Mystical paths, Validity, Dogma and Truth - Part One
Someone
wrote in after reading the "Nine Questions" interview. This individual wanted to know if one
could distinguish between valid and dogmatic claims that are made by different people with
respect to whether or not the Sufi Path needed to be rooted in Islam in order to be a
fully effective mystical path. This person also wanted to know if a spiritual tradition
which was more ancient than a modern spiritual tradition was automatically better than the
latter.
A given
mystical path is not valid simply because it is based in antiquity. After all, there have
been many theories, mythologies, philosophies, metaphysical belief systems and so on which
have come to us from antiquity but which are not necessarily true just because of their
seniority or longevity.
A tradition
-- whether spiritual, religious, or mystical -- is rendered valid to the extent it is
rooted in the truth concerning the way Reality is on some given level of being. If a
system which is new, relatively speaking, reflects, to whatever degree, the truth, whereas
another system which is rooted in antiquity does not do so -- or does so to a very small
degree -- then the newer system has more validity or authenticity to it than does the
ancient system.
Authenticity
or validity in anything is a function of the extent to which something gives expression
to, or manifests, the truth. This is true of modern science, and it also is true of
mysticism, religion and spirituality.
A mystical
experience isn't valid, or it is limited in its validity, precisely to the extent to which
it is not an expression of the Truth of things. The issue has nothing to do with what is,
or is not, more rooted in antiquity.
As far as
the "personal" dimension of mysticism is concerned, I agree with you up to a
point. The boundary of the personal is demarcated by the Divinely given unique qualities
of spiritual or mystical capacity which any individual brings to the Path.
The Sufi
tradition holds (at least, my understanding of it does) that while each of us is Divine in
essence, we are not -- either individually or collectively -- Divinity in Essence.
Consequently, each of us is capable of giving expression, according to our capacity to do
so, only to certain attributive properties of Divinity in manifested form.
Furthermore,
the masters of the Sufi way maintain that Divinity never repeats manifested being in the
same way twice. Necessarily, therefore, each of us has something which comes along only
once in the history of manifested being.
This
uniqueness which goes to the heart of who we are individually is very personal. It doesn't
get any more personal than this -- indeed, this unique-never-to-be-repeated-again quality
of ours goes to the very heart of our ultimate identities and the purposes for which we
have been brought into existence by, and through, Divinity.
However,
having said the foregoing, this is not the same as saying that anything and everything we
believe, value, say or do accurately reflects, or gives expression to, what is most
personal about us in the above sense. In other words, all authentic, valid mystical
traditions make the distinction between the false self and the essential Self, and
whenever something we think, feel, believe, say or do is colored and oriented by the false
self, this is not a valid or authentic manifestation of what is most personal about us in
the mystical sense of the word which has been outlined previously.
There are
authentic modes or modalities of being, and there are inauthentic modes or modalities of
being. When an individual personalizes a mystical tradition in order to cater to, or
satisfy, the whims and delusional forces that are active within the false self, then this
kind of personalization of the mystical is problematic because it serves to veil and
distort the truth rather than unveil and give accurate expression to whatever dimensions
of the truth we have the capacity to reflect or give expression to.
As you have
indicated in your e-mail, the present moment is the only moment that matters, and much
rides on how we engage that moment. If we engage it through the false self, then all is
lost -- including ourselves. If, on the other hand, we engage the present moment through
our essential Selves, then we are realizing, God willing, the purpose of our lives.
As far as
the issue of dogmatism is concerned, there are several comments which can be made. First,
one can as easily argue that those who insist on separating the Sufi tradition from Islam
are as dogmatic as those who wish to claim that the Sufi tradition is indigenous to Islam.
Secondly, in
a sense, the Truth is inherently dogmatic, although mystic masters certainly do not tend
to be dogmatic about this. The Truth is what it is, or Reality is what it is, and no
amount of sophistry or philosophical slight-of-hand is going to change this, no matter
what our ambitions and hopes may be.
The
challenge facing us is to attempt to determine, as best we can, what the nature of the
Truth is. The issue is not, nor has it ever been, whether or not there is a Truth
underlying, making possible, and being manifested through the various realms of existence.
Mysticism is
not a relativistic enterprise in the sense that the Truth must be prepared to bow down to
our individual agendas concerning what we are, and are not, prepared to recognize as true.
We must accommodate ourselves to the Truth -- whatever that may be -- and Truth has no
need to accommodate Itself to us.
The Truth
will remain what it is whether we recognize it as such or not. Truth is not made more true
or less true as a function of our beliefs, likes, dislikes, and so on.
It is only
our varying, limited capacities to see, understand and give expression to the Truth which
makes it seem as if Truth is a relative phenomenon. What is relative is our individual
perspectives and not the Truth which is Absolute on every level of being and throughout
all of created existence.
Dogma is a
conceptual phenomenon. People who get caught up in their conceptual systems and ways of
characterizing or representing various dimensions of reality tend to become dogmatic and
narrow in their understanding of any given issue.
Therefore, I
would agree with you that 'dogma' and the 'mystical' are mutually exclusive of one
another. This is the case because the mystical path is not rooted in concepts, but is
rooted, instead, in direct, unmediated (by any set of theories or ideational content)
experiential engagement of some dimension of Truth or Reality.
Yaqueen, or
spiritual certitude, comes from being tied to Truth in an essential, experiential and
trans-rational manner. Being convinced of the correctness in one's conceptual position
does not necessarily have anything to do with this aforementioned state of yaqueen
although many, many people confuse the two.
When a
person is in a state of yaqueen, the experiential insights and understandings which, by
the Grace of God, accompany this state informs or directs the way such an individual uses
concepts, and, consequently, the concepts which are chosen to describe -- where possible
-- a mystical perspective are rooted in mystical experiences first and foremost. However,
there is a limit to how far this process of description of a mystical understanding can be
carried since mystical experiences tend to outstrip or transcend the capacity of language
to accurately describe the content, character, richness, and dynamics of true mystical
experiences.
| Go To Part 2 of: Validity and Dogma |
| Return to People Ask Menu |
|
