I didn't mention it, but I've also read quite a lot of Sufi literature (as that interests me rather more. if I converted to any branch Islam , i'd surely convert to Sufism; though really, the chances I'll convert to any religion are pretty slim).
Why, if I may ask?
Hey Odeon! Well, I picked out this easy-but-interesting (as I perceived it ) question to answer first….and wound up writing a freaking essay. My excuse is umm, umm…complete-and-utter-lack -of-self-discipline.
If I don’t get round to responding to the other bits it’s
her fault *finger pointing squarely at self, though the speaker is psychologically complex enough to self-righteously dissociate self from culprit. Aren’t we all? But *phew* that’s lucky, isn’t it? (If only I didn’t ruin the act with a tad too much self-honesty)
So anyway, Ask an Aspie a question and you will sometimes get a painfully detailed Aspie answer, won;’t you? Ooh that’s better. That makes it
your fault, now
. Here goes:
Re. Sufism:I’ve found a lot of consonance between Sufism , and various other spitritual disciplines I’ve looked into closely ( notably Buddhism and Radhaswami, an offshoot of Sikhism) the emphasis being on the quest for individual enlightenment; which I feel to be the true heart of religion. I’ve tended to get the impression that “Mohammed” in Sufism serves as a symbol for human perfection (in much the same way as “Buddha” does for Buddhists ) , and that the historical personage Mohammed, author of the Quran, is largely incidental (I'm sure some indeterminate number of Sufis would quarrel about that though)
On the other hand, I have reservations about all religion, in that it respresents a formalisation of a belief system, which tends to displace and efface it’s own spiritual core. That’s more appealing to most people, because it’s simpler to grasp, and less challenging. But it can wind up incorporating, and justifying our regular human weaknesses, IMO, rather than improving us. I think that genuine spirituality tends to focus on undermining the ego, wheras Religion, conversely, becomes an integral part of the ego., such that defending those beliefs becomes synonymous with ego-defence.
That might actually amount to a positive approach for some people, notably children (given that their egos are still developing,. And the ego is not a bad thing in itself, but an integral, essential, part of the psyche) . I wouldn’t altogether knock it, But still…
I’ve tended to focus on disciplines that fit into the former category rather better than than the big organised religions, not that there’s any clear boundary, e,g, Radhaswami’s claim to be a “faith, not a religion” had now eroded to the point that it’s laughable t those who’ve left the faith or (as in my case) never wholly got into it. The spiritual master is all-too-clearly worshipped by the majority of his followers , rsther than actually followed. That would seem to be the inevitable price of making too many converts . Plus the usual thing of corruption , of course.
It seemes to me that the concepts represented by the various religious symbolism are universal in nature, Those concepts very much interest me, but my attitude to the symbolism is ambivalent and somewhat iconoclasitic. (by which I mean that destroying a statue of Buddha might actually be be appropriate, IMO, if that brings about a realisation, along the lines, that the icon is nothing but a pretty chunk of stone; but in most instances, like the one DD cited, it’s just pure vandalism, of course, committed in the name of some rival iconography.
Islamic iconography? I note that Islam is explicitly aniconic -one up for Islam- but in this sense, the Quran is an icon, the Mosque is an icon , Mecca is an icon. People will raise up icons, no stopping them. Buddha Shakyamuni also spoke against graven images, and what do his followers do about that? They make millions of Buddha statues, and proceed to worship them. It’s really funny, and human, and surely completely forgivable, But it can calcify your mind , if you invest too much in it,
I’ll probably go on calling myself a Buddhist (though I broke with the Buddist tradition I once followed, and never got around to replacing it)because Buddhism seems to come closest to directly expressing my POV that that the symbols, the doctrines, the gods etc that we revere are simply aspects of wn minds, and not always constructive aspects, unfortunately. That is, it doesn’t take it’s own iconography too seriously, usuall,. Buddhists , just like I2 denizens, have something of a penchant for taking the piss out of themselves.
By contrast, someone who makes himself subservient to some negative aspect of his own ego, and calls that aspect “God” (or some atheist equivalent ) becomes a holy terror, a jihadist, a mindless vandal, a raving bigot. I think Buddhism is relatively safe from all that. Buddhists don’t even mention “God” do they?
Obviously, there’s an aspect of “horses for courses” to all that. I was intrigued by the POV of some Mahayanist Buddist monks I spoke with . They justified spouting a load of mumbo jumbo that they obviously didn’t really believe , by pointing ourt that the symbolism and the rhetoric are self-deconstrcting as you progrees along the path; and they wwre teaching a beginners class , after all. Hmm, I;’m srtill thinking about that. I can halfway buy that logic, but I eventually broke with that Tradition, nonetheless…because I caught a strong whiff of curruption in the leadership, along with an inappropriate materialism. Those monks with whom I spoke were entirely sincere, though, and it had clearly been an entirely positive influence on them …thus far ( I have reason think they also quit eventually )
What;’s more, as it later transpired, that sect appear to have been invloved in a plot to assassinate the Dalai Llama, But nevermind who exactly was behind it that plot (they were defunitely Buddhists of some sort)that kibnd of thing goes to show that Buddhism is not altogether pacifistic in practice ; too much depends on it’s all-too-human representatives, just as you’d expect. Don’t expect to find actual perfection, in this neck of the Universe, not if human minds have anything to do with it
“The heart of Mahayanism is Zen” those monks told me; and some would say “the heart of Islam is Sufism” . Those two statements sound pretty much equivalent to me. But what if Zen is suffused with self-defeating intellectual vanity , and Mahayanism isn’t? (just some other forms of corruption). What’s the “right path” then? Sufism? Hmm, I doubt it. I doubt there’s any such thing as “right path” as such.
Well hey ! I guess one might as well identify as simply one’s own, evidently fallible little self; and clearly not much of a follower at all, personally speaking. Being a humble little follower is just one more of those things that I've tried and tried and tried, and repeatedly failed at
I don’t “convert” to anything at all , not really, just sincerely query, then quietly back off. Way back in my teens , I really wanted to subsume my own Ego in Religion (being somewhat afflicted with self-loathing) but my efforts to do so repeatedly failed ; and now I’m coming to see that as more of a symptom of sincerity than a fault, as such.
If the goal really is enlightment, whether spiritual, intellectual or otherwise, then you can’t usefully abandon your intitial perspective, but rather repeatedly expand it; you can’t leap wholesale into somebody else’s perspective, but rather combine it with your own to create some kind of synergy. The blinkers need to be slowly eroded, not expanded in new directions.
