxes and, therefore, according to the author, are inclined to utter
perplexing statements, but the paradox in question is entirely of the author’s
creation and has nothing to do with the Sufi Path.
What is meant when
someone says: "we perceive God by the clear perception that we do not and cannot
perceive Him"? More precisely, what is the meaning of the first use of
"perceive" in such an assertion and how, if at all, does it differ from the use
of "perceive" elsewhere in such an assertion?
Abu Bakr Siddiq (may
Allah be pleased with him) was not necessarily saying that awareness of our own inability
to comprehend Divinity with any semblance of finality or completeness was, itself,
perception of Divinity. He was saying, instead, that awareness of the limits of our
understanding is, itself, a form of understanding - a form of understanding which tends to
tell us more about ourselves than it informs us about God.
No one - not even the
Prophets or the greatest of saints - can comprehend God in a complete manner because in
order for this to be possible, Divinity would have to be capable of being circumscribed
and exhausted, and this cannot be accomplished. The Qur’an has stated: "And if
all the trees in the earth were pens, and the sea, with seven more to help it (were ink),
the words of Allah could not be exhausted" (31:27) - and these are just the words of
God ... nothing is being said here about the infinite nature of Divinity beyond the realm
of words.
Nevertheless, while the
previously noted statement of Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) may have
been an acknowledgment concerning the limits of spiritual capacity, he was not saying
that, therefore, even ‘some’ knowledge or understanding of Divinity was an
impossibility. After all, at the very minimum, Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with
him) understood some of the significance of what was being referred to when
the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said: "Whoever knows
Allah curbs one’s tongue from speaking about Allah," since if no knowledge of
Divinity were possible, then, the Prophet would not have said what he said.
The author of Sufism
- A Short Introduction also states things in a misleading, if not incorrect,
manner when he says: "Many Sufis maintain, in fact, that true understanding of God
can only be achieved through perplexity and bewilderment." Just as the author does
not provide any specific information to support his contention that "many
[my emphasis] Sufis maintain" what he claims they maintain, so too, he fails to
provide any specifics concerning how "understanding of God can only be achieved
through perplexity and bewilderment."
What kind of
‘understanding’ does the author mean? Are the conditions of perplexity and
bewilderment an understanding of anything but perplexity and bewilderment, and, if not,
what is the nature of the spiritual condition to which the terms ‘perplexity’
and ‘bewilderment’ make reference?
‘Perception’,
‘understanding’, ‘perplexity’ and ‘bewilderment’ are, in the
context of the author’s discussion, devoid of any substantive meaning. Consequently,
the paradox being introduced by the author is rooted in an absence of identifiable meaning
rather than in the presence of meanings which are clear and capable of reflecting the
actual nature of the Sufi Path.
There are Sufis who speak
about a spiritual condition of bewilderment that marks the highest stage of love, and
which follows upon, if God wishes, stages of compatibility, inclination, fellowship,
passion, friendship, exclusive friendship, ardent affection, and enslavement. However,
only those who have experienced this stage actually know what is entailed by the spiritual
condition of bewilderment.
Some Sufi shaykhs whom I
have known have alluded to the idea that those who are in this spiritual condition of
bewilderment are overwhelmed by not only the staggering influx of Divine manifestations
which characterize this condition, but, as well, by the fact that no matter how much one
comes to know about these manifestations, there are many other facets of such unveiling
which one does not understand. Therefore, this stage of spiritual bewilderment consists of
a strange juxtaposition of simultaneous knowing and not knowing in conjunction with a
plethora of unveiling.
This does not mean that a
"true understanding of God can only be achieved through perplexity and
bewilderment."What the foregoing suggests is the following: (1) there is a spiritual
condition known as ‘bewilderment’ that, contrary to the contention of the
author, is not due to the presence of a perceived paradox but has to do with other
overwhelming, but not necessarily paradoxical, facets of the spiritual condition in
question; (2) this condition of bewilderment is but one of many modalities through which
Divinity may be known, and, therefore, it is neither the "only" way to
experience the Presence of Divinity, nor does it constitute "the" true
understanding of Divinity - although this spiritual condition does give expression to
dimensions of truth and understanding which are very important to the Sufi Path; (3) the
spiritual condition of bewilderment is not an acknowledgment that "incapacity to
perceive is perception", but, rather, that every spiritual state and station is
marked both by that which is known as well as that which falls beyond the horizons of what
is known, and, consequently, however bewildering this spiritual condition may be, the
experience of bewilderment is not because there is an absence of knowledge and
understanding concerning God’s Presence within this condition.
The author of Sufism
- A Short Introduction compounds the foregoing problems when he claims: "The
eye of imagination, unveiling, and gnosis revels in God’s presence and throws away
all pretensions to sober judgement and logical precision. The eye of reason knows nothing
of God’s presence, because its analytical approach can only dissect endlessly and
reach the conclusion that God is nowhere to be found."
Bewilderment is not a
matter of intoxication versus sobriety. An individual who observes the etiquette of
sobriety can experience the spiritual condition of bewilderment, but due to the presence
of a commitment to adab within such a person, little, if anything, may be said.
A spiritually sober
individual is someone who both "revels in God’s presence" while,
simultaneously, holding onto propriety, logic and judgement. In fact, the ‘propriety,
logic, and judgement’ displayed by this sort of person is actually informed by the
understanding, unveiling, and forms of knowing which are manifested through the spiritual
condition of bewilderment.
While the author is quite
correct that the un-illumined "eye of reason knows" little, or nothing of
God’s Presence, nonetheless, when the ‘eye of reason’ is fed by the light
of spiritual illumination, that eye has an awareness of the Presence of Divinity through
the experience of the light emanating from that Presence. Moreover, if God wishes, this
awareness is enough to induce the ‘eye of reason’ to make use of, and work in
concert with, the understanding and knowledge which is being transmitted through that
spiritual condition.
There is a fundamental
difference between how the ‘eye of reason’ operates when it is unsupported, and
uninformed, by illuminations arising out of this or that spiritual condition, and when the
same ‘eye of reason’ functions when it is ‘enhanced’ through the
presence of such spiritual illuminations. Contrary to the implication within the
author’s foregoing quotation, logic and judgement need not be thrown away when the
spiritual condition of ‘bewilderment’ descends, but, instead, the latter may be
used to help increase - within the limits of potential capacity - the quality of rational
processes like logic, judgement, and/or analysis.
|
