It's been sometime since I've been inspired to write on the varieties of spiritual and religious experiences, from a more neutral and universal standpoint. By "universal" I do not mean some notion of universalism or universalizing on the whole. That is too grandiose a claim, and in my opinion somewhat arrogant. I'm rather of the practical and pragmatic approach, with certain principles at heart. Those principles may be considered general, and I mean universal in that sense.
Why I say "neutral and universal" is because, I am including certain notions of universality as it is presented in Science and Philosophy, as in "justified true belief" as a premise for an epistemology, the study of how we know grounded in sound judgement and reason; but I stress, not void of passion and feeling. In fact, if it were up to me, I would replace the word "rationale" with "empathy", so as to revolutionize - or "involutionaize" as an inner revolution - the whole notion of rational intuition. It is more akin to empathic intuition in my awareness, that is of heart intelligence.
Empathy is where reason and passion meet, and compassion is born; where the personal and impersonal meet, and intimacy of a quite different kind is born. In any case, here I am focusing on this long sought out practice and inspiration of true empathy to guide me.
Recently, especially at my fortieth birthday, but also as the year 2012 came to an end, I've become increasingly aware of completing my own works. This intuition commands, and I've now come to a place in my life, in which I have the fortune and blessing to obey. Prior to this time, I was unable to do so, for fear of many kinds.
But that is another subject, which I may touch on here and there where necessary. In short, it took much preparation to hold my ground against the onslaught of many obvious, but more importantly subtle, kinds of judgement and persecution.
---
First, I do not want to make distinctions as separate and fixed cases. This is not an empirical science, and I do not intend to play in the chid-like playrooms of logic and syllogisms. As I said in the introduction, I have no interest in making what I know universal, necessary, or any such thing. In matters of spirituality we need far more humility than making such claims. That is my belief anyway. These distinctions are made with certain inherent features together and in harmony.
So certain distinctions need to be made. But let us not make the mistakes of our forefathers and founders. Even in spiritual matters, some have sought to make a science of religion and spirituality. God, spirit, and religious experiences are not things to infer as anything. God is a something that is everything and nothing, as such inferences are not possible as an empirical science within the frameworks of western empiricism and rationalism.
Skeptics who try to debunk the Spiritualists, and Spiritualists who try to universalize the proof for the existence of God, are both mistaken in my opinion. For we can not create God in our image, rather we were created in that image, a something that is nothing, no thing and everything.
That will be the subject of my essay on The Proof for God & the Religious Experience. So I do not intend to provide such proof or evidence, for the futility of such endeavor is obvious in both, Skeptics and Spiritualists. This is not empirical science as is commonly accepted, but perhaps an intuitive science has existed throughout history. That is of a different nature, and what many forget is, that intuitive science is the foundation of modern science.
Rational, rather rational and creative, intuition and divination laid the foundation for modern science, and came long before it. Therefore, true science as I understand it, is not the empirical science of modern west, but what was given by the likes of the great Sages and Mystics, who were the true founders of science; including the science of modern west having its roots and foundation is that science; in texts such as, The Canon of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and The Yellow Emperor's Classic of Medicine, which are science and divination texts that laid the foundation of modern science. Modern scientists would do well to remember the founding fathers and mothers of science were divine philosophers.
All my distinctions overlap and are interrelated between these intuitions of east and west. They work together coherently, also with certain cohesion, however, they do not all have to be present. They may change as in a flux and be dynamic. Fix points and constants are momentary. On one hand, when several of these qualifiers are present, there's more credibility and import in that discovery; on the other, one discovery may debunk others.
The first distinctions I wish to make are the general marks and signs of spiritual and religious experiences that are somewhat common. In that sense, they are common, usual, general, and universal. However, they are unique to each one, and cross borders between nations, cultures, and religions. Most ancient traditions have some semblance of them. I shall begin there.
Second, as I develop these distinctions, I shall draw from those traditions that make the clearest distinctions bearing on their teachings. After some twenty four years, I believe it is my responsibility to make these points on discernment, differentiating between such matters, as in many cases this may be a matter of life and death and saving lives. If the subject had not impacted me as such personally, I would not endeavor to make such thing known.
For example, the Sufis, also known as Muslim Mystics, make many distinctions for the heart, self, and soul. These do not exist in other teachings in the same manner, especially given the particular focus on the heart as the faculty of intuition, and not the brain. Socrates and the Greeks also made similar distinctions as intuition was the faculty of the heart, however, later scientists claimed that it is rather the right hemisphere, the creative side of the brain.
Modern science once more has returned to the heart, as we can now measure the electromagnetic wave emanating from the heart. It is known to be one hundred times electrically, and some few thousand times magnetically, the strength of the brain. For this, refer to the works of Gregg Braden (http://www.greggbraden.com/), and the HeartMath Institute (https://www.heartmath.org/). Muslim Sages, Saints, and Scholars had begun this inner revolution at the time of the Prophet Mohammad, and have continued since, by giving various mentions of the heart as repeated in the Holy Quran some two hundred times.
One of the earliest texts that appears to that extend, actually mirrors much of what is revealed in modern science, and it is in the classic Sufi book, A Treatise on the Heart, translated in English as, Three Early Sufi Texts, by al-Sulami and al-Tirmidhi. Another like it with greater clarity further expounding on the self, is given by the Master of Orientalists, Shaikhal Ishraq, Suhrawardi, founder of Illuminationist Philosophy, also translated in English as The Shape of Light. So these stand as examples to do with the heart, and varieties of self.
There again, for example, the way the Holy Spirit and the heart is introduced in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth is very unique. It was not shown in that way before him, though it may have been generally introduced.
Now, all of the aforementioned have touched me deeply and personally, in the realms we know as miracles and the miraculous. More importantly, the wisdom inspired in such life - without which life is not worth living - is the motive itself.
The same might be said of dreams and other matters. They are given special attention in various ways and in various cultures differently, also by various scholars and discoverers. Each have impacted me in a number of ways, both within the thirteen plus years of studying Philosophy and Religion, and the years spent in Holism and Consciousness studies and my travels.
I shall draw on those that I know, with special attention to Muslim and Judeo-Christian Mystics, as these are the foremost sources of my inspirations. However in our times of post-modernism, I believe, we must use all the basic and simple knowledge available at our disposal, including those that may seem irrelevant but remain relevant. If our ancient and modern philosophers and scientists lived today - "modern" in Philosophy covers periods and generations before us - I'm certain they would have used the modern science of physics and quantum theories and technologies of the same kind, to expand their scope of understanding.
Only a rigid and prejudice researcher and scholar would limit one's self to a specific science or religious study, to the exclusion of others. Especially if these pertain directly to one's inquiry, it is paramount that they be included. For example, modern studies of The Observer Effect in quantum theory are not only relevant on that level of reality, but rather on the very physical structure of matter. Modern physicists like Dr. Amit Qoswami and Fritjof Capra address such issues at length. So, we must undo the errors of those who insist on an exclusive approach so as to retain a certain purity in each given field.
Generally speaking, there are too many rigid puritans in every field, who need to open and expand their horizons. This tendency has wounded and damaged the richness of humanity, and I believe it is time we let this tendency go. But as we know, "Old habits die hard."
There may be a certain truth in maintaining a level of purity, so as to not mix things up prematurely, as in creating a mishmash soup that sickens the person. You can not mix too many cuisines on one plate of food, and not expect to have indigestion. Give each thing its due time to appreciate it as is. Yes it is noteworthy to give each subject its due attention and respect within its own discipline; however, the study of life is not limited and exclusive to one area of science or religion, or to one religion. This error has been made all too often and created a great deal of divide between cultures and peoples, but in our time of post-modern realities all borders are crisscrossed and overlap, especially via technology and a mix of races and sciences. This must become an acceptable fact of our time, and our rigid thinkers and scholars would sooner or later have to adapt.
But I must emphasize that these distinctions are not always altogether in the same order, nor are they altogether at all a necessity. Sometimes one condition over-rides all others. And again, all conditions are transitory passages, but somewhat necessary in that stage. Taken together, there's greater transparency in them; yet one may shine with such brightness so as to blot out the rest. We shall touch on these intricacies.
---
- (C) Houman Z. Emami
No comments:
Post a Comment