The Numinous in Sufism: “The Shape of Light” Connecticut College Lamiya Khandaker Class of 2017
Final Paper for REL 401: Theories of Religion Professor Natalie Avalos
How do we reconcile between rationality and religious experience? The former is typically understood to be within the confines of reason through a process of logic, while the latter is believed to be associated with an irrational phenomenon. Multiple theorists from
Sigmund Freud to Karl Marx have undertaken the task to rationalize religious experience as either psychological or sociopolitical manifestations to help individuals cope with their existing material conditions. Theorists like the ones mentioned attempt to rationalize religious experiences by simplifying them to irrational modes of being clouded by faith—a baseless feeling with no material truth to it. However, such theorists fail to take the following into account: (1) Reason has its limitations, and (2) The inability to fathom or conceive of an experience for its lack of materiality, does not necessarily make it irrational. Rudolf Otto delves into the rationalist argument of God and religion and dismisses its simplicity. By employing a term of his own construction, Otto argues that religion cannot be confined to a series of rational assertions,1 but instead, to a numinous2 sphere—an unknown, ominous and holy space that is not subject to the limitations of rationality, that can be found in experiences like those of mystics.
However, if we take one of the oldest “mystical” practices, Sufism, as an example to explore
Otto’s concept of the numinous, then we see a different circumstance that render’s Otto’s argument as rudimentary. Although Otto provides a starting point to refute the limitations of rationalist theorists like Freud and Marx, I will argue that Sufism, through its experience with the numinous, can unlock a deeper religious experience completely within the confines of rationality and outside of it.
1 Otto, Rudolph, The Idea of the Holy, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1958), 4. “Religion is not exclusively contained and exhaustively comprised in any series of ‘rational’ assertions; and it is well worth while to attempt to bring the relation of the different ‘moments’ of religion to one another clearly before the mind, so that its nature may become more manifest.” 2 Otto, The Idea of the Holy, 5. Khandaker 1
How is rationality defined? It is generally understood as that which consists of some form of logical reasoning in its contemporary usage. Philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato have compounded on the field of logic claiming that human beings are capable of deducing complete truth from sensory perceptions and reason alone. The field Logic or logos, developed by Aristotle, purports to be sufficient as a “chief preparatory instrument of scientific investigation”3 to determine what is real and not real. Otto defines the “rational” as that which, “can be grasped by the intellect…analyzed by thought,” and “an object that can thus be thought conceptually.”4
Therefore, the limitations upon rationality are the human’s ability to conceptualize an idea through their sensory perceptions. This, however, introduces a host of problems. For example, can human beings conceptualize the concept of infinity or the eternal? Is it possible for human beings to truly fathom the concept of no beginning or end, but a continuous addition of one to the previous number forever, even though human beings themselves are bound by the limitations of time and measurement? And if the answer is no, does this mean that infinity does not truly exist, or does it mean that human reason is limited? Many abstract concepts, oftentimes, do not fit the human threshold of reason because of the constraints of sensory perceptions. If a blind man cannot visually see nor hear a mute woman 10 feet away from him, it does not disprove her existence, but it makes her existence unknown to the man’s reality. Therefore, the claim that rationality remains a prerequisite to affirm what is real and true remains flawed.
Shihab al-Din al-Suhrawardi, a 12th century Sufi philosopher and theologian who founded the Illuminationist School of Islamic Thought, theorizes on the concept of the rational and religious
3 “Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E),” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed on 14 Dec, 2016. http://www.iep.utm.edu/aristotl/#H3 4 Otto, The Idea of the Holy, 1. Khandaker 2 experience.5 As a prominent Sufi mystic, Suhrawardi discusses the limitations of rationality in terms of “matter” in his work titled The Shape of Light. Like Otto and Aristotle, Suhrawardi acknowledges rationality as that which is conceivable in the mind. However, he also distinguishes between sensory reality and Real reality, the latter being the Truth that is blind to the limits of rationality.
A rational person knows that the things ordinarily imagined are unreal, nonfactual inventions of the mind. On the other hand, we know that there are real yet invisible shapes and phenomena. Man possesses the faculty of observing the cause, the reason, the essence, the finer reality of the coarse reality which the senses observe, as well as celestial realties which do not have their corresponding coarse worldly realities. In a way, the sensory reality has become a veil between us and the Real reality. True inner perception is not something derived from any outer perception, as is ordinary imagination, which simply reshuffles impressions and is as limited as the senses. Rather it is seeing the inner image directly through the inner eye, or basirah.6 According to Suhrawardi, sensory perception exists as a barrier to a spiritual Truth that cannot easily be seen. While a theorist like Freud may reduce any mode of spirituality to psychology,
Suhrawardi argues that even psychology is bounded by the very limitations that spirituality is not:
“Psychology…stays within the boundaries of measures, experimentation, and measurable experiences. Sufism although seemingly confined by the principles of Islam, includes knowledge received in states of ecstasy, rapture, and divine love, which surpasses the limits of logic and measurement.”7
For Otto, rationality is that which can be conceived by the senses; for Suhrawardi, rationality is matter which “encompasses everything [that] depends on perception by the senses for its existence.”8 Essentially, everything that we can touch, see, smell, hear and taste is composed of matter. But what about our soul, our mind and thoughts? Can invisible phenomena that may not
5 Al-Suhrawardi, Yahya ibn Habash. Suhrawardi, the Shape of Light: Hayakal Al-Nur. Translated by Tosun Bayrak. (Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae, 1998), 27. 6 Al-Suhrawardi, The Shape of Light, 20. 7 Al-Suhrawardi, The Shape of Light, 22. 8 Al-Suhrawardi, The Shape of Light, 45. Khandaker 3 be comprised of physical matter exist nonetheless? Suhrawardi claims that “the intelligence and the soul…are dependent on matter for their perceptible manifestation,”9 even though they themselves do not consist of matter. In other words, he says that the physical world and the spiritual world are interconnected, and “the key to wisdom of inner meaning is in the knowledge and ability to distinguish the material world from the spiritual world.”10
The concept of “dependence” consistently shows up in the work of many theorists when discussing religious experience. As a matter of fact, it consists of one of Freud’s many critiques regarding spirituality and faith. He argues that “religious feeling” is a manifestation of the psychological ego that desires feelings of security and protection from a Father-like figure, i.e.
God. The spiritual dependence and “oceanic feeling”, in Freudian terms, “can be traced back in clear outlines as far as the feeling of infantile helplessness.”11 Just as infants are selfishly concerned with their own well-beings and crave affection and protection, individuals too, fall back on religious experience to satisfy their innate id. Freud attributes these feelings to a psychological condition that overlaps with symptoms found in neurosis as he observed in many of his patients.
Otto and Suhrawardi propose an alternate theory of dependence from Freud’s. Unlike
Freud’s argument stating that spiritual dependence is a form of narcissism, Otto and Suhrawardi argue the opposite: Spiritual dependence is an annihilation of the ego. Otto’s idea of a spiritual dependence on the Holy ties back to the very concept of the numinous. Essentially, the numinous is an unexplainable spiritual awakening and mental state that occurs during moments of realizing one’s own ‘nothingness.’ This nothingness, he calls the creature-consciousness—the feeling of one’s own created-ness and creature status by an overwhelmingly supreme being above all
9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and its Discontents. (New York: WW. Norton, 1962), 21. Khandaker 4 creatures.12 He constructs these terms to develop the notion of spirituality and the Holy outside of rational limitations. One of the many problems that Otto identifies with the rationalization of ideas relating to the Holy, is that it fails to comprehend the phenomena of religious experiences that cannot be explained through measured reason. Therefore, for Otto, religious experiences exist outside the domain of rationality, and “the numinous is…felt…outside the self.”
This relates back to Suhrawardi’s point regarding physical and spiritual matter—the physical being—in Otto’s terminology—the self, and the spiritual being the numinous. Although both Suhrawardi and Otto refute Freud’s thesis on the nature of dependence, Suhrawardi unlike
Otto, does not separate the numinous from the realm of rationality. To delve deeper into this Sufi theologian’s construction of rationality and spirituality, it is necessary to deconstruct Suhrawardi’s premises to make sense of his argument of divine logic.
Suhrawardi proposes that matter consists of three qualities: (1) the wajib—absolute necessity for existence, (2) the mumkin—possible for its existence, and (3) the mumtani—the impossible or the negation for existence.13 These three qualities sufficiently explain the nature of the spiritual soul. He argues that, “the smallest matter which defies division, the atom, which cannot be divided…cannot exist here or there, and is placeless, as Allah…is devoid of space and place.”14 The indivisible atom by its very nature cannot take up space or place because, “such an indivisible unit (even if it is part of a greater divisible form), if assigned to a place, would be the opposite of another of the same sort, assigned to a place in contraposition to it. Thus, these two units would cancel each other.”15 Moreover, God also cannot take up space or place because He
12 Otto. The Idea of the Holy, pp. 9-10. 13 Suhrawardi. The Shape of Light, p.46. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. Khandaker 5 created the very concept of forms and shapes. Suhrawardi calls this indivisible and spaceless atom the “essence” of all material things. While the indivisible atom remains devoid of space and place, material objects remain dependent upon its essence for its very existence. Without the atom, material objects are mumtani, impossible. With the atom, material existence is mumkin, possible.
Regardless, the atom, or the essence itself remains wajib—an absolute necessity for the existence of any material object. Suhrawardi relates this to the concept of the spiritual soul: the soul is the very essence that takes no shape or form, but remains wajib for the material body’s existence.16
Simultaneously, the soul depends on the material body’s existence for its own manifestation.17
Given these logical assertions, Suhrawardi rationalizes spirituality through a form of cosmic Reasoning. While Otto says that the numinous is outside the self, Suhrawardi shows that this numinous exists as a wajib, both outside the material body and remaining interdependent in it as well. Ultimately, the numinous or the spiritual soul, can only be realized after submitting to a
Divine Creator. The numinous in Sufism is dependent upon a Supreme Power. Freud would say that this dependence results from human insecurities. Suhrawardi would respond that this dependence is a realization of human divinity. It is the very manifestation of the spiritual soul in the material body that allows for individuals to experience and perceive the numinous or a transcendental Truth. He says this is found in the very assertion of the phrase “I am.”18
If one’s essence were composite and had parts, although one may forget it sometimes, how could it have been possible for one not to forget it at all times? You forget your body; you are certainly not aware at all times of all the parts of your body, while in your subconscious
16 Suhrawardi, p.54. Suhrawardi goes into more detail regarding the essence, rational soul and matter. See: “Your essence, your rational soul, is not material, nor does it relate to matter. It is free from time and space; therefore, it cannot be perceived by the senses. It is a light generated by Allah…Man’s rational soul is neither matter nor related to matter. Neither is it a part of this world, nor is it excluded from it. Neither is it dependent upon it, nor is it independent of it. To be dependent or independent are qualities of material things. The rational soul (the cosmic Reason) is an essence of light which you cannot see.” 17 Suhrawardi, p.47. 18 Suhrawardi, p.52. Khandaker 6
you are always aware of your essence. That shows your essence is not a part of your material body. When you say I, this identity is other and much higher than any part of your material being or the whole of your material being.19 Freudians may wonder: does not viewing one’s soul as part of the divine amount to a neurotic narcissism? Suhrawardi negates this by drawing upon the conception of two kinds of souls, the animal soul and the human soul. The former consists of the body and ego which are a part of the created world,20 and fits Freud’s conception of the soul. The animal soul is based on primal instincts that act according to lower levels of conscious for the purposes of satisfying material desires from sensory perceptions. He posits that the latter, the human soul, “is a part of the Divine, and is under the direct command of Allah,” and “it is only with the enlightenment which the animal soul receives from the human soul that it is able to manifest in the mind.”21 The human soul can only reach enlightenment by destroying its ego, or animal soul—or what Otto calls, creature-consciousness. Suhrawardi does not argue that the human soul is divine because it contains parts of God, as God remains indivisible. Instead, he says that “man’s [and woman’s] soul, which is called the cosmic Reason, is an indivisible light…it is the sacred light coming from
Allah.”22
Until now, I have attempted to develop a theoretical framework comparing the ideas of
Freud, a rationalist theorist reducing the nature of religious feeling, to those of Otto’s and
Suhrawardi’s as the foundations for my main argument showing that Sufi religious experiences are both transcendental and rational. To show this, it is necessary to understand Sufism, commonly mistaken as a mere mystical sect in Islam. However, Sufism is neither simply mystical in the common understanding of the term, nor is it a sect of Islam. Rather, it remains its own philosophy
19 Suhrawardi, p.51. 20 Suhrawardi, p.56. 21 Ibid. 22 Suhrawardi, p.54. Khandaker 7 in how to deeply devote one’s self to Islam and emulate the spiritual experience of the Prophet
Muhammad through one’s actions—perhaps, submission, in the true sense of the word, as being a
Muslim is one who submits to God.
What differentiates Sufism from mysticism, is that, “mystical philosophy is a system of thought built upon the theory of acquiring knowledge through inspiration and revelation, and devoting itself to the exploration of mysteries.”23 Sufis, on the other hand, “contemplate the value of thought, the source of eternal truth and the reason for man’s being. However, in Sufism this search is made actively rather than intellectually.”24 Similarly, Otto says that mysticism consists more of an intellectual endeavor “stressing…those non-rational elements…in religion.” Drawing more from Buddhist ideas, Otto attributes mysticism to a numinous mental state of being. Much of the reason Sufism has become so simplified is a result of the umbrella term, “mysticism” and clumping various groups like Buddhists, Hindus and Sufis into one category. Because of this,
Sufism is mistakenly believed as having been influenced by Hindu and Buddhist practices, and therefore, is detached from its intrinsic connection to Islam. This is due to the orientalist practices of Europe and the West’s fetishizing of Eastern religious practices as singular exotic and esoteric forms of seeking wisdom.25
So, what is Sufism? For Suhrawardi, “Islam is the foundation, and Sufism is the house built upon it… Islamic dogma is the body, Sufism is the soul. The religion is the word,” and “Sufism is the meaning.”26 Sufism comes from the Arabic term, tasawwuf, a verbal noun from Arabic grammatical structure meaning “the process of becoming a Sufi.”27 The etymological roots of the
23 Interpretor’s Introduction by Shaykh Tosun Bayrak al-Jerrahi al-Halveti, The Shape of Light, p.13. 24 Shaykh Tosun Bayrak, p.15. 2525 Ernst, Carl. The Shambhala Guide to Sufism, (Boston, MA: Shambhala, 2007), pp. 9-13. 26 Shakyh Tosun Bayrak, The Shape of Light, p. 24. 27 Ernst, The Shambhala Guide to Sufism, p. 21. Khandaker 8 term remain unclear, but some theories include that it derives from the Greek word Sophos, meaning “wise man,” from the Arabic word Suf, meaning “wool”—the clothing worn by many ascetics and prophets for its simple material, from the Arabic word suffa referring to the People of the Bench, “a group of poor followers of the Prophet Muhammad,” or from the Arab term safwa, meaning “the chosen ones.”28 Regardless of its roots, Sufism focuses on perfecting the inner soul through exemplary action. By emulating the actions of the Prophet Muhammad, and living a pious life according to the Qur’an and Sunna (the way of the Prophet), Sufis experience the numinous.
A popular 10th century Sufi, Qushayri, set some of the “prescriptive ethical and spiritual goals” of those who wish to experience Islam through a Sufi path:
Sufism is entry into exemplary behavior and departure from unworthy behavior. Sufism means that God makes you die to yourself and makes you live in Him. The Sufi is single in essence; nothing changes him, nor does he change anything… Sufism means entrusting the soul to God most high for whatever He wishes. Sufism means seizing spiritual realities and giving up on what creatures possess…29
Through their piety and concerted efforts, Sufis attain a special numinous knowledge, a divine Truth that departs from rational truths limited by the animal senses; “Thus there are two sides to Sufism: knowledge and action…piety, asceticism and perfect behaviors are the means and knowledge is the result.”30 Perfect behaviors include abstaining from the unlawful, performing religious obligations and living morally per God’s will and not personal desire. This knowledge cannot be deduced through reflection and reasoning alone, but must be given by God
28 Ernst, pp. 19-22 29 Ernst, p.23. 30 Shaykh Tosun Bayrak, The Shape of Light, p. 16. Khandaker 9 after one commits to an active life of physically living the mental state of creature- consciousness. This remains the ultimate goal and purpose of Sufism.31
Rationalist theorists who dismiss spiritual experiences as irrational, such as Freud, often ignore the depth behind religious feelings. Instead of categorizing certain phenomena as either rational or irrational, we can acknowledge certain phenomena as existing within the limits of rationality or not fully comprehensible by its limitations. Rationality alone cannot determine every truth, as Otto tells us, but neither are numinous feelings an irrational concept. This is where
Otto had his shortcomings. The Sufi theologian Suhrawardi and the practices of Sufism exemplify the codependence of rationality with transcendental Truths. We often assume that rationality remains the precursor to all truth. Maybe, it is the other way around. Perhaps it is the numinous that remains the very essence, the indivisible atom, the wajib, that remains essential for the physical manifestation of rationality, also known as our sensory perceptions.
Bibliography
Al-Suhrawardi, Yahya ibn Habash. Suhrawardi, the Shape of Light: Hayakal Al-Nur. Translated by Tosun Bayrak. Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae, 1998. “Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E).” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed December 14, 2016.
31 Ibid. Khandaker 10