selam alaykum!

Definitions are tricky thing, especially when they are being taken in a manner so as to define one’s mode of operating within the world… God willing you have a correct definition!

That being said, Shah gives us just a taste here: the point is that there is a discernable difference between “Religion” & “Spirituality”, then he mumbles something about “essence” — which in the context you provided is really obscure. (Assuming this is all that is read).

What is essence? or Essence? And what does Shah mean by “essence of essences”.  To understand what Shah says we have understand his meaning of Essence and from my readings of Shah, he doesn’t provide one either. But, maybe does elsewhere, I don’t know.

The definition that I recieved, is that Islam is the method which makes the soul pleasing to Allah, through surrender, of course. Sufism, is the science (!) which makes Allah pleasing to the soul.

Sufism is an exacting method which to purify the dirt which separates the brain and the heart — the heart here understood as something very specific. Sufism provides you with the tools to get rid of what is in between you and Allah — you!

One of the difficulties, and I think Shah acknowledges this, is that seeker needs to gain a working understanding of the terminology, what is heart? What is brain? What is God? What surrenders? WHO surrenders? Ect. These are many things that a short definition lacks the power to convey. And these things, once understood, give a better understanding of what sufism is as opposed to islam.

nice blog!
-----

Salaam Kevin

You raise some interesting points. This snippet from Shah was a ‘stand alone’ but I agree it needs to be seen in context with his other writings. As far as I understand it, Shah uses the word ‘essence’ in the sense of ‘inner core’ or the ‘real’ part of something.

I think he often uses analogies where the ‘outwardness’ of something may be very different or even the opposite of this ‘inner core’ and thus he projects Sufism (at least in part) as a kind of skill or perception that can actually discern this inner element of something even if it appears to be opposite to all outward appearances. A spiritual refinement of the Emperor’s New Clothes if you will.

Obviously this is interesting from the pov of the malamati tradition where people who are in reality submitted to God appear to be impious or wrongdoers to the general public but I think that Shah’s quote is also useful to get us to question the labeling and ‘mere words’ as you have done.

It also seems to me, that it points to ‘levels’ of reality - that everything that is created is divisable by something else. That everything has an inner core that may be other than appearance, therefore it is false (as all is anyway in a certain sense) - and this applies to everything except God who of course is the only ultimate reality.

But it is interesting also to see that a demarcation is made between Islam and Sufism as this is a question which confuses many people I think. Personally I do not see any contradiction but that does not mean they are the same thing.

yes, I have been coming across something similar, in regards to “levels of reality.” I’ve really be noticing that there are a lot of references to “seven levels of being”, so far I have seen it mentioned in sufism, the yogic texts of patanjali and Gurdjieff. I am not versed enough to say whether kabbala has a break down equatable to seven layers, but I bet its there, too.

Gurdjeiff says that this map can be posited upon any aspect of reality. Lets take the word religion, for example. Someone one operating only on the 1st “level” might use the term religion to mean, physically praying and going to church. (if I say these words and move this way, in this builing ... is a ‘prayer’

Another person, say, with a operational understanding from one of the “higher” levels, may actually have a totally different understanding of the term, religion.

So, in a sense, when we speak of definitions, we are also saying we are speaking from a place of being.  Maybe, this is where your demarcation may seem to appear.

And I think it was you, who talked about literalism — in this way it makes a lot of sense when trying to talk to those of “fundalmentalist’ bent.

Hi Kevin

I believe there is also a Sufi quote about the Qur’an having seven levels of meaning and I found the following hadith from ibn Mas’ud:

The Messenger of God said: “The Qur’an was sent down in seven ahruf. Each of these ahruf has an outward aspect (zahr) and an inward aspect (batn); each of the ahruf has a border, and each border has a lookout.

And of course there are the seven nafs and Nasrudin tales traditionally must be told seven times in the east.

Re the literalists (who I do occasionally mention!), Muhammad (saws) said that one should speak to people in accordance with their understanding but then that kind of requires that one knows what people’s levels are!

I’m reminded here of a classic quote from Carl Jung: “Religion is a defense against a religious experience.”

I wouldn’t equate Sufism itself with the essence of essences although I might agree that it is one approach to it.

Idries Shah is controversial as a Sufi master or writer. It is debatable whether he knew what he was writing about at all. He had a very generalized concept of Sufism that allowed it to be readily equated with Zen Buddhism. On the other hand there is a more Islamist concept that would deny such parallels with other forms of mysticism or at least insist more on the Islamic uniqueness of Sufism.

I can see we share similar interests, so I will add you to my blog list. Good to meet you.

Great quote from Jung ! I commented a bit on the earlier Shah post but one other thing I think is that it really doesn’t matter much about Shah’s personal status - whether he is ‘false’ or ‘real’.

As Rumi says: the canal which provides water does not itself drink and even if Shah were proved to be ‘false’, the stories he publishes are all genuine Sufi tales from Classical sources (with the exception of some in The Magic Monastery which he wrote himself and some Nasrudin ones which are non-tradtional) and correctly translated - albeit with certain changes of emphasis in some cases - and as such are of use I think.

You are right to point out contradictions in Shah - many people are ‘blind’ in this way - and it must be of developmental value to critically evaluate a potential source of teaching, otherwise one is just a ‘believer’ (hey, is that another definition!). There are numerous such ‘’contradictions’ in Shah’s work and life and these, whether they are intentionally placed there or not, can be a useful source of developmental data if pondered - as opposed to justified or ignored.

I think the epitaph on his headstone is “Do not look at my outward form but take what is in my hand” which seems a sound piece of advice.

Hi Segovius

I fear you will not reach Mecca, O Nomad, for the road you are on leads to the Diplomatic Corp.

It’s ok - I work for the Government anyway. It’ll be a promotion :D

Definitions are something we need to seek and find. We find them, they take us on for awhile, then we feel more need. Then we might look for more definitions, better ones. This is good. I think it useful to ponder that definitions are in words, and words work only in the mind. But the mind is the one thing we have some ability to control. We work with it, we work with the definitions. We progress. Experience comes and we take more notice of things. An insight comes. A thing fits. We realize what experience is. We take note more. And we progress more. We learn.

For me, the idea of a definition has changed over the years. Essence is one of those magnificent words that I’ve often thought about. I think the word “notion” is important – this is because it implies not so much something definite but more like a flexibility in direction.

Here is a definition of essence that might be helpful. It’s from JG Bennett’s “Creation.”

“The immediate contact we have with life we call nature and sometimes Mother Nature – a good name because something has to be like a mother and bring forth the creatures.  Nature is the existence of life, whereas the Cosmic Life Principle is its essence. The essence is everything that is possible but not actual. The existence is everything that is actual with its possibilities used up in becoming actual. Our existence is what we are and our essence is what we might be…”

HI Terry. I think your first sentence is broadly inline with the original Shah statement - that there are levels’ of definition whether we perceive them or not.

Iirc, there is a quote from Rumi that says something like: Truth is found by him who does not believe that each stage is the final goal (my paraphrase).

So, in a way, as you suggest, such statements as the one above can be used as ‘measuring sticks’ to see if our understanding of them has increased over time.

I was thinking about essence a bit more too - an essence of vanilla (say) can be added to a dish to give it a certain flavour. This does not make the dish vanilla - nor does it mean that the essence of vanilla is vanilla. It is something else.

Thus Shah’s contention can be seen from a different angle: Religion has as an essence spirituality - spirituality has an essence of it’s own and on.....

But this is not suggesting a chain that leads to Sufism - it states that Sufism is the essence of essence, therefore it is present at every level, in the religious element, the spiritual element and the essence element.

In fact, it is present in all things that have an essential part - but some things do not (which is also implicit in the saying). A religion without spirituality is not a religion.