The Flame - a random quote

Have you ever read Zaehner's "Mysticism: Sacred and Profane"? This is a really excellent book about Indian and Islamic, as well as Christian mysticisms. Basically, he's taking issue with the "perennial philosophy" proponents like Huxley who see something akin to the Brahmavada of Shankara as being the universal type of mystical experience.

Being a theist (a Catholic), Zaehner tries to show that Brahmavada is really foreign to Islam, a theistic religion, and he even tries to trace a historical influence from Shankara through Abu Zayid to Ibn Arabi, which is where the fanaa idea comes into Islam. (This has been vehemently rejected by most Islamic scholars, but it may just well be that they don't want to accept that any Hindu ideas could have crept into Islam, not even through a Sindhi convert like Zayid.)

Anyway, Zaehner makes the point that fanaa is NOT merging into Brahman, as your quote clearly shows. Nevertheless, the Vaishnava position finds this to be a pale kind of median state between Brahmavada and full personal union with Krishna.

We could interpret the above in the following way: The devotee is so forgetful of himself that he only is conscious of God." Indeed, the way it is expressed almost seems to indicate a total obliteration of self-awareness.

It is my feeling that the Krishna bhakta is not absorbed only in Krishna, but is of necessity fully conscious of himself as a self-important individual in relation to Krishna. Thus Yashoda, for instance, thinks Krishna needs to get a good thrashing or he'll grow up to be a dacoit. (Who knows, he might even pretend to be a government agent, taking taxes under false pretenses in order to extort sexual favors from innocent women!) Radha thinks, "This guy will never know the art of love unless I punish him for his misdeeds. He cannot do this to me and get away with it." In other words, the devotee has become a full person in relationship to God.

This same consciousness should extend to the identity in the material world, but not without the humility that is a natural part of a devotee's culture.

I find Zaehner to be one of the most useful writers on Hinduism, primarily because he seems most sympathetic to theistic strains in it. Though like many Westerners he never has a real affinity for the symbols, i.e., Krishna's person and lila, etc.

Nevertheless one of my favorite quotes comes from "Matter and Spirit" (a kind of multi-pronged comparitive study). On page 118-119, he writes:

"The Bhagavad Gita is the most important document not only in the history of Hinduism, but in the history of mysticism as a whole. For Christians too, Krishna, the incarnate God of love, who is yet rex tremendae majestatis, prefigures, as no other mythological figure can, the historical person of Jesus Christ, the Word made man who will yet return to pass judgment on mankind."

I love this because, of course, as historical as Jesus may be, "the Word made man who will...etc." is pure mythology.

Nevertheless, Zaehner's insights into the Gita (he's a pretty strong fan of Ramanuja) and comparisons to Christian (Catholic) theology are excellent material for a Vaishnava who has an interest in understanding Catholicism better, and thereby enriching his own understanding of the Vaishnava viewpoint.

QUOTE(Satyabhama @ Dec 3 2004, 02:59 AM)

What think the assembled devotees of this quote?- (it refers to the Sufi state of "fanaa")

Like the flame of the candle in the presence of the sun, he is really non-existent, though he is existent in formal calculation.

Though the flame be invisible in the bright light of the sun, its existence burns stronger for we can touch it.

What says your Sufi to this, O Satyabhama?

Though it takes away from the topic at hand (actually only slightly, as it seems to wend its way back to it), Zaehner's next paragraphs are pretty good and interesting. This shows the value of an outsider's insights:

Hinduism is mystical through and through, and the radical reversal of the dominant trend in the Bhagavad Gita is, therefore, of overriding importance; for it smashes the wall of elaborate self-sufficiency that fallen man had built around himself and brings him face to face with God. Both Taoism, Buddhism, and the Sankhya-Yoga , are religions that opt out of life, reject the world by rejecting individuality and the responsibilities that individuality brings with it. Krishna comes to change all that; for he implies that though, theoretically, there may be nothing wrong in this, it really amounts to a colossal act of spiritual pride; for it means that man, by seeking to be like God in his eternal impassibility and unfathomable peace, spurns to be like God in his capacity of creator and sustainer of the world. This is surely the acme of hubris; for if God is not too proud to keep this world in being, who is man to turn his back on it? And this too Krishna makes very clear to his friend:

"Nothing need I do in the three worlds; there is nothing beyond my reach that I should strive to attain it. Yet do I continue to act. For did I not tirelessly busy myself with action, then would men imitate me everywhere. These worlds would run down, were I not to act, and I would be the cause of chaos and the destroyer of these [my] creatures."

The continued existence of the phenomenal world, then, is of importance to God: he cares. Man, then, on his side, has a duty to this transient world as well as to his own immortal soul; and the point that Krishna makes is that the two are not incompatible. Man has his duty to neighbor (even though it may be to kill him in a just war, as in Arjuna's case) and he has a duty to himself, and through his neighbor and himself to God.

From the purely mystical point of view, however, the Gita's message is that realization of one's own eternal essence is not the end of the mystic's path: it is little more than a beginning. It corresponds to the via purgative of the Christian mystics, the purpose of which is to wipe God's image clean in preparation for its encounter with God himself. To realize the ground of one's being is not to realize Being itself, as Buber saw. It is a mistake that the soul of fallen man is bound to make, and it is the last refuge of his spiritual pride.

QUOTE

Like the flame of the candle in the presence of the sun, he is really non-existent, though he is existent in formal calculation.

I don't think my interpretation fits precicely with the Sufi idea of fanaa, but my interpretation of the verse would be that the flame of the candle, though ontologically separate from the sun, is essentially divine in nature. Thus, the divine nature of the soul, allows the individual to touch the divine. The individuality is never formally lost, so the soul is divine (part of God) though certainly is not the Lord Himself. And the Lord (the sun) does not loose His identity either. I don't know, I see a visishtadvaitic interpretation possible here.

In the end though, I suppose it is about bhava... the sufi's bhava here seems to be that the individuality of the sufi before the Lord in the state of fanaa will no longer be a matter of consideration, because the whole conciousness is absorped in Allah alone?

QUOTE(Satyabhama @ Dec 3 2004, 12:58 PM)

QUOTE

Like the flame of the candle in the presence of the sun, he is really non-existent, though he is existent in formal calculation.

................... my interpretation of the verse would be that the flame of the candle, though ontologically separate from the sun, is essentially divine in nature. Thus, the divine nature of the soul, allows the individual to touch the divine. The individuality is never formally lost, so the soul is divine (part of God) though certainly is not the Lord Himself. ............
In the end though, I suppose it is about bhava... the sufi's bhava here seems to be that the individuality of the sufi before the Lord in the state of fanaa will no longer be a matter of consideration, because the whole conciousness is absorped in Allah alone?

Satyabhama, I feel that you have expressed the nub of dervish dialectic very well. Unfortunately this cannot be evinced from the "Sufi quote" you have presented. because
* the quote ascribes only a notional (calculated) existence to the flame whereas your expression ascribes a divine based existence to the flame
* the quote ascribes an ultimate non existence of the flame whereas your expression only ascribes a focus derived relative non existence of it.

I disagree. The quote says "really non existant THOUGH existent in formal calculation," this means that in the presence of the absolute vastness of the sun, the individual flame's existence is so minimalized, that it is "really" non-existent (ie. its existence is ultimately unimportant).

The reason I applied a "divine based" existence to the flame is that both the sun and the flame are comprised of fire (as far as traditional elements go meaning earth, water, air...) Not only does this imply that both are made "of the same material," but also that that material is eternally engaged in explosive leaps of flaming engery- so we could also say that the ecstasy of the individual sufi becomes one with the bliss of God (the flame is non-existant) though the individual is formally still there as a separate "flame" in the fire of divine bliss.

By the way, the first paragraph of my previous post was my personal interpretation, which is based on my own "anubhavas" that rose while reading the verse, and is not based on any Sufi doctrine, thereby I prefaced it thus... "I don't think my interpretation fits precicely with the Sufi idea of fanaa..."

QUOTE

* the quote ascribes only a notional (calculated) existence to the flame whereas your expression ascribes a divine based existence to the flame

QUOTE(Satyabhama @ Dec 4 2004, 12:18 AM)

The quote credits existence only on the basis of a notion ("formal calculation") saying that it is "really non existent". As the realness of anything is sourced in the ultimate reality of the divine, the quote denies the nexus between the divine and the flame by saying that "really non existent". In contrast, the implication of your expression is that the flame is dependent on the divine, it really exists for it is derived from the ultimate reality.

QUOTE(Satyabhama @ Dec 4 2004, 12:18 AM)

.....By the way, the first paragraph of my previous post was my personal interpretation.....

There is no fault in this. I don't quite understand why you need to defend yourself so. As I said earlier I appreciated it. Perhaps you should re-read my earlier post. Not everything said in a critical vein is a negative criticism. You can call it "interactive appreciation" if you like.

Maybe my interpretation was influenced by the paragraph previous to the quote I gave you in the text I am reading (Mystical Dimensions of Islam by Annemarie Schimmel)-

"Hallaaj had used the allegory of the moth and the candle to allude to the state of extinction (fanaa). Rumi, in order to explain Halaaj's unitive expression anaa'l-Haqq, compares the mystic in this state to a piece of iron that is thrown into the furnace and becomes so hot that it regards itself as fire, though a substantial union cannot be achieved."

The state of fanaa is not the final state either, but precedes the state known as "baqaa":

"Then man may reach the state of baqaa, "persistence" or "subsistence" in God, and experience the "second separation" or "gathering of the gathering," jam' al-jam'" "Man i sresuscitated out of the nothingness, completely transformed into an absolute Self. The multiplicity becomes visible again- but in a changed form, namely as determinations of the one Reality." In this state, the mystic acts completely through God."

Hmm...

... so what are your thoughts on this?

QUOTE(Satyabhama @ Dec 4 2004, 05:16 PM)

.........(Mystical Dimensions of Islam by Annemarie Schimmel)-

"Hallaaj had used the allegory of the moth and the candle to allude to the state of extinction (fanaa). Rumi, in order to explain Halaaj's unitive expression anaa'l-Haqq, compares the mystic in this state to a piece of iron that is thrown into the furnace and becomes so hot that it regards itself as fire, though a substantial union cannot be achieved."

.......................................................
Hmm...

... so what are your thoughts on this?

Yes, Bhagavaan and Bhakta are qualitatively one yet substantially different. Does it sound familiar? Yet such expressions of theology preceded Lord Chaitanya's advent. Such expressions arose outside the Gangetic locus ......

QUOTE(Satyabhama @ Dec 4 2004, 05:16 PM)

.........
"Then man may reach the state of baqaa, "persistence" or "subsistence" in God, and experience the "second separation" or "gathering of the gathering," jam' al-jam'" "Man i sresuscitated out of the nothingness, completely transformed into an absolute Self. The multiplicity becomes visible again- but in a changed form, namely as determinations of the one Reality." In this state, the mystic acts completely through God."

Hmm...

... so what are your thoughts on this?

A universalised expose of siddha deha .....

It's really quite interesting, isn't it?

Especially how the flute keeps cropping up with these "intoxicated" sufis- and also how Rumi's Shams-i-Tabrizi reminds me so much of Shyam sometimes...

QUOTE(Satyabhama @ Dec 5 2004, 05:12 AM)

It's really quite interesting, isn't it?

Especially how the flute keeps cropping up with these "intoxicated" sufis- and also how Rumi's Shams-i-Tabrizi reminds me so much of Shyam sometimes...

Sufic devotionalism is very Chaitanyaite if you ask me. Not at all "impersonalist".
The dervish relates with fervour to the presence of the Divine even in the absence of His Form. Like Chaitanya, the dervish loves on even in separation, like the Milkmaids of Braj. This is the stuff of Vipralambha.

The Sufis are "personalists' but they do not need a vigraha focus to make them so. Imagine, say, one night you are in your sitting room with your harmonium or mridanga singing and suddenly, for a moment, you have that Vision and They are there in a corner of your room illuminating your very being and flooding your darkest depth with bhava. You drop in ecstasy. Raadhe Shyaam! And then you rise and you look up and they are gone. Would not that corner of the room become very special to you, very sacred? Would not you continue to feel their presence there for ever despite the absence of their form? Would you not continue to cherish it? And yet, others may think you are revering thin air .....

To love in absence is a statement of a deep seated connection to divine presence.

Nitai Gaura Hari Hari Bol !

We will not do without at least keeping the form in our hearts to cherish.

Really, it reminds me of Rumi's Shams-i-Tabrizi, and Rumi burst forth into song after Sham's death. Maybe I should post some biographic info...

Mysticism is the poetic approach to God.
Religion, the prosaic.

QUOTE

Mysticism is the poetic approach to God.
Religion, the prosaic.

I wonder what Rumi would have thought of us attempting to analyze his verses of divine ecstasy...

....

My words rise in the warmth of the heart,
they fade in the cold of the world.
Like fish on dry land
they quiver for a moment, then die.

If you take in my words but do not digest them
you'll have to color every truth
with your own imaginings.

O man, you drink from an empty cup
while the precious wine gets poured
in the gutter.
You drink from the well of your own delusion
while spitting out
these sweet and ancient words.

If you eat stale bread
thinking that it's fresh,
all you'll get is a stomachache.

~Rumi
(from The Bread of Egypt trans. by Jonathan Star)

So acintya-bheda-abheda-vAda predates Baladeva and even Mahaprabhu? That is interesting. Anymore information on that, Talasiga?

Is it possible that simultaneous oneness & difference is an ancient concept and we have come full circle through the various flavors of advaita & dvaita schools? Perhaps all of those ideas have been out there for millenia and we are just not aware of the whole history of them. I recall Aristotle's writings about the soul in his metaphysics, which are rather bizarre. I don't know that we can safely assume that Baladeva was the first to introduce the doctrine, and perhaps he was just the first to fully develop it along the lines that he did.

QUOTE(Mina @ Dec 5 2004, 03:56 PM)

So acintya-bheda-abheda-vAda predates Baladeva and even Mahaprabhu? That is interesting. Anymore information on that, Talasiga?

....

The vaad attempts to express an eternal principle. Mahaaprabhu lived it.

Information? You just need to study the literature of the Sufis, most of which is from before the advent of Chaitanya. It, like any other tradition will contain paradoxes, and possibly even, contradictions. Arrive at an exegesis yourself. Mostly, I find, the achintya-bhedaabhed exegesis honours best its piety, its purity and my consonance with it.

The history of North India is is dotted with Muslim Rulers of Sufi persuasion who honoured and loved and protected the mystic bhaktas.

The tip of His curl is saying,
"Walk this tightrope."
The fire of His candle is saying,
"O moth, come here."
O heart, be steady,
dance gently upon that rope.

But the moment you hear His call
fly into the candle's flame.

When you know the rapture of this burning
you would not go on for another moment
without its heat.
Even if the water of life
were pouring all around
it would not lure you from the flames.

~Rumi

QUOTE(Talasiga @ Dec 5 2004, 07:09 AM)

Just wondered if you have any quotes from Sufi/Islamic literature to back up this view? I disagree with the view that the Sufi goals are not impersonalistic. My studies into this matter have shown me that they are. However, I would like to consider a different viewpoint if it exists.