Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Leaving for Alderaan

My computer is finally working again! Its humming along, doing computery things and being all computer-like in all of the expected ways. As far as I can tell, anyway.

While waiting for my computer's manufacturer to return this device to me, I've been doing quite a bit of thinking and research, continuing along the lines that I was discussing publicly here on the blog. This has led me to a number of decisions, including: I have decided to leave Islam proper. I no longer feel like I can serve God through Islam, institutionally or ritually understood. Indeed, I have begun to re-question the problematics of serving God within the context of organized religion as a whole; not that it is impossible to do so -- I don't have the wisdom to make such a judgement straight out -- but wondering whether or not organized religion has become, itself, a major breeding ground for egoistic tendencies, and whether or not it is worth the time it takes to root out such tendencies. If this is the case, it would go far in explaining why so many decent religious people have to waste so much time justifying their adherence to a particular religion both to others and themselves, particularly when confronting the horrible things done in the name of every religion on the planet, past and present. (It also explains, in part, the other common reaction: fundamentalism, and the egotistical belief that one's belief systems are absolutely correct.)

Of course, this is not necessarily a new line of thinking for me; indeed, its what led me, first, to the quasi-new age universalist Buddho-Taoist-Catholicism of my high school years, and then to the atheistic positions of my early 20s. I returned to the contexts of organized religion 10 or so years ago when I began to question the ego directly, and thus the individual's ability to rightly guide themselves spiritually without a teacher or at least a community. One of the traps of the ego being, of course, its ability to justify any action to sooth and aggrandize itself, including using spiritual excuses to circumvent its own dethronement. The dethronement of the ego is, I believe, among the primary goals of genuine personal spiritual development.

Hence, the question for me has become: how efficacious are the methods of spiritual development within organized religion in this day and age, given the issues I've listed above? I was quickly finding my prayer life becoming more and more shallow, and my concerns more and more surface and image oriented, as I've tried to deal with being a "Muslim" in our world. In the end I've found that this process was aggrandizing my ego, blocking my development as a human being, and thus my ability to truly serve the Divine in the world. This same process was what led me to leave the Catholic Church as a youth, abandon new age universalism as shallow, as well as led me to reject Atheism as morally irrelevant.

This, of course, does not mean that I am abandoning the teachings of the Prophet, or any of the Prophets. In fact, it was the universalism in the message of Qur'an that led me to convert in the first place. And due to my reading of the Qur'an, I have begun to question whether the complications of organized religion were ever the intention of any revelation. Time and again, we're told, Prophets came to simplify religion, to get people to center on the Divine, to follow what we now call the Golden Rule, to stop mindlessly following the ways of their ancestors, etc. Implicit in all revelations is, I think, this idea that that we're supposed to surrender to God and love everyone; not circle the wagons and argue about who's Prophet is better than who's, and who's revelation is more exact that who's. And, in the end, the Qur'anic principle that all believers of all faiths are "Muslims" and all faiths "Islam", as long as they remember the One and love everyone, forms the core of my beliefs. I have no interest in the divisions between the various sects of "Islam", other than academically, and am much more interested, on a practical level, in healing the breaches in the world than in increasing division through an over-focus on the theological and/or orthopraxic differences. I agree with the Jewish scholar Gershom Scholem that evil is defined as separation -- between humans and God, as well as humans and one another, humans and the natural world, etc. Which means that an evil action is any action with furthers separation.

However, there is a problem in this approach: ego. Going one's own way is, as I noted above, just as problematic, egocentrically speaking, as getting overly involved in the vagaries of organized religion. Without community and/or spiritual leadership to challenge one, I think its very easy to get wrapped up in one's ego and descend into self-worship.

Hence, for me, this all means that, while I can no longer subscribe to a particular organized religious tradition, after several years as a darvish I will finally attempt to follow the recommendation of the former head of my Order, Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh, in leaving the fold of Islam (and attachment to any exoteric organized religious form in general) in my effort to attain to islam. In so doing I will be trying to open my heart and mind to God and to all of the Prophets and peoples of all traditions and cultures, while grounding myself in the practices of the Nimatullahi Order: chivalry, remembrance, meditation, contemplation, and self-examination.

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Theological Speculations

So, among many of my Sufi friends its generally considered a waste of time to speculate about God or The Divine or whatever you wish to call It. They seem to prefer to just emphasize the principle of the Unity of Being (wahdat al-wajud) and leave it at that. They consider worrying about the existence or non-existence of God, the nature of God, or any other such questions as a distraction at best and an intellectual impediment to the experience of whatever It is at worst. Or in the immortal words of a friend of mine who's a Sufi Shaykh, when asked about God by a perspective darvish: with a dismissive shrug and a smile, "What the fuck is 'God' anyway?"

However, I can not help myself. Maybe its because I spent many years as an ardent atheist, or maybe its because of my ongoing interests in philosophy (particularly mystical and ethical philosophy, and their intersections), but I just can't seem to quit thinking about these kinds of questions. And while I accept the criticisms of my Sufi siblings, and understand that such speculation can lead to indulging my nafs as well as increasing my confusion, I also feel like its important given the current and ongoing discussions about the roles of belief, disbelief, secularism, etc. in our cultures, and in the emerging globalized culture.

With all of that in mind, I wish to offer a philosophical description of how I ended up with my current ideas on God: way back when I was an atheist, and in college as a philosophy major (so, 10 or so years ago), I was reading some book for class and came upon a maxim, something to the effect of "Anything you say about God is wrong." Though I had certainly heard phrases like this before, I'd never really thought about it. Eventually, my thinking naturally led to this realization: if everything you say about God is wrong, then saying "God exists" is wrong; similarly, saying "God does not exist" is wrong. Continuing, in the nature of the Buddhist Four-fold negation, I then came to: saying "God both exists and doesn't exist" is wrong, as is saying "God doesn't both exist and not-exist". Instead of rejecting this as illogical, I just asked "okay, how could all of these statements be 'true', even if only contingently?"

What I arrived at was this: God, meaningfully called, would of necessity wholly transcend while being imminent within any such dialogical notions as "existence" and "non-existence", "conscious" or "unconscious", "personal" or "impersonal", etc. This, of course, is reliant on the definition of God as of necessity being absolute and infinite, which sets up the pairs
"being" / "non-being", "absolute" / "non-absolute", "infinite" / "finite", etc., while reliant on notions of "transcendence" / "non-transcendence", "imminence" / "non-imminence", etc. Altogether, this shows God as consistently retreating from any possibly conceptual category, leading our thinking about God into something somewhat like what Douglas Hofstadter has called a "strange loop". God, as such, then can not be objectified / de-objectified, conceptualized / de-conceptualized, or identified / unidentified.

Altogether, what this means that if you ask the question "Does God exist?" then any answer, in the affirmative or the negative, or even an agnostic shrug, are all contingently true and contingently false, but can not touch upon any absolute truth.

This, of course, is nothing new. Hegel tried (and, in my mind, more-or-less failed) to present a logic to this idea, its been speculated on at length in the negative theologies of Christianity (e.g. Meister Eckhart, St. John of the Cross, etc.) and Buddhism (e.g. Nagarjuna's "sunyata", the emptiness that is empty of emptiness), and is rooted in scriptural text such as the Qur'an's wa lam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad (112:4, "and there is nothing that could be compared with Him" in Muhammad Asad's translation) or the Taoteching's
dao ke dao fei chang dao (Chapter 1, "Tao can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao" in John C.H. Wu's translation). Finally, of course, it is the philosophical explanation of the principle of Unity of Being, particularly as expounded in various ways by Ibn Arabi, Suhrawardi, and Mulla Sadra*.

However, it was new for me. I arrived at these conclusions through my own speculations, assuming that they were only really discussed in Eastern traditions like Buddhism and Taoism, which, in my total misunderstanding of them, I'd identified as "atheist". To find it rooted and explored in the whole of the Christian (let alone the Jewish and the Islamic) tradition, was a shock. So, the question is: why isn't this incredibly open and inclusive idea explored and discussed more, especially when discussions about God, religion, atheism, etc. are not only prevalent but explosive?

-----------------

*Another aspect of Unity of Being, as explained by these philosophers (among others), is rooted in the radical Oneness of God, wherein the dichotomy of Unity and multiplicity (e.g. Creator and creation, or again, Infinite and finite, etc.) is collapsed into God in the same manner as all of the other pairs under discussion. This is explained in multiple passages in the Qur'an, such as: walillahi almashriqu waalmaghribu faaynama tuwalloo fathamma wajhu allahi inna allaha wasiaaun aaaleemun (2:115, "And God’s is the east and the west: and wherever you turn, there is God’s countenance. Behold, God is infinite, all-knowing" in Muhammad Asad's translation) and inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un (2:156, "Verily, unto God do we belong and, verily, unto Him we shall return", ibid.). You can also find it in places like this humorous bit from the Zhaungzi (Chapter 22, in the Nina Corea translation):
Dong Guo Zi asked of Zhuangzi: "Where is this thing we call Dao?"
Zhuangzi said: "There's no place it isn't."
Dong Guo Zi said: "I hope you can tell me more than that."
Zhuangzi said: "It exists in crickets and ants."
"How could it be in anything as low as that?"
"It exists in common weeds."
"Could it exist any lower than that?"
"It exists in tiles and bricks."
"It couldn't exist any lower than that?"
"It exists in shit and piss."
When Dong Guo Zi didn't respond, Zhuangzi said: "Your questions didn't really touch on the substance of the matter. When Inspector Huo asked the superintendent of the market why he stepped on the fattened pigs, he told him that the further down his foot went the more he found out about the pig. If you keep pondering about where it can't possibly be, you'll never be rid of looking for more things where it can't be. Perfect Dao seems to be right, and so do expansive words. 'Entirely', 'everywhere' and 'all' are three different words for the same reality. They point out the unity of all things. [...] Things in relation to one another are joined without boundaries, but things do have certain boundaries, so it's said that things are restricted by those boundaries. There are no boundaries that can restrict and boundaries are non-restrictive. There are terms like 'fullness and emptiness' and 'submission and aggression.' What becomes full or empty is neither full nor empty. What becomes submissive or aggressive is neither submissive nor aggressive. What becomes introverted or extroverted is neither introverted nor extroverted. What becomes accumulated or scattered is neither accumulated nor scattered."