Sufism & The self/God differnce... Please help!

[josh801]

Hi All!

I am new to the forums, and actually signed up because I cannot find email addys on any prominent Sufi order sites to get a direct question answered.

I have been reading much about Sufism, and love most all of what I am reading and experiencing..I have one small question/rift that I would love some clarity to if anyone would be so kind as to share their ideas....

It seems to me that what is being presented in Sufism is a natural/primordial unity with the Divine. My question is- at what level are we as the created different from the One who has Created? I feel that much of what I reading points in the direction of 'losing one's identity and becoming 'one' with God'. So, I am trying to understand if realization of actual 'sameness' of the Divine is the point, or if the point is realization of something more on the level that we are constantly and eternally supported by/in the presence of/swimming in/etc. God but are NOT the same and never will be.

I won't post now what my personal beliefs are in regards to this in detail, but can say that the idea of becoming one with God literally, or the idea that I already AM God and just need to remember that feels far from 'right' to my heart. I can, however, align with the idea that the topmost of awareness and closeness to God creates a type of unification, but I still feel deeply that my self as soul/spirit/etc. remains eternally separate from God in quality.

I look forward to reading your responses and guidance, and thank you in advance for your consideration and time

Josh

 

[Zardoz]

Welcome to RF!

Actually, you might want the Sufism forum, located here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/sufism/

 

[A-ManESL]

It's not easy to answer this question and there are various schools of thought within Sufism which tackle this problem differently. You might want to read this article for more information, although I believe the leading paragraph is flawed when it proposes that wahadat-al-wajood and wahadat-al-shahood are opposed to each other. Be aware that traditional Sufis usually do not let their disciples contemplate this subject thoroughly until they have achieved a high spiritual state.

I am not a traditional Sufi, but personally my views run along these lines:

The self is a devolved part of the fundamental Unity, a corruption of that unity, (perhaps something similar to what the reality is in Plato's theory of forms).
It is the person's recognition of that Divine within him/her self that initiates an urge within him/her to return to It. That is the ultimate evolution. (Perhaps Rumi expresses this idea here.)

The relationship between the self and the God after "becoming one" or fana is this: Suppose a swimmer is in an ocean. There are two things involved: a swimmer and the ocean. Now suppose the swimmer dies (which here means he stops making any effort against the current). His body is then tossed around the ocean without any regard to his personal desire. For practical purposes, there is only one thing involved now: the ocean. The swimmer has become one with the ocean. He subsists in it.

 

[zenzero]

Friend josh,

Welcome to RF!
Best Wishes.

Love & rgds

 

[Metempsychosis]

It's not easy to answer this question and there are various schools of thought within Sufism which tackle this problem differently. You might want to read this article for more information, although I believe the leading paragraph is flawed when it proposes that wahadat-al-wajood and wahadat-al-shahood are opposed to each other. Be aware that traditional Sufis usually do not let their disciples contemplate this subject thoroughly until they have achieved a high spiritual state.

Can you show how wahadat-al-wajood and wahadat-al-shahood are backed up in the revealed scriptures Quran ,Hadith etc.Or is the concept derived from esoteric forms of Judaism and mainstream Dharmic faiths?

Thanks.

 

[A-ManESL]

Can you show how wahadat-al-wajood and wahadat-al-shahood are backed up in the revealed scriptures Quran ,Hadith etc.Or is the concept derived from esoteric forms of Judaism and mainstream Dharmic faiths?

Thanks.

The seed of the concept was the idea of Tawhid(Oneness of God) in Islam and the verses of the Quran/traditions may be interpreted to form its basis. It may have had outside influence.

While I am pointing out some references used by a certain school of thought which justify wahadat-al-wajood rationally, know that another school of thought justifies it supra-rationally on the basis of a more direct knowledge.

The verses slightly related to monist thought, 57:3, 15:29, 38:72, 2:115 etc(which you already know of), also play a role here.

Quranic Verses:

. . . All is from God . . . (Nisa 4:78)

It is not you who slew; it was God. When you threw (a handful of dust), it was not your act, but God's . . . (Anfal 8:17)

Verily those who plight their fealty to you do no less than plight their fealty to God . . . (Fath 48:10)

It was We who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than his jugular vein. (Qaf 50:16)

The hadiths are:

God the All-Mighty says, "O man! I was ill, but you didn't visit me." Man says, "My Lord! You are the Lord of all the realms, how can I visit You?" God says, "Do you not know that so-and-so of my servants got ill, but you did not visit him. If you had visited him, you would have found Me with him."

God the All-Mighty says: ". . . My servant does not draw near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the religious duties that I have imposed upon him, and My servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works so that I shall love him. When I love him, I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes, his foot with which he walks. . ."

You should keep into account that these concepts were fine-tuned and developed after the 13th century, after the philosophy craze(at least that's what I call it) in Islam had died down. As such it had the advantage of having all the sophisticated machinery which the thought process involved in philosophical thinking could afford, and also the advantage of a suitable climate for Sufism provided by Imam Ghazali. In contrast early Arab society was probably not ready to imbibe such ideas and that's why you might get the feeling that these verses do not full justice to the concept claimed.

Regards.

 

[Metempsychosis]

You should keep into account that these concepts were fine-tuned and developed after the 13th century, after the philosophy craze(at least that's what I call it) in Islam had died down. As such it had the advantage of having all the sophisticated machinery which the thought process involved in philosophical thinking could afford, and also the advantage of a suitable climate for Sufism provided by Imam Ghazali. In contrast early Arab society was probably not ready to imbibe such ideas and that's why you might get the feeling that these verses do not full justice to the concept claimed.
Regards.

Yes,they dont do full justice.
It is not that I wanted evidence from Quran.I felt it is one of the reasons why there has not been a popular acceptance of this philosophy.

Regards.

 

[A-ManESL]

Yes,they dont do full justice.
It is not that I wanted evidence from Quran.I felt it is one of the reasons why there has not been a popular acceptance of this philosophy.

Regards.

I believe the reason is different and is part of a larger difference between the esoteric and the exoteric. I feel even if there were more verses still popular acceptance would have been improbable.

The esoteric will honor the exoteric's faith for he will see it as invested in scripture and/or incarnation that truly are God's revelations. He will however not be able to share the exoteric's conviction that the text or life in which he encounters his revelation is the only, or in any event supreme, mode in which God has spoken. The exoteric's assessment of the esoteric is likely to be less charitable, not because exoterics are less endowed with that virtue, but because a portion of the esoteric's position being obscured from him, he cannot honor it without betraying the truth he does see. If, as the esoteric maintains, Revelation has equal and multiple instances, no single instance can be absolute. But single instance- be it Christ, the Koran or whatever- is what the exoteric's faith is anchored in, so esoterism looms as exoterism's subverter. It is in this light that Christianity's ambivalence towards its mystics and Islam towards its Sufis, to the point even of crucifying Al-Hallaj, are to be understood.-Huston Smith

 

[Metempsychosis]

I believe the reason is different and is part of a larger difference between the esoteric and the exoteric. I feel even if there were more verses still popular acceptance would have been improbable.

I feel that the popular acceptance would have been possible.But still backing them with actions is quite difficult anyway.

 

[LAGoff]

This topic of monotheism/monism is tricky.
I need to be a monotheist(as opposed to a monist), and I found the best support for this need in a statement by Maimonides(the greatest Jewish thinker-12th century) at the beginning of his code of law(Mishne Tora).
The operative word he uses is "truth".

He writes:

1. The foundation of all foundations and the pillar of wisdom is to know that there is a Primary Being who brought into being all existence. All the beings of the heavens, the earth, and what is between them came into existence only from the truth of His being.

2.If one would imagine that He does not exist, no other being could possibly exist.

3.If one would imagine that none of the entities aside from Him exist, He alone would continue to exist, and the nullification of their [existence] would not nullify His existence, because all the [other] entities require Him and He, blessed be He, does not require them nor any one of them. Therefore, the truth of His [being] does not resemble the truth of any of their [beings].

4. This is implied by the prophet's statement [Jeremiah 10:10]: "And God, your Lord, is true" - i.e., He alone is true and no other entity possesses truth that compares to His truth. This is what [is meant by] the Torah's statement [Deuteronomy 4:35]: "There is nothing else aside from Him" - i.e., aside from Him, there is no true existence like His.

I think Maimonides is using the word "truth" as that there are different degrees of truth.
He's saying that God has so much reality as compared to us that it is as if we are- by comparison- not true.
So instead of saying "hey God"(namaste?) to each person you meet, I think Maimonides offers us monotheists(God is God, and not me) a way out.

For example, are dreams real? They are contingent. We are like dream stuff compared to God. At the foundational level of reality, there's nothing other than God(that's why we call God our "Rock").
Back to a dream: the mind(or brain) is the ground of the dream's existence. The brain will exist without the dream, but the dream can't without the brain. So the dream has some "truth", but in relation to the brain/mind, it has very little truth(it has a contingent existence).
I- or a dream- am not "false". I exist. But in relation to the existence of God, it's AS IF I don't exist.

This is the only way out -that I know of- of the monist(Sufi?) challenge.