This is a story about a 19 years old college student.
In high school, he might have been described as a typical nerd, a bookworm, some one who was usually among the top 10% in the school. Homework did not take much of his time and he was left with many free hours every day.
Reading books was his favorite activity. Visiting Libraries and bookshops, and scanning book titles, was almost an obsession. Among the many books he read in his free time during high school years were books on Sufism.
Even when he did not understand much of what he was reading about Sufis, and unlike other books, he found himself rereading some books about Sufis several times. He felt that the subject was very intriguing. It was the kind of subject that would take all his attention.
In college, and for the first time regarding studying, he started having trouble in the first few semesters. The problems he was having had nothing to do with subjects he was studying, or anything most young people would usually be interested in.
Out of nowhere, he started having philosophical questions popping up unceasingly. He was not prepared. He did not know the answers. He wasn't the type that would consult anyone on what to read. And never sought help from anyone to explain anything he did not understand. He kept to himself.
Walking for long hours with unceasing thoughts became a habit. One night, he was very tired of walking. He went to sleep. At around midnight, and in what felt like a dream, he sensed that certain phrases were filling his mind. He woke up, took a paper and a pencil and wrote them down. Here are those phrases :
سألت عن
اليقين كيف يكون
لم تسأل الشك من أين أتى؟
يقينك بالشك ثبوت اليقين
ثبوت اليقين من أين أتى؟
Roughly translated:
"You asked about Certainty [per se, regarding anything] and how it can be [how it is established or have a solid existence],
You did not ask "Doubt" [as an imaginary person], where did it come from?
Your certainty about [the existence of] doubt, proves [the existence of] certainty,
Where did the proof of [the existence] of certainty come from ?"
That dream had an effect like magic on him. It was like there was air in an overblown balloon, and suddenly, the air is out, leaving an unimportant little piece of plastic. What used to be like a bundle of knots became like finely weaved threads. The chaotic unceasing thoughts stopped. It was like they did not have any real roots or any solid ground to stand on. There was instant relief. Afterwards, everything became well again. His marks showed.
Notes:
*
This story sounds familiar. It seems that this type of inner struggle regarding certainty and doubt is as ancient as man, and it continues to appear in some form or another. I think it must have arisen many times in different minds with different levels of intensity. However, to have it solved in a dream, and have an instant effect "like magic", is the unusual part.
There were several famous personalities throughout human history with well written biographies detailing what they went through facing the problem of certainty vs. doubt. One of them is Imam Al-Ghazali.
Let's consider Imam Al-Ghazali's story first, then talk about the college student's experience.
*
In his youth, Al-Ghazali was a brilliant student who craved for attention and recognition. To be a famous scholar and to win debates were important to him. And he did achieve what he wanted. He became financially comfortable too. In his late thirties, he was the equivalent of a modern day university professor, who has authored several books. However, at that point in his life, he started having serious concerns about what probably can be described as the superficiality of his life style and everything he had achieved so far.
Even after earning respect as a scholar and a well-known teacher, it was clear to him that there are deeper aspects to life that he knew little about. His book "Al-Munkiz^ Men Al-D^alal" is a valuable source detailing his experience, and why he ended up with Sufism.
He went through a period in which he had several problems appeared as physical ailments and psychological uneasiness. They probably were several faces of one central problem: Uncertainty. He had already mastered Logic and was competent in using a rational approach. So, how can a logician have a problem with certainty?
Nowadays, it is known that Modern Science relies on Mathematics and Logic. However, a more appropriate expression might be 'relies on our best and most developed and widely held perception of Mathematics and Logic'.
Our knowledge of the ground on which Mathematics and Logic stand is not totally clear, even today. With such lack of total clarity, it might not be possible to describe mathematical and logical results as "absolutely reliable".
It appears that the original problem in the theoretical aspect has its reflection on the application aspect of the scientific view. Hence, probably, the typical cautious modern scientific language about scientific findings, where an expression like "reasonable confidence" is seen as a scientific expression, but "absolute confidence" is not.
There is a sort of a gap: on one hand there is the not totally clear ground on which Mathematics and Logic stand, and on the other there is a clear realization about how useful and indispensible mathematical and logical tools are.
To bridge the gap, scientists resorted to selecting assumptions as a ground to start from. It is a careful selection by respected and knowledgeable personalities, and the assumptions are widely accepted. Yet, technically, they are still arbitrary assumptions. Further more, there will always be need for such assumptions whether in mathematics or more generally in any scientific endeavor, and there is no way to infer conclusively about the validity of such assumptions in a purely rational manner. As far as I understand, that's how the gap is bridged. So, how do mystics differ in bridging such a gap?
Logic was seen as perfect by many people for a very long time. But, during the same "very long time", the limits of Logic were "seen" and noted by mystics from different cultures.
Like many intelligent and honest thinkers, Al-Ghazali was very keen to see the basis of certainty regarding knowledge about anything. And finally he found it, and it is interesting to note his expression regarding this specific point:
"وأخيرا، شفاني الله، ووجدت نفسي أعود إلى الصحة والتوازن. وأصبحت أقبل مرة أخرى الحقائق العقلانية الضرورية واستعدت ثقتي بخصائصها اليقينية التي يُعتمد عليها. ولكن ذلك لم يأت عن طريق البيان المنظّم أو النقاش المرتّب، بل بسبب نور قذفه الله تعالى في صدري. ذلك النور هو المفتاح للجانب الأعظم من المعرفة."
"And finally, God cured me, and I found myself returning to health and balance. And I accepted, once again [which appears to mean that he went through a temporary period of lack of clarity], the essential rational facts, and restored my confidence in their certainty related attributes that can be depended upon [in any effort based on a rational approach]."
So, he has confidence in a rational approach, which is pretty normal. But, what about the bridging part? Here comes a Sufi's note:
"But that did not come through an organized explanation or a gradually ordered discussion [a purely rational manner], rather through Light from God thrown [probably indicating the suddenness of the event] into my chest. That Light is the key to the Greatest kind of Knowledge."
There is no clear purely rational basis for using a rational approach, but everyone knows its importance and usefulness. Sufis like Al-Ghazali agree.
However, Sufis note that levels of awareness are many, and the rational approach can be appropriately used at some levels, but has its inherent limits that show up at other levels.
Al-Ghazali was known for his many notes regarding the limits of the rational approach. No contradictions here. It turns out to be a matter of different approaches appropriate for dealing with concepts at different levels of awareness. By the way, this is pretty normal about Sufis, and can be noticed in writings of many of them.
A side note: I have seen some writings, that I don't think are accurate, attempting to clearly distinguish between Sufi scholars and Kalam/Fiqh scholars, because as far as I can tell, such a distinction does not apply in many cases. There were scholars who were prominent Sufis as well as having contributions in Kalam and Fiqh like Al-Ghazali and Al-Nabulsi. Both were known for their depth in Sufism, and both were also prominent Fiqh scholars.
For a Sufi like Al-Ghazali, it wasn't a rational explanation that provided the basis to rely on the rational approach, it was a mystical experience. He did not say it explicitly (at least in the quoted text), but it appears that the same kind of experience also revealed to him (and consistently to many other Sufis) why a rational approach has inherent limits, and why it is insufficient for moving to advanced levels of spiritual awareness.
It might be interesting to note that we are sure that Logic is useful even if we may not have a final solid rational basis for it on the one hand, and on the other, what I understand how Sufis see the validity of Religious faith; that it has a final basis, even if we may not find a purely rational explanation.
Another interesting point. It seems that before that experience, the uncertainty problem appeared like a big one to Al-Ghazali. However, after the experience, it appeared like a minor issue that was sorted out and then, through the Divine Light, the door was open to the really big issue he described as "the Greatest kind of Knowledge".
*
Is going through the uncertainty problem a must on the Sufi path?
As I understand, the short answer is No.
Fakhr-Uddin Al-Razi, whose books are still regarded as some of the best written by Muslim scholars, especially for their depth in logical and philosophical discussions, was old when he wrote: 'I have checked Kalam and philosophical methods, and did not find in them a benefit that equals the benefit of the Glorious Quran.'
Also, it is reported that Al-Juwaini (a teacher of Al-Gazali) who had spent a good part of his life pursuing logical arguments, was old when he was heard once asking God to grant him basic pure faith like that of the elderly and illiterate people. He probably felt they were, in some sense, better off than he was. It could be that those elderly and illiterate people were totally unaware of logical arguments, and what they had instead was instinctive and pristine faith. According to the story, it seems that he was impressed when he met some old ladies in Nishabur.
At the age when Al-Ghazali was deeply involved in formal studies, Ibn Arabi was deeply into the Sufi path. His Sufi experiences started early in his life.(Details available here).
What I understand, especially from writings of Sufis like Ibn Arabi, is that going through problems like the uncertainty problem, might happen when the rational faculties are developed before reaching a certain level of spiritual development, from where it is easier (when the rational approach is considered) to see and avoid such problems. Once developed spiritually, concepts like in Logic can be dealt with normally, without such concepts getting in the way or obscuring what is beyond.
I am not sure, but there seems to be something similar (to rational thinking not obscuring a much wider view) regarding romance and romantic poetry. Some Sufis were known for their sweet romantic poems. However, if I understand correctly, in such a case, normal romantic feelings (like feelings in general to them), are not absent, but they do not overwhelm, and seen within an appropriate context, through a balanced view of existence. The awareness has reached to what is way beyond physical aspects, and any form of expression they use, to them, presents what is beyond, in the most gentle words and expressions they can find. Going back to logical expressions used by Sufis, I wonder if something similar happens, meaning using rational expressions to express what is way beyond what such concepts were meant for, in what some Sufis like Ibn Arabi describe as "Proper Reasoning", which is, as I understand, Reasoning guided by mystical insight.
Anyway, I guess for most people who were not lucky enough like Ibn Arabi or the old ladies of Nishabur, the writings of the likes of Imam Al-Ghazali, particularly in his style as a professional teacher, might be an important source to present a way back to roots.
*
Ibn Arabi said once (Al-Hekam Al-Hatemiah): "Who does not receive the Path [Sufi teachings] from the Men, is moving from one impossible situation [most likely an impossible to penetrate door/wall] to another".
It appears that the path of Sufism cannot be trodden without a door being opened first. Biography writers have some specific expressions describing this particular event happening during the life of a Sufi. A Sufi Chain is a carefully documented chain of personalities, each receiving a certain blessing, opening the path, from a previous person in the chain. That's the formal way of transferring the blessing of a Sufi chain. But, there seems to be some other informal (especially when it happens in a family where a parent blesses a child, sometimes without the child noticing or even recalling it) or even unusual ways (like in a special kind of dreams) of transferring the chain blessing.
It is just a guess, that when a young person without much experience has an intense Sufi experience, it is most likely that someone spiritually advanced and close (a parent or a close relative), has already opened the door and is keeping an eye on him/her.
*
"A modern day Sufi story?"
Actually, this story was among many modern day Sufi stories I heard from different people. There seems to be no shortage of such stories, no matter what time and place.
In Statistics, the Normal Curve is often used to represent the distribution of probabilities of appearance of shades of any certain quality under study in a sample representing a population. If we try to measure generosity for instance in a community, it would often be the case that there will be few individuals who can be described as "extremely generous" and few also who can be described as "ungenerous", while most individuals would be somewhere between the two extremes. The resulting curve of the probabilities' distribution would be something like a Bell. The curve might be skewed toward one end or the other in different samples, but generally it would look like a bell.
If we take "sensing the spiritual aspect of existence", I wonder if we will also end up with a bell-shaped curve, where on one end there are individuals who have difficulty sensing such an aspect, and on the other end those who vividly experience it, while most people are somewhere in between. And maybe such a curve would also skew toward one end or the other, across communities at any one point of time, or the same community across time. But, in any case, according to the normal curve concept, it is not possible to eliminate the probability of existence of some individuals at either end of the curve, regardless of what community and at what time. And, maybe according to how skewed is a curve, individuals at one end would be more encouraged to show up, while those at the other end prefer to hide.
Anyway, its just a thought on why Sufi stories need not sound strange regardless of what time or community. Maybe all one needs to do is to look and listen carefully around him, where ever he might be.
However, within what I admit is a limited view of Sufism, I think that some of the signs of a real mystic might be that he or she would be one who does not care if anyone ever knew about him or her; one who does not mind to be a total nobody. One who does not think that he or she is special in any way, or different from ordinary people. Yet, one who sees events in existence, no matter what, with an unusual depth and balance. The clearer such signs, the more I might be interested in listening to a story. Obviously, very rare are such stories, and most likely told by someone close to the mystic. I guess the vast majority of real mystics and what happened with them, throughout human history, will never be known.
*
When a story about Sufis would be narrated, Sufis often complained about how some one unfamiliar with Sufism would focus on and analyze the words and expressions in such stories. The accompanying experience of the Sufis might be seen as less important or even totally overlooked. To Sufis (and, in this regard, in the Asha'ri theology too, by the way) words are important but they are only pointing to something. The meaning is the essence that needs to be "seen", while various expressions including words are possible forms of pointing to the meaning. Words (or any expression including artistic or poetic forms) are like signposts outside a city informing a traveler about it and its location. Such signposts are obviously not within the city. Looking at a signpost and examining it thoroughly is not equal to having the experience of being in a city. The tendency to emphasize forms and outer aspects at the expense of the essence is not a problem that only Sufi expressions suffer from.
I think Cooking is a form of art. There are cooks who treat 'cooking' not as a mechanical process but as something that has an essence or a spirit. To master cooking is all about sort of acquiring that essence or spirit. Succeeding at that simply means becoming a good cook, whose cooked food has a certain "smell" or a "touch". In addition to that, each dish is not just the recipe, it has a certain essence about it, that is either there or not. I think many people know that. Sufis say that people like artists and poets are more likely to understand Sufism and Sufi concepts than someone with a strictly logical approach in his view of things in existence (See Hekam #67 for details).
*
As for the story, what I can tell about the phrases, is that they are only half the story and not all of it. They do not represent the total solution.
To realize that a "doubt" is only as strong as one is "certain" about it, means that "faith" is also as strong as one is "certain" about it. But that does not resolve the issue of determining a "right" direction.
There was something that unraveled the bundle of knots or philosophical problems. I think that the following expressions of the accompanying experience deserve to be noticed. But, they do not tell us about a "rational" basis for what finally was what the man, some how, figured out. Sufis keep iterating that deeper Sufi concepts cannot be pinpointed or pinned down, they can only be experienced first hand.
