I read a spiritual story with it's roots in the sufi tradition recently. It really made me think.
In this story a man finds a garden with Hazrat Khidr, a mystical figure in the Qu'ran. Hazrat Khidr shows him two groups of people, one that's unhappy, the other is happy. The unhappy group say the typical thing - we followed falsehoods in our lives and that's why we are unhappy... but the eye-opening part was what the happy people said.
The happy group in this story said that they were happy because they pursued happiness in their lives, and that's what they received... They were good to others because it made them happy, they were kind because it made them happy, they didn't cheat, didn't deceive... and so they were happy... however...
They said that they didn't have "the truth"... they had happiness, but that was all. If one pursues happiness, that is what one finds, but it is ALL that one finds. Rather, one who searches for the truth can be anything they want to be.
In this way, happiness is also a part of the illusion, just as sadness, anger, pain are all a part of the illusion of this world.
The story is accurate in a lot of ways, and I never really thought about the trap that happiness can be. We are spiritual beings having a physical experience... that's what I believe life is, the physical experience of a spiritual entity. Over the course of this physical experience we change, we experience emotions, feelings, thoughts, interactions and other phenomena, of which happiness is just one.
Many of us make happiness our goal in life, and there is nothing wrong with that... but it does limit your potential. Rather if we make acquisition of the truth of the universe, of the self, of God our true goal in life, our potential becomes limitless. Emotions will mean nothing as we will be happy and sad at the same time, and not at all.
The main character in the above story, upon hearing of the plight of the happy and unhappy groups, decided that he wanted to seek out the truth... and when Hazrat Khidr heard this he left the protagonist, because he had found the truth... or at least had begun the journey.
I pray that someday I will be able to look past the veils of illusion that hide the truth. Happiness, sadness, despair, peace. All of these are important to human life, but hide the truth.
The one question I would have would be this. Is the best path to the truth to travel through the emotional montage that hides it, or is the best way to skirt around?
Is it best to insulate oneself from all emotions and live life seeking, or is it best to experience love, happiness, sadness, despair to the fullest that they can be experienced, and through this experience find the truth within?
Both will work, but which one is the best?
Friday, August 12, 2011
Friday, August 5, 2011
On Perfection
Aristotle proposed that everything has a perfect version... a perfect form. What we see, everything that exists, is simply a ... shadow of a perfect form. He made very interesting arguments for this paradigm, and as with the concept of God, it isn't possible to prove or to disprove Aristotle effectively, because we simply don't know if this concept is plausible.
It makes me wonder on what it means to be perfect though.
Specifically, is perfection static or dynamic?
When I think of the concept of perfect, I think of something that is still, unchanging and remains static, because if it is perfect, why does it need to change?
I think that may be a fallacy however. How can something remain perfect if it is limited to never change? Or is it possible that if something is perfect, it is unlimited in potential but limited in form?
The reason I ask is because of the simple fact that I believe firmly that the faith of Islam, when interpreted correctly is perfect. However, does this mean that the way that Islam was interpreted a thousand years ago, is the same way in which it should be interpreted today? I would vehemently argue that this is not true, that the faith requires a new lens, it changes in it's practice, in it's interpretation over the years... but the essence... does that change? Can it change? Or is the question, must it change for it to be perfect?
Thinking carefully on it, I would say that the practice of the faith can and must change, however the ethical foundations underlying it cannot change, because they are perfect... so is the practice imperfect or are the practitioners?
Let's not forget God.
God is eternal, God is good, mercy, compassion, love - all spring from God. All of these characteristics change based on the situation... compassion is not a static concept, neither is love. However, God is perfect... so, is God static, is God fixed or is God a cosmic power that is always dynamic?
I know this last is a futile question because I think I suspect the answer. God is both and neither. Static and dynamic... for these terms are very physical expressions. God is beyond both. He does not need to express Himself as a static or as a dynamic.
That still doesn't solve the problem at the base of it all. In our human conception of the matter can something that is static meet the standards of perfection? Can something that is dynamic be perfect? Or is perfection beyond both, in which case - how can a religion that a billion people practice be perfect?
It makes me wonder on what it means to be perfect though.
Specifically, is perfection static or dynamic?
When I think of the concept of perfect, I think of something that is still, unchanging and remains static, because if it is perfect, why does it need to change?
I think that may be a fallacy however. How can something remain perfect if it is limited to never change? Or is it possible that if something is perfect, it is unlimited in potential but limited in form?
The reason I ask is because of the simple fact that I believe firmly that the faith of Islam, when interpreted correctly is perfect. However, does this mean that the way that Islam was interpreted a thousand years ago, is the same way in which it should be interpreted today? I would vehemently argue that this is not true, that the faith requires a new lens, it changes in it's practice, in it's interpretation over the years... but the essence... does that change? Can it change? Or is the question, must it change for it to be perfect?
Thinking carefully on it, I would say that the practice of the faith can and must change, however the ethical foundations underlying it cannot change, because they are perfect... so is the practice imperfect or are the practitioners?
Let's not forget God.
God is eternal, God is good, mercy, compassion, love - all spring from God. All of these characteristics change based on the situation... compassion is not a static concept, neither is love. However, God is perfect... so, is God static, is God fixed or is God a cosmic power that is always dynamic?
I know this last is a futile question because I think I suspect the answer. God is both and neither. Static and dynamic... for these terms are very physical expressions. God is beyond both. He does not need to express Himself as a static or as a dynamic.
That still doesn't solve the problem at the base of it all. In our human conception of the matter can something that is static meet the standards of perfection? Can something that is dynamic be perfect? Or is perfection beyond both, in which case - how can a religion that a billion people practice be perfect?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)