| |||||
| 786 The Zahuri Web Site |
The following is based on an edited reply to an e-mail (October 1999)
The Signs of Love
by Jamiluddin Morris Zahuri.
The Signs of Love
by Jamiluddin Morris Zahuri.
In Southampton we have been celebrating the 'Urs (Festival on the occasion of the anniversary of the death of a sufi
saint) of Khawaja Muinuddin Hasan Chishti, which I usually attend in Ajmer, India. Your e-mail arrived in the middle of
this. Khawaja Saheb, like Mevlana Jalaluddin Rumi, gave Love the central place in his 'philosophy' and the feelings were
so strongly aroused during our celebrations(which were attended by over 300 people) that I sent you my first thoughts in
a kind of poetic form* and said I would write a more considered reply.
Knowing you are widely read in such matters I will try to avoid an excessive repetition of thoughts you will be familiar with
but if I do not entirely do so I trust you will be patient.
In my previous e-mail, when I suggested that the content of our communication should have an underlying intent of
being about Love I had not intended that it necessarily be directly about Love, but meant that the inner purpose of
discussion should be Love, irrespective of the apparent content. However it seems you want to storm the citadel in one
go, so let me respond with a similar directness if I can.
During the celebration of Urs here I was asked to give a speech and though initially somewhat reluctant I did so, and one
of the things I said is relevant here. It was this. That about Love itself it is difficult to speak at all. I quoted the line from
Mevlana where he says 'When it comes to Love the pen breaks'. When we are in Love how can we speak of it and when
we are outside of Love what business have we speaking of something we don't know.
We are advised, in the holy Qur'an I believe, not to focus our attention much directly on God, since this can be a vain
and frustrating attempt. It can be said to lead to the risk of disillusion. It is said to be better to observe and respond to
the signs of God since by these signs we may get to know God better.
Thus the things we can talk about, study, and try to comprehend in Love are not its essence but its manifestations. 'By
their fruits ye may know them'.
The fruits of Love are selfless actions. When you speak of unconditioned and unconditional love as between human
beings I think you may be referring to this selflessness.
What are selfless actions? Firstly, of course, there are social acts that are based on the common good. If we are rational
we recognize that selfless actions have no immediate survival value. If we perform actions consciously that are for the
common good then of course we do so with an underlying belief that we, being part of that commonality, also stand to
benefit, even if we individually lose out. We pay taxes, give hospitality and charity partly on that basis. To be sure
actions based on such a premise are a whole step above and beyond simple selfishness. Perhaps they can be said to
constitute part of the humanism, which, with Love, forms the main 'philosophical' plank of the Sufism associated with
Mevlana and Khawaja Saheb. Indeed without such a concept society could not flourish or indeed survive and thus
society sometimes honours such actions but an individual may question how truly selfless they are.
But then what can be the cause of us seeking selflessness that goes beyond that and which does not have a hidden
agenda even in terms of benefiting ourselves or society through benefiting others?
The Framework
Before attempting this key question let us set a framework. Firstly, that in the order of nature the law of 'survival of the
fittest' and 'kill or be killed' actually applies. Minerals, plants, and animals flourish by devouring weaker or less
developed forms. We do not expect that a lion will lie down to be devoured by an antelope or that a plant will choose to
die rather than to absorb minerals into its own form. According to Mevlana and others, the soul of man is the result of a
series of transformations from mineral to vegetable, from vegetable to animal and from thence to human. Man, in his
aspect of a sophisticated animal can surely be said to have inherited therefore, perhaps at a cellular level, a tendency
to follow the law observed by these forms of nature. He seeks to survive.
But there must be another law counteracting this for society to have been formed at all. This other law is the Law of
Love. You ask that if Love were present in our everyday lives would we treat each other in such shamefully conditional
and manipulative ways? The answer must be that if Love were not present at all, counteracting our inherited nature, we
would treat each other in much more shameful ways and would not even bother to be manipulative unless we could not
avoid it. We would live as our animal, vegetable and mineral nature dictates - concerned only with our next meal and
establishing our territorial dominance etc.
Of course we are not critical of nature for functioning in this way. Not only can we see that it is an innate and
unconscious process but if we look at it unsentimentally we see that it has an effectiveness, efficiency and beauty all of
its own. We can call it the clay of Adam (yes and Eve if you wish).
However into the maelstrom of competitive struggle for survival which exist within each human as well as outside him/her,
it appears as if something we could depict as a divine breath (or a higher spiritual nature) has entered. Its nature is of
an entirely different kind and its innate desire is to return to its source.
To do so however it must 'bring with it ' the clay with which it intermingles. To draw such 'corrupt' material back towards
its own source the divine breath requires that that material is sufficiently purified i.e. is sufficiently subordinated to the
breath. (As a matter fact in one sense that breath is observable, in meditation, it appears as an unquenchable divine
spark - perhaps we can say concentrated divine breath). Ultimately the return to the Source, with the purified clay,
brings about a manifestation superior to either the clay or the breath on their own. If it were not so what would be the
purpose of the breath being infused into the clay in the first place? In the holy Qur'an we are told the angels were critical
of God creating Adam until God showed them the pure form of Adam complete - purified clay, whose superiority they
had to acknowledge. It may also be said that the struggle of mankind as a whole is part of the process of the divine
breath seeking to return to its Source.
From this one might understand that in certain respects the Divine Plan for mankind is the total purification of the
mineral, vegetal, animal, human and spiritual levels of creation, revealing them in all their complex relations as the
manifestation of a single Creator. A new heavens and a new earth! In the illusory framework of time this appears as an
evolutionary process though perhaps it is better described as a revelatory process. But God knows best.
The subjugation of the lower nature of man, with its inherent selfishness (survival instinct), to the divine breath, in order
to purify that nature, is thus apparently the purpose and struggle of human life. From it emerges the nature of man with
his propensity to follow his clay-like nature and his aspiration and potential to merge with and identify with the divine
breath. Religion, heaven, and hell, interventions by God in apparent favour of one or the other group are interventions
to enable and assist this process. They cannot be whimsical. Would you consider slapping a child, in order to prevent it
from panicking and thus drowning, a whimsical act - or an act of love. Love is not, and never was, sentimentality. The
holy Qur'an says 'They will all return to Us and We shall explain to them the things wherein they differed'. I think it is a
misconception to think that a Loving Creator creates hell for some kind of reason of sadism. Far be God above such
motives. His Love is shown in the fact that He warns us of the consequence of selfish actions at an individual and at a
sociopolitical level. Everywhere we see that actions bring consequences and the consequences are related to the
actions. The rose seed grows to become a rose not a daffodil. There is probably no truer statement found than that
which says, as ye sow so shall ye reap. Hell is the just consequence of our selfish actions and what makes it hell is that
those that suffer it see the justice of it. As a matter fact there is none of us for whom it would not be a just consequence,
but that God from Mercy and Love ameliorates our condition and averts the worst consequences of our actions.
When we die at last, physically, it seems the breath finally reunites with its source. Our consciousness, if it has identified
itself primarily with the divine breath, should share in this reuniting. If on the other hand it has identified itself by habit
and intention with the evils associated with the lower nature, it may experience something of this. Knowing it as we do
why should we attribute blame to God if this happens. When we use a fire its qualities are such that it warms us or cooks
our food it also burns us if we abuse it. Is that something blameworthy in the fire or is it our own abuse of it that is to
blame?
The Question of Fear
Before getting back to selfless acts what about your questions on fear?
The negative kind of fear to which you refer can be of different types. One is that deriving from the nature of the 'clay'
(by which I mean our lower mineral, vegetal and animal nature, which is both individually experienced and universal).
The law of 'survival' in nature is largely based on selfishness either at an individual level or at a species level. Fear in
this sense is the term we use to describe unpleasant sensations that motivate us to act for survival. This kind of fear
may be based on selfishness - but what of the fate of the poor deer who does not fear the lion? This is the kind of fear
which I think Mevlana refers to when he says 'Move within, but not as fear makes you move.'
Another kind of fear is the fear of hell, which, like the hope for heaven, acts on our lower nature. In this case however it
tends to act for the benefit of the divine breath within us, and because of it we are motivated to challenge the dominance
of our lower nature and to overcome our selfish instincts. We at least acquire a higher form of selfishness. This fear
requires sufficient intelligence to at least visualize future consequences. In this the base feeling of fear is transmuted to
a higher purpose.
There is another kind of fear. The fear of God - that is to say the fear, generated by our lower nature, of the effect of
the divine breath mingling with and conquering it. This is associated with pain. We may fear the dentist even if we know
the short-term pain will bring long term gain. Bibi Rabia the great female mystic was once heard to cry out in anguish
that she was on fire. People arrived with buckets of water and found no flames to douse - a mystic was passing and
said, 'your water is no good - the Beloved is making his place in the heart of Rabia, once He has come this pain will pass
on its own'.
This leads to another kind of fear. For the Sufis, whose lower nature is penetrated by and subject to the divine breath
they fear only to diminish the presence of the divine breath. In a sense it is really the fear of the divine breath itself, that
its return to its source may be delayed. The fear of the lover of missing the beloved.
I think that all the emotions could be said to be ultimately value free, it is their context that gives rise to value judgments
on them. Fear of being 'stuck in the clay' (encompassed by our lower nature), can motivate us to more spiritual effort.
Hatred of being separated from the divine can spur us on. Equally it is love of money, not money, that is disparaged as
the root of all evil by Lord Jesus. Jealousy, when it is the jealousy of God who requires us not to share our affection with
anything other than He, is a high mark of His Love and Attention. When it is an emotion between humans, it is based on
selfishness and is a vile monster feeding on our psyche. It is when our consciousness identifies itself with our lower
nature and its aspiration to survive that the emotion becomes perceived as negative. In one sense it may be possible to
say that the emotions, devoid of association with our lower nature ('clay' in the sense used above) are abstractions,
qualities of God perhaps. Our struggle with negative emotions is not with the emotions in themselves, but to free
ourselves from the tendency to identify with them, and thus with our lower nature. To perceive emotions as value free
states is a process implicitly mirrored in the ancient Hindu aesthetic theory of Rasa **- which I think we talked about once.
I think love, however, can not be satisfactorily described or thought of only as an emotion.
Divine Love
So what of Love? In the picture I present above it seems that Love in its unfulfilled state must be that yearning or need
implicit in the divine breath to return to its source. This has its effect as it mingles with the lower nature. Though we are
frequently diverted by that nature to equate the idea of love with carnal acts or romantic fantasy (which seem designed
ultimately to ensure survival), love also produces impulses towards relatively unselfish acts that benefit and produce
society - humanism. Thus what we may call social acts of love are the result of the modifying or restraining impact of the
lower nature on the driving need of the divine breath to return to its source, or the uplifting impact of the divine breath
on the base 'clay', whichever way you wish to view it.
As an aside, whilst we touch on this aspect of love (i.e the subject of the sexual or romantic aspect of human love), I do
not see any reason why various aspects of sexual love, including its momentary ecstacies, cannot be seen as a sign or
at least a metaphor for Real Love. The sufis tend to describe it as unreal love and say it can be a stepping stone to
Real Love. This conveys the idea that one should not remain with it but must move on.
The wine of Love is, I think, the more or less transient identification of the individual consciousness with the divine
breath.
The complete satisfaction of Love, if we view it as yearning, must be the cessation of Love as something distinguishable.
It alone is and nothing else is.
The completion of Love's work must involve the breath reunited with its source, bringing with it, so to speak, the purified
'clay'. Adam restored! The lower nature purified and in a proper relationship with the divine. United and at peace.
Creation, manifesting in every way the beauty of the Creator. God is Beautiful and He loves Beauty.
So where is the triumph of Love you ask, amongst the depravity, the corruption, the suffering, the misery, the agony, the
isolation and loneliness of the modern life we can see around?
Here there are two things.
First, the very term triumph presupposes the overcoming of obstacles or opposition - thus to point out the obstacles to
it, is merely to point out the magnitude of its potential triumph - the qualities of the lower nature it must transform. They
are the qualities of a hard heart, and 'the human heart is indeed difficult to break'. Only the broken hearted can really
know Love - see the first lines of the Masnavi about the reed longing for the reed bed (which by the way says much
more than I have said above - with, need I say, vastly greater poetry and economy).
Second, it may seem I have suggested that Love's triumph is the ultimate outcome of a process, but this implies time,
which is essentially an illusion. In other words the triumph of Love can only be a perception. The revelation of something
that eternally is, always has been, and always will be and of which time and space themselves are only manifestations -
veils, in sufi terminology.
Opening the Heart to Love
You ask how to open the heart and strengthen it to not feel pain or at least to cope with it. Fariduddin Attar prays - 'give
me one particle of the pain of Love'. I have also referred to this pain in the description of Rabia above.
Still it is a good question.
There is a well-known tradition that the holy Prophet Muhammed - when young encountered angelic beings who
removed his heart, cleansed it and replaced it. This may have been a literal physical event or may have been
metaphorical - my own view is that it really happened, but in the Unseen. Thus to refer to it as a dream would be correct
from most peoples point of view - but it would have been a dream of Reality whose effects are not limited to the psyche
but have a physical force too. But you should not be concerned over this. It is enough to think that the preparation of
the heart is in God's Hand. Khawaja Muinuddin Hasan Chishti says that the heart is between the two fingers of God. The
preparation of the heart to receive Grace is the loving work of the spiritual guide.
You yourself have mentioned St. John, Mary the mother of Jesus, and Mevlana in relation to opening the heart.
Yes, to open the heart even in a far, far, less exalted way than happened to the Holy Prophet is probably only possible
for about one percent of one percent of one percent and probably the ratio is much less than that. They are the ones
who are destined to be able to so efface their own existence that they may channel directly the divine breath in varying
levels of concentration, to the benefit of those who have the fortune, destiny or insight to be drawn into their ambiance.
These are people who could have said without lying, what Al-Hallaj said - 'An'ul Haq' (I am Truth) or what Bernadette of
Lourdes said in all innocence - 'I am the Immaculate Conception' - having become entirely identified with the divine
breath (that impregnated Mary).
If we cannot belong to that minuscule proportion of humanity, let us at least pray and aspire to be associated with them -
a friend of the friends of God.
Steps in the Conquest of the Self by Love
Your final question is - how can I give up my own self-image? Perhaps you intended this rhetorically but I will assume
you actually would like an answer. Well for sure you have made that first step (even if you may be only dimly aware of it
at this time) by gaining the blessing of spiritual guidance from one of the true masters. This will not desert you even in
your darkest moment and without it all is danger and pitfalls. I think it was Attar again who said - 'without a guide, do not
take even one step on the path of Love'.
Having done that, the next step is self-examination that must lead to self-repugnance - from which must arise the urgent
need of self-reform. From this the need to establish and apply a code of ethics and habits of life becomes obvious.
Regular meditation, regular reading of reliable holy texts such as the Masnavi, regular walks in some garden, regular
prayers etc. can all be helpful. Moderation is the key in all of this. Keeping the company of like-minded people is also
important. For people inheriting or adopting the Muslim tradition this is the reward of following the Shariat (holy law) with
real sincerity.
The aim of it all, from the point of view of the one whom aspires to more is to provide mental, emotional and spiritual
stability. I am sure Nuri Baba would recommend ritual prayer or repetition of 'Allah, Allah', more than anything.
Visualizing clearly the face of the spiritual guide is a well-established Sufi technique.
Once this stability is established beyond doubt, the presence of the inner guidance should become more and more felt
with more and more frequency, as you become aware that changes are actually the result of inward polishing by the
guide. Abnormal experiences, visions, dream, telepathy, clareaudience etc. may begin to descend. They are definitely
not the purpose of this process and should not distract one for long or be discussed, except with a mature and
absolutely trusted confidant, preferably and usually the spiritual guide, and then sparingly, even when such experiences
are exciting and enjoyable.
One's outward behaviour should always appear normal (or at worst mildly eccentric) to other people but one's inner life
need not be - should not be - conventional. 'Simple living and high thinking' as my spiritual guide Zahurmian would say
(quoting Wordsworth) is the ideal. One should continue to aim for selflessness but not be unduly surprised or alarmed to
find the self being reasserted in new and ever subtler forms.
One of the great blessings of this stage is to be enabled to make the heart submit to God. From this so much can follow.
This can take at least two forms but more than this cannot be spoken of.
Holding to personal opinion tends to be counterproductive at this stage. I know you have opinions about the holy
Qur'an, Islam, and difficulties you have because of your own or other persons opinions/interpretations. Views also about
feminism or indeed its opposite, or anything else you think you hold dear but have arrived at by deduction, are
obstacles. It is better to hold all opinions in abeyance and seek the Truth within. At a later stage revealed Truth can form
the basis for sound opinion. You would not wish to hold an opinion if you discovered it to be untrue would you? Our
self-image after all is based on our opinions - which are usually based on social conditioning that can come in many
subtle forms - commonly held, antiestablishment, alternative belief systems are as much part of this as are the
establishment views they purport to counter. If, when you look within, you are merely seeking confirmation of your own
opinions, then you are attempting to support rather than remove your own self-image.
Each of us has different opinions that we are reluctant to yield so this is not about your particular opinions. Many
opinions, perhaps all, also have at least a grain of truth in them, but until we give up our attachment to them we cannot
know that grain of truth from the dross. I doubt you will find this easy to accept - the stronger the intellect the more
opinion and deductive reason becomes accepted as truth. The analogy here of course is with the blindfolded man. He
may construct all sorts of concepts to account for his experience - and he may unknowingly resist the removal of
blindfold because of his satisfaction with his own deductions.
The question may arise that how can we live, prior to revelations of truth, without opinion. It is this that I think is the
necessary basis of the guide/disciple relationship. Until they are able to receive direct inspiration themselves the
disciples subordinate their opinions to the divinely supported thoughts of the guide.
Generally speaking it is better during this stage to learn from others than to teach (except in the ordinary sense of
teaching a known skill or set of information). But that is not the same as taking on other peoples opinions when that is all
they are. Assume that anyone can teach you, a child, a mentally handicapped person, a taxi driver - even your own
relatives - but do not expect that they themselves understand what they are teaching you. In fact they are not teaching
you - you are learning through them. They can be the innocent communicators of the Unseen.
You will not be surprised at all if I say we must expect periods of contraction during which one may feel low, as well as
some periods of expansion or exhilaration. One should aim not to be unduly involved in either. You may find expansion
more difficult to deal with than contraction in this respect.
One of the problematic areas at this stage can arise from the fact that good and evil can seen as relative and mutually
necessary qualities. Unless a firm moral basis has been established in the early stage this can lead to confusion and
actions unhelpful to further development.
The stage beyond this is, so to speak, largely self-explanatory since you then have recourse to (but not a monopoly on)
the truth within to understand what is expected. Not much can usefully be said about this except in some specific sense
about particular problems that are of an altogether higher nature.
All of this, which I hope you have found the patience to read, finally brings us back to the original question about truly
selfless actions as the fruits of Love.
The Fruits of Love
It goes without saying that selfless actions cannot be actions arising from the 'self' (which could be said to be the
identification of our individuality with the 'clay' or unversal lower nature). So if the self is removed what remains to act?
Of course it can only be that God Almighty is the cause of the actions. In the holy Qur'an there is a story about the
prophet Moses who, in the course of helping to settle a quarrel, murdered a man. God forgave him and said 'When you
threw it was not you that threw, but We that threw.' There are many points arising from this, one of them is as follows -
God is the cause of all actions so perhaps it was the perception of the act that God in His Mercy changed. From this we
might conclude that heaven and hell as reward or punishment for actions are perceptions themselves. Albeit
perceptions we are powerless to alter, and whose effect is therefore real, - but which God can alter in us. That is why
the Sufis do not concern themselves with heaven or hell but with the One who made these perceptions.
Truly selfless actions then can be actions in which we are the tool not the one who acts. Just as selfless speech - true
ecstatic utterances such as 'A'nul Haq' or 'Glory to Me', require that the individual has effaced his own existence or
individuality. Acts in which self-consciousness is still involved may be kind, or of a generous nature, or have other
qualities, but must be acts of selfishness however highly refined.
Mevlana's image of the white hot poker is relevant here. The hot poker declares itself to be heat as its metallic nature
has been subordinated to the effect of heat - it is in a sense a true statement, but also false in as much as its metallic
nature has been transformed but actually remains as becomes evident when it cools. This image also conveys the idea
of the mingling of the divine breath with the lower nature.
So are such selfless acts limited to moments of inspiration? For one without development the answer would have to be
that any such inspired action may be unconsciously or even unwillingly participated in. For one on the path of spiritual
development the answer would have to be yes - but it is inspiration with which they more or less willingly participate. For
the really completely established, developed and integrated soul I don't think this is the case. Where the purification is
so complete it must be that all actions (or inactions) are pure, and loving, and willed, in the sense that the individual will
is not distinct from the divine Will. Such actions do not take into account how others may judge the actions or how they
may be judged by conventional morality. The story of the vision of Daqqaq in the Masnavi contains a marvelous
depiction that is relevant here.
Such persons have freedom and certainty. In them 'clay' and breath are so perfectly fused in the separate parts as well
as in the whole that they could be said to be the unseen made manifest - they are themselves a sign of God, or of God's
Love. In them the 'clay' is entirely subordinated and has found fulfillment in its subordination. The breath has fulfilled its
yearning, having reunited sufficiently with its source to become content to fulfill its work in the world until physical death
allows it to continue its work in the unseen - free, by God's Grace, of the restrictions of the 'clay'. The soul of such a
body then endures and lives forever. Within such a soul the macrocosm has become microcosmically perfected and
unified and beyond that in effect has become free from such a relationship between the micro and macrocosmic.
However this can be highly dangerous, for to only imagine oneself to be so could be disastrous. May God defend us and
anyone reading this from such a delusion or from willful or innocent misunderstanding that anything said here is not in
accord with La ilaha ilallah or the teachings of the Prophets and saints. Amen.
Jamiluddin Morris Zahuri (Southampton. 1999)
Southampton
Footnotes
*see poetry section
**An ancient Indian aesthetic theory in which the emotions aroused by music/dance/drama are to be tasted or touched upon (but not
entered into) in such a way that the cultivated connoisseur achieves a state of detatched bliss that transcends specific emotions. Often
contrasted to the western asthetic approach in which emotions are entered into so completely that the audience finally achieves cathartic
release.
***Hajji Nuri Baba a great sheykh of the Mevlevi from Konya, Turkey - who recently passed on from this life. (see also webpage)
**** Dr Zahurul Hasan Sharib Gudri Shah Baba (see also webpage)
saint) of Khawaja Muinuddin Hasan Chishti, which I usually attend in Ajmer, India. Your e-mail arrived in the middle of
this. Khawaja Saheb, like Mevlana Jalaluddin Rumi, gave Love the central place in his 'philosophy' and the feelings were
so strongly aroused during our celebrations(which were attended by over 300 people) that I sent you my first thoughts in
a kind of poetic form* and said I would write a more considered reply.
Knowing you are widely read in such matters I will try to avoid an excessive repetition of thoughts you will be familiar with
but if I do not entirely do so I trust you will be patient.
In my previous e-mail, when I suggested that the content of our communication should have an underlying intent of
being about Love I had not intended that it necessarily be directly about Love, but meant that the inner purpose of
discussion should be Love, irrespective of the apparent content. However it seems you want to storm the citadel in one
go, so let me respond with a similar directness if I can.
During the celebration of Urs here I was asked to give a speech and though initially somewhat reluctant I did so, and one
of the things I said is relevant here. It was this. That about Love itself it is difficult to speak at all. I quoted the line from
Mevlana where he says 'When it comes to Love the pen breaks'. When we are in Love how can we speak of it and when
we are outside of Love what business have we speaking of something we don't know.
We are advised, in the holy Qur'an I believe, not to focus our attention much directly on God, since this can be a vain
and frustrating attempt. It can be said to lead to the risk of disillusion. It is said to be better to observe and respond to
the signs of God since by these signs we may get to know God better.
Thus the things we can talk about, study, and try to comprehend in Love are not its essence but its manifestations. 'By
their fruits ye may know them'.
The fruits of Love are selfless actions. When you speak of unconditioned and unconditional love as between human
beings I think you may be referring to this selflessness.
What are selfless actions? Firstly, of course, there are social acts that are based on the common good. If we are rational
we recognize that selfless actions have no immediate survival value. If we perform actions consciously that are for the
common good then of course we do so with an underlying belief that we, being part of that commonality, also stand to
benefit, even if we individually lose out. We pay taxes, give hospitality and charity partly on that basis. To be sure
actions based on such a premise are a whole step above and beyond simple selfishness. Perhaps they can be said to
constitute part of the humanism, which, with Love, forms the main 'philosophical' plank of the Sufism associated with
Mevlana and Khawaja Saheb. Indeed without such a concept society could not flourish or indeed survive and thus
society sometimes honours such actions but an individual may question how truly selfless they are.
But then what can be the cause of us seeking selflessness that goes beyond that and which does not have a hidden
agenda even in terms of benefiting ourselves or society through benefiting others?
The Framework
Before attempting this key question let us set a framework. Firstly, that in the order of nature the law of 'survival of the
fittest' and 'kill or be killed' actually applies. Minerals, plants, and animals flourish by devouring weaker or less
developed forms. We do not expect that a lion will lie down to be devoured by an antelope or that a plant will choose to
die rather than to absorb minerals into its own form. According to Mevlana and others, the soul of man is the result of a
series of transformations from mineral to vegetable, from vegetable to animal and from thence to human. Man, in his
aspect of a sophisticated animal can surely be said to have inherited therefore, perhaps at a cellular level, a tendency
to follow the law observed by these forms of nature. He seeks to survive.
But there must be another law counteracting this for society to have been formed at all. This other law is the Law of
Love. You ask that if Love were present in our everyday lives would we treat each other in such shamefully conditional
and manipulative ways? The answer must be that if Love were not present at all, counteracting our inherited nature, we
would treat each other in much more shameful ways and would not even bother to be manipulative unless we could not
avoid it. We would live as our animal, vegetable and mineral nature dictates - concerned only with our next meal and
establishing our territorial dominance etc.
Of course we are not critical of nature for functioning in this way. Not only can we see that it is an innate and
unconscious process but if we look at it unsentimentally we see that it has an effectiveness, efficiency and beauty all of
its own. We can call it the clay of Adam (yes and Eve if you wish).
However into the maelstrom of competitive struggle for survival which exist within each human as well as outside him/her,
it appears as if something we could depict as a divine breath (or a higher spiritual nature) has entered. Its nature is of
an entirely different kind and its innate desire is to return to its source.
To do so however it must 'bring with it ' the clay with which it intermingles. To draw such 'corrupt' material back towards
its own source the divine breath requires that that material is sufficiently purified i.e. is sufficiently subordinated to the
breath. (As a matter fact in one sense that breath is observable, in meditation, it appears as an unquenchable divine
spark - perhaps we can say concentrated divine breath). Ultimately the return to the Source, with the purified clay,
brings about a manifestation superior to either the clay or the breath on their own. If it were not so what would be the
purpose of the breath being infused into the clay in the first place? In the holy Qur'an we are told the angels were critical
of God creating Adam until God showed them the pure form of Adam complete - purified clay, whose superiority they
had to acknowledge. It may also be said that the struggle of mankind as a whole is part of the process of the divine
breath seeking to return to its Source.
From this one might understand that in certain respects the Divine Plan for mankind is the total purification of the
mineral, vegetal, animal, human and spiritual levels of creation, revealing them in all their complex relations as the
manifestation of a single Creator. A new heavens and a new earth! In the illusory framework of time this appears as an
evolutionary process though perhaps it is better described as a revelatory process. But God knows best.
The subjugation of the lower nature of man, with its inherent selfishness (survival instinct), to the divine breath, in order
to purify that nature, is thus apparently the purpose and struggle of human life. From it emerges the nature of man with
his propensity to follow his clay-like nature and his aspiration and potential to merge with and identify with the divine
breath. Religion, heaven, and hell, interventions by God in apparent favour of one or the other group are interventions
to enable and assist this process. They cannot be whimsical. Would you consider slapping a child, in order to prevent it
from panicking and thus drowning, a whimsical act - or an act of love. Love is not, and never was, sentimentality. The
holy Qur'an says 'They will all return to Us and We shall explain to them the things wherein they differed'. I think it is a
misconception to think that a Loving Creator creates hell for some kind of reason of sadism. Far be God above such
motives. His Love is shown in the fact that He warns us of the consequence of selfish actions at an individual and at a
sociopolitical level. Everywhere we see that actions bring consequences and the consequences are related to the
actions. The rose seed grows to become a rose not a daffodil. There is probably no truer statement found than that
which says, as ye sow so shall ye reap. Hell is the just consequence of our selfish actions and what makes it hell is that
those that suffer it see the justice of it. As a matter fact there is none of us for whom it would not be a just consequence,
but that God from Mercy and Love ameliorates our condition and averts the worst consequences of our actions.
When we die at last, physically, it seems the breath finally reunites with its source. Our consciousness, if it has identified
itself primarily with the divine breath, should share in this reuniting. If on the other hand it has identified itself by habit
and intention with the evils associated with the lower nature, it may experience something of this. Knowing it as we do
why should we attribute blame to God if this happens. When we use a fire its qualities are such that it warms us or cooks
our food it also burns us if we abuse it. Is that something blameworthy in the fire or is it our own abuse of it that is to
blame?
The Question of Fear
Before getting back to selfless acts what about your questions on fear?
The negative kind of fear to which you refer can be of different types. One is that deriving from the nature of the 'clay'
(by which I mean our lower mineral, vegetal and animal nature, which is both individually experienced and universal).
The law of 'survival' in nature is largely based on selfishness either at an individual level or at a species level. Fear in
this sense is the term we use to describe unpleasant sensations that motivate us to act for survival. This kind of fear
may be based on selfishness - but what of the fate of the poor deer who does not fear the lion? This is the kind of fear
which I think Mevlana refers to when he says 'Move within, but not as fear makes you move.'
Another kind of fear is the fear of hell, which, like the hope for heaven, acts on our lower nature. In this case however it
tends to act for the benefit of the divine breath within us, and because of it we are motivated to challenge the dominance
of our lower nature and to overcome our selfish instincts. We at least acquire a higher form of selfishness. This fear
requires sufficient intelligence to at least visualize future consequences. In this the base feeling of fear is transmuted to
a higher purpose.
There is another kind of fear. The fear of God - that is to say the fear, generated by our lower nature, of the effect of
the divine breath mingling with and conquering it. This is associated with pain. We may fear the dentist even if we know
the short-term pain will bring long term gain. Bibi Rabia the great female mystic was once heard to cry out in anguish
that she was on fire. People arrived with buckets of water and found no flames to douse - a mystic was passing and
said, 'your water is no good - the Beloved is making his place in the heart of Rabia, once He has come this pain will pass
on its own'.
This leads to another kind of fear. For the Sufis, whose lower nature is penetrated by and subject to the divine breath
they fear only to diminish the presence of the divine breath. In a sense it is really the fear of the divine breath itself, that
its return to its source may be delayed. The fear of the lover of missing the beloved.
I think that all the emotions could be said to be ultimately value free, it is their context that gives rise to value judgments
on them. Fear of being 'stuck in the clay' (encompassed by our lower nature), can motivate us to more spiritual effort.
Hatred of being separated from the divine can spur us on. Equally it is love of money, not money, that is disparaged as
the root of all evil by Lord Jesus. Jealousy, when it is the jealousy of God who requires us not to share our affection with
anything other than He, is a high mark of His Love and Attention. When it is an emotion between humans, it is based on
selfishness and is a vile monster feeding on our psyche. It is when our consciousness identifies itself with our lower
nature and its aspiration to survive that the emotion becomes perceived as negative. In one sense it may be possible to
say that the emotions, devoid of association with our lower nature ('clay' in the sense used above) are abstractions,
qualities of God perhaps. Our struggle with negative emotions is not with the emotions in themselves, but to free
ourselves from the tendency to identify with them, and thus with our lower nature. To perceive emotions as value free
states is a process implicitly mirrored in the ancient Hindu aesthetic theory of Rasa **- which I think we talked about once.
I think love, however, can not be satisfactorily described or thought of only as an emotion.
Divine Love
So what of Love? In the picture I present above it seems that Love in its unfulfilled state must be that yearning or need
implicit in the divine breath to return to its source. This has its effect as it mingles with the lower nature. Though we are
frequently diverted by that nature to equate the idea of love with carnal acts or romantic fantasy (which seem designed
ultimately to ensure survival), love also produces impulses towards relatively unselfish acts that benefit and produce
society - humanism. Thus what we may call social acts of love are the result of the modifying or restraining impact of the
lower nature on the driving need of the divine breath to return to its source, or the uplifting impact of the divine breath
on the base 'clay', whichever way you wish to view it.
As an aside, whilst we touch on this aspect of love (i.e the subject of the sexual or romantic aspect of human love), I do
not see any reason why various aspects of sexual love, including its momentary ecstacies, cannot be seen as a sign or
at least a metaphor for Real Love. The sufis tend to describe it as unreal love and say it can be a stepping stone to
Real Love. This conveys the idea that one should not remain with it but must move on.
The wine of Love is, I think, the more or less transient identification of the individual consciousness with the divine
breath.
The complete satisfaction of Love, if we view it as yearning, must be the cessation of Love as something distinguishable.
It alone is and nothing else is.
The completion of Love's work must involve the breath reunited with its source, bringing with it, so to speak, the purified
'clay'. Adam restored! The lower nature purified and in a proper relationship with the divine. United and at peace.
Creation, manifesting in every way the beauty of the Creator. God is Beautiful and He loves Beauty.
So where is the triumph of Love you ask, amongst the depravity, the corruption, the suffering, the misery, the agony, the
isolation and loneliness of the modern life we can see around?
Here there are two things.
First, the very term triumph presupposes the overcoming of obstacles or opposition - thus to point out the obstacles to
it, is merely to point out the magnitude of its potential triumph - the qualities of the lower nature it must transform. They
are the qualities of a hard heart, and 'the human heart is indeed difficult to break'. Only the broken hearted can really
know Love - see the first lines of the Masnavi about the reed longing for the reed bed (which by the way says much
more than I have said above - with, need I say, vastly greater poetry and economy).
Second, it may seem I have suggested that Love's triumph is the ultimate outcome of a process, but this implies time,
which is essentially an illusion. In other words the triumph of Love can only be a perception. The revelation of something
that eternally is, always has been, and always will be and of which time and space themselves are only manifestations -
veils, in sufi terminology.
Opening the Heart to Love
You ask how to open the heart and strengthen it to not feel pain or at least to cope with it. Fariduddin Attar prays - 'give
me one particle of the pain of Love'. I have also referred to this pain in the description of Rabia above.
Still it is a good question.
There is a well-known tradition that the holy Prophet Muhammed - when young encountered angelic beings who
removed his heart, cleansed it and replaced it. This may have been a literal physical event or may have been
metaphorical - my own view is that it really happened, but in the Unseen. Thus to refer to it as a dream would be correct
from most peoples point of view - but it would have been a dream of Reality whose effects are not limited to the psyche
but have a physical force too. But you should not be concerned over this. It is enough to think that the preparation of
the heart is in God's Hand. Khawaja Muinuddin Hasan Chishti says that the heart is between the two fingers of God. The
preparation of the heart to receive Grace is the loving work of the spiritual guide.
You yourself have mentioned St. John, Mary the mother of Jesus, and Mevlana in relation to opening the heart.
Yes, to open the heart even in a far, far, less exalted way than happened to the Holy Prophet is probably only possible
for about one percent of one percent of one percent and probably the ratio is much less than that. They are the ones
who are destined to be able to so efface their own existence that they may channel directly the divine breath in varying
levels of concentration, to the benefit of those who have the fortune, destiny or insight to be drawn into their ambiance.
These are people who could have said without lying, what Al-Hallaj said - 'An'ul Haq' (I am Truth) or what Bernadette of
Lourdes said in all innocence - 'I am the Immaculate Conception' - having become entirely identified with the divine
breath (that impregnated Mary).
If we cannot belong to that minuscule proportion of humanity, let us at least pray and aspire to be associated with them -
a friend of the friends of God.
Steps in the Conquest of the Self by Love
Your final question is - how can I give up my own self-image? Perhaps you intended this rhetorically but I will assume
you actually would like an answer. Well for sure you have made that first step (even if you may be only dimly aware of it
at this time) by gaining the blessing of spiritual guidance from one of the true masters. This will not desert you even in
your darkest moment and without it all is danger and pitfalls. I think it was Attar again who said - 'without a guide, do not
take even one step on the path of Love'.
Having done that, the next step is self-examination that must lead to self-repugnance - from which must arise the urgent
need of self-reform. From this the need to establish and apply a code of ethics and habits of life becomes obvious.
Regular meditation, regular reading of reliable holy texts such as the Masnavi, regular walks in some garden, regular
prayers etc. can all be helpful. Moderation is the key in all of this. Keeping the company of like-minded people is also
important. For people inheriting or adopting the Muslim tradition this is the reward of following the Shariat (holy law) with
real sincerity.
The aim of it all, from the point of view of the one whom aspires to more is to provide mental, emotional and spiritual
stability. I am sure Nuri Baba would recommend ritual prayer or repetition of 'Allah, Allah', more than anything.
Visualizing clearly the face of the spiritual guide is a well-established Sufi technique.
Once this stability is established beyond doubt, the presence of the inner guidance should become more and more felt
with more and more frequency, as you become aware that changes are actually the result of inward polishing by the
guide. Abnormal experiences, visions, dream, telepathy, clareaudience etc. may begin to descend. They are definitely
not the purpose of this process and should not distract one for long or be discussed, except with a mature and
absolutely trusted confidant, preferably and usually the spiritual guide, and then sparingly, even when such experiences
are exciting and enjoyable.
One's outward behaviour should always appear normal (or at worst mildly eccentric) to other people but one's inner life
need not be - should not be - conventional. 'Simple living and high thinking' as my spiritual guide Zahurmian would say
(quoting Wordsworth) is the ideal. One should continue to aim for selflessness but not be unduly surprised or alarmed to
find the self being reasserted in new and ever subtler forms.
One of the great blessings of this stage is to be enabled to make the heart submit to God. From this so much can follow.
This can take at least two forms but more than this cannot be spoken of.
Holding to personal opinion tends to be counterproductive at this stage. I know you have opinions about the holy
Qur'an, Islam, and difficulties you have because of your own or other persons opinions/interpretations. Views also about
feminism or indeed its opposite, or anything else you think you hold dear but have arrived at by deduction, are
obstacles. It is better to hold all opinions in abeyance and seek the Truth within. At a later stage revealed Truth can form
the basis for sound opinion. You would not wish to hold an opinion if you discovered it to be untrue would you? Our
self-image after all is based on our opinions - which are usually based on social conditioning that can come in many
subtle forms - commonly held, antiestablishment, alternative belief systems are as much part of this as are the
establishment views they purport to counter. If, when you look within, you are merely seeking confirmation of your own
opinions, then you are attempting to support rather than remove your own self-image.
Each of us has different opinions that we are reluctant to yield so this is not about your particular opinions. Many
opinions, perhaps all, also have at least a grain of truth in them, but until we give up our attachment to them we cannot
know that grain of truth from the dross. I doubt you will find this easy to accept - the stronger the intellect the more
opinion and deductive reason becomes accepted as truth. The analogy here of course is with the blindfolded man. He
may construct all sorts of concepts to account for his experience - and he may unknowingly resist the removal of
blindfold because of his satisfaction with his own deductions.
The question may arise that how can we live, prior to revelations of truth, without opinion. It is this that I think is the
necessary basis of the guide/disciple relationship. Until they are able to receive direct inspiration themselves the
disciples subordinate their opinions to the divinely supported thoughts of the guide.
Generally speaking it is better during this stage to learn from others than to teach (except in the ordinary sense of
teaching a known skill or set of information). But that is not the same as taking on other peoples opinions when that is all
they are. Assume that anyone can teach you, a child, a mentally handicapped person, a taxi driver - even your own
relatives - but do not expect that they themselves understand what they are teaching you. In fact they are not teaching
you - you are learning through them. They can be the innocent communicators of the Unseen.
You will not be surprised at all if I say we must expect periods of contraction during which one may feel low, as well as
some periods of expansion or exhilaration. One should aim not to be unduly involved in either. You may find expansion
more difficult to deal with than contraction in this respect.
One of the problematic areas at this stage can arise from the fact that good and evil can seen as relative and mutually
necessary qualities. Unless a firm moral basis has been established in the early stage this can lead to confusion and
actions unhelpful to further development.
The stage beyond this is, so to speak, largely self-explanatory since you then have recourse to (but not a monopoly on)
the truth within to understand what is expected. Not much can usefully be said about this except in some specific sense
about particular problems that are of an altogether higher nature.
All of this, which I hope you have found the patience to read, finally brings us back to the original question about truly
selfless actions as the fruits of Love.
The Fruits of Love
It goes without saying that selfless actions cannot be actions arising from the 'self' (which could be said to be the
identification of our individuality with the 'clay' or unversal lower nature). So if the self is removed what remains to act?
Of course it can only be that God Almighty is the cause of the actions. In the holy Qur'an there is a story about the
prophet Moses who, in the course of helping to settle a quarrel, murdered a man. God forgave him and said 'When you
threw it was not you that threw, but We that threw.' There are many points arising from this, one of them is as follows -
God is the cause of all actions so perhaps it was the perception of the act that God in His Mercy changed. From this we
might conclude that heaven and hell as reward or punishment for actions are perceptions themselves. Albeit
perceptions we are powerless to alter, and whose effect is therefore real, - but which God can alter in us. That is why
the Sufis do not concern themselves with heaven or hell but with the One who made these perceptions.
Truly selfless actions then can be actions in which we are the tool not the one who acts. Just as selfless speech - true
ecstatic utterances such as 'A'nul Haq' or 'Glory to Me', require that the individual has effaced his own existence or
individuality. Acts in which self-consciousness is still involved may be kind, or of a generous nature, or have other
qualities, but must be acts of selfishness however highly refined.
Mevlana's image of the white hot poker is relevant here. The hot poker declares itself to be heat as its metallic nature
has been subordinated to the effect of heat - it is in a sense a true statement, but also false in as much as its metallic
nature has been transformed but actually remains as becomes evident when it cools. This image also conveys the idea
of the mingling of the divine breath with the lower nature.
So are such selfless acts limited to moments of inspiration? For one without development the answer would have to be
that any such inspired action may be unconsciously or even unwillingly participated in. For one on the path of spiritual
development the answer would have to be yes - but it is inspiration with which they more or less willingly participate. For
the really completely established, developed and integrated soul I don't think this is the case. Where the purification is
so complete it must be that all actions (or inactions) are pure, and loving, and willed, in the sense that the individual will
is not distinct from the divine Will. Such actions do not take into account how others may judge the actions or how they
may be judged by conventional morality. The story of the vision of Daqqaq in the Masnavi contains a marvelous
depiction that is relevant here.
Such persons have freedom and certainty. In them 'clay' and breath are so perfectly fused in the separate parts as well
as in the whole that they could be said to be the unseen made manifest - they are themselves a sign of God, or of God's
Love. In them the 'clay' is entirely subordinated and has found fulfillment in its subordination. The breath has fulfilled its
yearning, having reunited sufficiently with its source to become content to fulfill its work in the world until physical death
allows it to continue its work in the unseen - free, by God's Grace, of the restrictions of the 'clay'. The soul of such a
body then endures and lives forever. Within such a soul the macrocosm has become microcosmically perfected and
unified and beyond that in effect has become free from such a relationship between the micro and macrocosmic.
However this can be highly dangerous, for to only imagine oneself to be so could be disastrous. May God defend us and
anyone reading this from such a delusion or from willful or innocent misunderstanding that anything said here is not in
accord with La ilaha ilallah or the teachings of the Prophets and saints. Amen.
Jamiluddin Morris Zahuri (Southampton. 1999)
Southampton
Footnotes
*see poetry section
**An ancient Indian aesthetic theory in which the emotions aroused by music/dance/drama are to be tasted or touched upon (but not
entered into) in such a way that the cultivated connoisseur achieves a state of detatched bliss that transcends specific emotions. Often
contrasted to the western asthetic approach in which emotions are entered into so completely that the audience finally achieves cathartic
release.
***Hajji Nuri Baba a great sheykh of the Mevlevi from Konya, Turkey - who recently passed on from this life. (see also webpage)
**** Dr Zahurul Hasan Sharib Gudri Shah Baba (see also webpage)