Gileht.com
2003-09-24 01:32:48 UTC
A VOID IN FANA - Buddhism and Sufism
http://tooting.webspace.fish.co.uk/inter/
Though Islamic Sufism and different forms of Buddhist philosophy have come into contact there seems little direct mention on this interaction from the Moslem side. Under Islamic influence any reference to a non-theistic spiritual doctrine might be considered contrary to Koranic precept. Sufism is now renewing that acquaintance. (i.e. see article above)
Any interest in the means to knowledge should be aware of the diversity of mystical doctrine.
· The Sufi assertion of Divine Love and the preparation of Grace through a fundamental change in attitude and practise is different to the Buddhist emphasis. (i.e. Through God's Grace)
· The Buddhist primary source of knowledge resides in the self. The Buddhist assurance that each person is responsible for their own enlightenment has created a person orientated scheme. The realisation of the Buddha was achieved independently and is realisable by all whose desire for truth is sincere and single minded. This potential understanding is free from the grace of any deity. (i.e. NOT through God's Grace: but through wholesome practices in Hinayana; and through love, compassion for others and Bodhicitta in Mahayana; and through bliss in Tantrayana.)
In order to compare these two mystical systems we must state what each is:
· Sufism is the process of awakening, supplanting, growing and sustaining the sacred in the individual. (i.e. Rediscovering our inseparability with God)
· Buddhism is the recognition of individual limitation and the means and process of overcoming our unsatisfactory state without recourse to divinity. In Buddhism God does not have to come into the equation ever. (i.e. No merging with God but a personal Liberation in Hinayana; and rediscovering our Buddha-nature in Mahayana and Tantrayana. And here there is a form of oneness used as a skilful means.)
· In essence this is true of Sufism when it transcends the theocentric (God centred) shariat Islam with which it is closely but not exclusively associated. The higher forms of annihilation beyond Union might cause the Islamic Jurists concern and would through necessity be hidden. (i.e. Going beyond the usual understanding of what God is; beyond the duality God vs. us.)
· Buddhism was a reformation and the mystical essence of Vedanta in Hinduism. The inclusion of theistic elements within Buddhism were for expediency and popularity. The mystical tradition saw these as a means to arrive at true practise which ignored these superficial encrustations. (i.e. Using deities as a skillful means in certain cases.)
· Sufism is the mystical interpretation and expression of the prophetic revelation of Mohammed. The Sufis came into contact with a variety of teachings including Buddhism but kept through choice within the fold of Islam. Sufism sees a plan of evolvement for individuals, communities and the whole of society. (i.e. Aiming at a goal.)
· Buddhism sees a transitory universe that is unsatisfactory until the state of enlightenment is achieved. Buddhism regards the universes causation as result of ignorance and craving, leading to impermanence and unsatisfactory experience. (i.e. Trying to escape something, aiming for liberation.)
· Sufism experiences the universe as a result of Knowledge through which the finite is created to share the knowledge and experience of the Infinite.
Within each philosophy a graduated comprehension of nearness to completion keeps in mind a goal orientated system. (i.e. Both have a gradual path composed of adapted skillful means.)
· In Sufism some realised persons create the means for others to be brought to a similar understanding.
· In Buddhism this concept is exemplified in the Boddhisattva ideal.
The evolutionary trend within the Judeo/Christian/Islamic fold when seen in mystical terms becomes a process of change that counter-effects the worst excesses of the dogmatic religious bigots. (i.e. The danger of grasping at any adapted skillful means as if absolute. Vs. the danger of too much adaptation and loosing the essence.)
· The stress on self reliance and personal responsibility, the irrelevance of hierarchy and deity is allowing Buddhism to flourish in the West. It represents a pragmatic approach of self determination that appeals to the individuality of the present mentality. (i.e. Picking and choosing what please us in a religion.)
Those trying to import cultures and rituals that are meaningless to a different locality are limiting widespread adoption. (i.e. The need to adapt the teaching while realizing the relativity of these adaptations, and without loosing the essence.)
· Similar attempts in presenting Sufism without any adaptation results in equally inappropriate forms. (i.e. One religion cannot be forced onto a different culture.)
· However the essence in both cases is being studied, adopted and practised according to the inner imperative without any necessary adoption of cultural idiosyncrasies. It is inevitable that good meaning individuals confuse culture with a spiritual teaching. Those who have become Moslems or Buddhist often adopt irrelevant cultural forms along with the teaching. They may gain various emotional satisfactions from their new adoption. In truth they would have found similar satisfactions within their own culture. This inclination to import the cultural setting as well as the essence occurs with all immature adoption. (i.e. Those tat are fooled by the superficialities and exotism: they get only short term benefits.)
The superficial adoption of Sufi or Buddhist practises leads to partial improvements.
· The Divine Union of the Sufis leads to an emptying of self.
· The Buddhist enlightenment results in a void of self independent of Deity.
· The highest Sufi expression is also an emptying of emptiness and results in an absence even of Deity.
There is of course room for Islamic Sufism or any theocentric individual following Sufism whether Hindu, Jew or Christian. However is such a thing as Sufi Buddhism feasible, desirable or possible?
· Divergent and populist movements within Buddhism have elevated the Buddha to a cosmic principle. Aspects of Buddhist Tantra utilise the symbology of physical union.
· Similarly some Sufis focus on the inner meaning of physical love. Carnal love being reflective of a higher form.
· Equally Tantric Buddhism has utilised the obstacles and experiences of ordinary life as techniques of meditation and transcendence.
· Sufi practise is also often engaged in worldly activity from a higher perspective.
· It is important to understand that in the Islamic conception God is One. In the Sufi understanding this is expressed through diversity. (i.e. Oneness is only another adapted skillful means.)
· The Buddhist may be a theist if this is proved true for the individual.
· Sufism might openly assert that existence is a limitation, God is unlimited and therefore can be said to not exist in a knowable form. In this way the pantheistic vision of some Sufis, notably Ibn-Al-Arabi becomes superseded by a God both immanent and existent yet transcendentally non definable. (i.e. Beyond Oneness and Manyness. Beyond all description, beyond all conceptualization, beyond all conceptual dualities. Non-duality: not two, not one.)
The historical intolerance of the prophetic religions has never extended to her mystics. When people refine their selves, develop their attributes, virtues and finer qualities they stop imposing their limited vision on others. They see the inherent goodness in existence and attempt to amplify co-operation and discourse to enhance knowledge. (i.e. The realized ones are beyond all religions, beyond all dogma.)
· Some Buddhist mystics experience a theistic universe full of wonder and mystery.
· The sober practise of many dervish involves a movement away from the outer expression to an inner attunement. The dervish would see the following of the eight fold path as a natural consequence of improved psyche.
It is in a higher sense impossible for Sufism and Buddhism to be considered different. They are both pathways to an ultimate truth and reflect this in different ways. Their approach is very different and superficially contradictory. (i.e. The Middle Way: no absolute, only adapted skillful means. All adapted skillful means are not separate/different, but still not the same. Some push, some pull. But true enlightenment is beyond causality space and time.)
· The Dervish (i.e. an ascetic Muslim monk; a member of an order noted for devotional exercises involving bodily movements) is guided by the goal.
· The Buddhist is repulsed by the present ignorance. (i.e. and by the goal: Nirvana)
Mystic expression is dependent on the tools and cultures in which it arises but the experience is beyond this. At a certain level the numerous paths to truth become one path. Before then a path that ignores God or a path that adores God must be seen not as polarities but as means of travel. The results of both lead ultimately to beings whose knowledge is beyond the uncertainties of words.
==============
Gileht (in the name of the Bunny ;-)
http://tooting.webspace.fish.co.uk/inter/
Though Islamic Sufism and different forms of Buddhist philosophy have come into contact there seems little direct mention on this interaction from the Moslem side. Under Islamic influence any reference to a non-theistic spiritual doctrine might be considered contrary to Koranic precept. Sufism is now renewing that acquaintance. (i.e. see article above)
Any interest in the means to knowledge should be aware of the diversity of mystical doctrine.
· The Sufi assertion of Divine Love and the preparation of Grace through a fundamental change in attitude and practise is different to the Buddhist emphasis. (i.e. Through God's Grace)
· The Buddhist primary source of knowledge resides in the self. The Buddhist assurance that each person is responsible for their own enlightenment has created a person orientated scheme. The realisation of the Buddha was achieved independently and is realisable by all whose desire for truth is sincere and single minded. This potential understanding is free from the grace of any deity. (i.e. NOT through God's Grace: but through wholesome practices in Hinayana; and through love, compassion for others and Bodhicitta in Mahayana; and through bliss in Tantrayana.)
In order to compare these two mystical systems we must state what each is:
· Sufism is the process of awakening, supplanting, growing and sustaining the sacred in the individual. (i.e. Rediscovering our inseparability with God)
· Buddhism is the recognition of individual limitation and the means and process of overcoming our unsatisfactory state without recourse to divinity. In Buddhism God does not have to come into the equation ever. (i.e. No merging with God but a personal Liberation in Hinayana; and rediscovering our Buddha-nature in Mahayana and Tantrayana. And here there is a form of oneness used as a skilful means.)
· In essence this is true of Sufism when it transcends the theocentric (God centred) shariat Islam with which it is closely but not exclusively associated. The higher forms of annihilation beyond Union might cause the Islamic Jurists concern and would through necessity be hidden. (i.e. Going beyond the usual understanding of what God is; beyond the duality God vs. us.)
· Buddhism was a reformation and the mystical essence of Vedanta in Hinduism. The inclusion of theistic elements within Buddhism were for expediency and popularity. The mystical tradition saw these as a means to arrive at true practise which ignored these superficial encrustations. (i.e. Using deities as a skillful means in certain cases.)
· Sufism is the mystical interpretation and expression of the prophetic revelation of Mohammed. The Sufis came into contact with a variety of teachings including Buddhism but kept through choice within the fold of Islam. Sufism sees a plan of evolvement for individuals, communities and the whole of society. (i.e. Aiming at a goal.)
· Buddhism sees a transitory universe that is unsatisfactory until the state of enlightenment is achieved. Buddhism regards the universes causation as result of ignorance and craving, leading to impermanence and unsatisfactory experience. (i.e. Trying to escape something, aiming for liberation.)
· Sufism experiences the universe as a result of Knowledge through which the finite is created to share the knowledge and experience of the Infinite.
Within each philosophy a graduated comprehension of nearness to completion keeps in mind a goal orientated system. (i.e. Both have a gradual path composed of adapted skillful means.)
· In Sufism some realised persons create the means for others to be brought to a similar understanding.
· In Buddhism this concept is exemplified in the Boddhisattva ideal.
The evolutionary trend within the Judeo/Christian/Islamic fold when seen in mystical terms becomes a process of change that counter-effects the worst excesses of the dogmatic religious bigots. (i.e. The danger of grasping at any adapted skillful means as if absolute. Vs. the danger of too much adaptation and loosing the essence.)
· The stress on self reliance and personal responsibility, the irrelevance of hierarchy and deity is allowing Buddhism to flourish in the West. It represents a pragmatic approach of self determination that appeals to the individuality of the present mentality. (i.e. Picking and choosing what please us in a religion.)
Those trying to import cultures and rituals that are meaningless to a different locality are limiting widespread adoption. (i.e. The need to adapt the teaching while realizing the relativity of these adaptations, and without loosing the essence.)
· Similar attempts in presenting Sufism without any adaptation results in equally inappropriate forms. (i.e. One religion cannot be forced onto a different culture.)
· However the essence in both cases is being studied, adopted and practised according to the inner imperative without any necessary adoption of cultural idiosyncrasies. It is inevitable that good meaning individuals confuse culture with a spiritual teaching. Those who have become Moslems or Buddhist often adopt irrelevant cultural forms along with the teaching. They may gain various emotional satisfactions from their new adoption. In truth they would have found similar satisfactions within their own culture. This inclination to import the cultural setting as well as the essence occurs with all immature adoption. (i.e. Those tat are fooled by the superficialities and exotism: they get only short term benefits.)
The superficial adoption of Sufi or Buddhist practises leads to partial improvements.
· The Divine Union of the Sufis leads to an emptying of self.
· The Buddhist enlightenment results in a void of self independent of Deity.
· The highest Sufi expression is also an emptying of emptiness and results in an absence even of Deity.
There is of course room for Islamic Sufism or any theocentric individual following Sufism whether Hindu, Jew or Christian. However is such a thing as Sufi Buddhism feasible, desirable or possible?
· Divergent and populist movements within Buddhism have elevated the Buddha to a cosmic principle. Aspects of Buddhist Tantra utilise the symbology of physical union.
· Similarly some Sufis focus on the inner meaning of physical love. Carnal love being reflective of a higher form.
· Equally Tantric Buddhism has utilised the obstacles and experiences of ordinary life as techniques of meditation and transcendence.
· Sufi practise is also often engaged in worldly activity from a higher perspective.
· It is important to understand that in the Islamic conception God is One. In the Sufi understanding this is expressed through diversity. (i.e. Oneness is only another adapted skillful means.)
· The Buddhist may be a theist if this is proved true for the individual.
· Sufism might openly assert that existence is a limitation, God is unlimited and therefore can be said to not exist in a knowable form. In this way the pantheistic vision of some Sufis, notably Ibn-Al-Arabi becomes superseded by a God both immanent and existent yet transcendentally non definable. (i.e. Beyond Oneness and Manyness. Beyond all description, beyond all conceptualization, beyond all conceptual dualities. Non-duality: not two, not one.)
The historical intolerance of the prophetic religions has never extended to her mystics. When people refine their selves, develop their attributes, virtues and finer qualities they stop imposing their limited vision on others. They see the inherent goodness in existence and attempt to amplify co-operation and discourse to enhance knowledge. (i.e. The realized ones are beyond all religions, beyond all dogma.)
· Some Buddhist mystics experience a theistic universe full of wonder and mystery.
· The sober practise of many dervish involves a movement away from the outer expression to an inner attunement. The dervish would see the following of the eight fold path as a natural consequence of improved psyche.
It is in a higher sense impossible for Sufism and Buddhism to be considered different. They are both pathways to an ultimate truth and reflect this in different ways. Their approach is very different and superficially contradictory. (i.e. The Middle Way: no absolute, only adapted skillful means. All adapted skillful means are not separate/different, but still not the same. Some push, some pull. But true enlightenment is beyond causality space and time.)
· The Dervish (i.e. an ascetic Muslim monk; a member of an order noted for devotional exercises involving bodily movements) is guided by the goal.
· The Buddhist is repulsed by the present ignorance. (i.e. and by the goal: Nirvana)
Mystic expression is dependent on the tools and cultures in which it arises but the experience is beyond this. At a certain level the numerous paths to truth become one path. Before then a path that ignores God or a path that adores God must be seen not as polarities but as means of travel. The results of both lead ultimately to beings whose knowledge is beyond the uncertainties of words.
==============
Gileht (in the name of the Bunny ;-)