The question has been reflected in my, er, reflection up a blog post about koans on a 'conservative' Quaker blog, as well as questions raised in Cat Chapin-Bishop's post on what it means to be a Christian in her, er, also Quaker (but from a pagan point-of-view) blog.
In the former, the blog-author questions the utility of words used by other Friends that are outside the purview of Quakerism, especially when terms exist within Quakerism that convey the idea. Can one speak of a 'Christian koan', for instance?
My gut feeling was to jump in with 'Well sure you can', but as I turned the idea over in my head I realized there was a problem. Beyond the idea of co-optation and cultural imperialism that would represent, it's a misuse of the term 'koan', which is deeply embedded in Zen Buddhism and, in fact, represents a particular outgrowth of the pairing of Yogacara and Madhyamika within Zen thinking. Trying to divorce the idea from that background cheapens it, makes it senseless, in the same way that 'meditation for relaxation' is like using a diamond-tipped saw-blade to slice bread. Or...
... New Age pseudoscience. Like: What the Bleep Do We Know?, The Secret, or Masaru Emoto's water crystal 'work', including the idea that Eastern mysticism somehow 'explains' quantum physics, or at least that they draw the same conclusions. To me, this is equally - if not more - insidious than meditation for relaxation; it's backdoor Creation Science, only because it's 'Eastern' and 'mystical', which somehow makes it OK. The Vedas, I am sorry, are no more scientifically valid than Genesis.
The great human tendency is to try to unite disparate pieces into a consistent whole. The desire for unity, cohesion, is a good thing: I do not mean to denounce it, but instead suggest that believing there is a connection between two disparate things does not mean that such a connection exists.
Which presents a certain problem, or at least a certain tension, when it comes to dual membership in religious bodies, which is what the latter blog post seems to be about (to me).
Can one be, as it were, a 'Christian pagan', or a 'Pagan christian'? Being neither myself, I can't speak about such a question with experience. So instead, I ask myself the question of whether I can be a 'Muslim christian' or a 'Christian muslim'.
The short answer - the answer the beloved Prophet, peace and blessing upon him and his family, would most likely give - is that the two are in fact the same. A true Muslim is really a true Christian, and vice versa. The Qur'an, which as a Muslim I take to be the Word of God (in the same way a Johannine Christian takes Jesus, peace be upon him, as the Word of God), says:
2:62
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَالَّذِينَ هَادُواْ وَالنَّصَارَى وَالصَّابِئِينَ مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحاً فَلَهُمْ أَجْرُهُمْ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ وَلاَ خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلاَ هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ
"Inna allatheena amanoo waallatheena hadoo waalnnasara waalssabieena man amana biAllahi waalyawmi alakhiri waAAamila salihan falahum ajruhum AAinda rabbihim wala khawfun AAalayhim wala hum yahzanoona"
"Those who believe - and those who follow the Jewish, [or] the Christians [or] the Sabians - who[ever] believes in God and the Last Day, and does good, shall be rewarded by their Sustainer: no fear shall overcome them, nor will they grieve."
But such universalism seems to fall into the same trap described above; also, taking this particular ayah (verse) of the Qur'an out of the context of the entire Qur'anic message would belittle or completely ignore much more numerous Qur'anic ayat which serve as polemic against Judaic and Christian doctrine, such as excluse salvation in Judaic doctrine and tripartite Godhead and the theory of incarnation in the Christian.
In other words, by saying that Christian and Muslim are, in fact, interchangeable terms, then neither have any real meaning. They become empty, hollow concepts. Which would seem to render the idea of a 'Bektashi Quaker' or 'Quaker Bektashi' meaningless as well, doing disservice, ultimately, to both.
That led me to another question. I identify myself as an 'ashiq of the Bektashi tariqa; the 'definition' of an 'ashiq, however, is broad. According to J.K. Birge in his The Bektashi Order of Dervishes, an 'ashiq "... is attracted by and feels a certain loyalty to Bektashi principles and practice but who has not actually taken the nasip [sic]". (The nasip is formal initiation)
Such a definition is pretty wildly open; in fact, it felt too open for my tastes. By such a definition, it would seem, anyone could consider themselves an 'ashiq, even if that person were not Shi'i, nor Muslim, nor even a monotheist, nor even a theist! How in the world could that make sense?
I took the question to some Bektashiyya I know. Could one speak of a pagan 'ashiq? The reply I got:
Brother- the answer to your question is most certainly "Yes". All "Ashik" really means is "Lover"- in this case of the human orientated and liberal outlook- as well as deep mysticism - of Hunkar Haji Bektash Veli. We revere all truths of all religions and philosophies. Anyone who fixes their belief has put the Truth (Hakkikat) in a little box of their own imagination. They can never directly see the truth..Mohammed said-"Those who are blind in this world will be blind in the next." & " Seek knowledge, even in China". Look up al Khidr a.k.a. hidir a.k.a. hizir to see that a knowledge exists outsıde of any holy book (of pagan roots probably.) outside of all prophecy.
Not precisely the sort of wanted, if I'm to be honest. My affiliation with Bektashism is incredibly precious to me; it is where all the crazy mixed-up notions and beliefs I hold in my head and heart finally feel as if they have found expression. It feels as if I finally have not only a name to give to that inchoate mess, but an identity, and with that, a path and a community. It's not something I want to 'share' with anybody and everybody who, on a whim, affirms an affiliation like some Spiritual Scout merit badge. I feel like that cheapens something incredibly precious to me. How dare they!
Looking at that, then, I can see from where fear and discomfort with universalism comes. You've found something deeply precious to you; perhaps you don't even mind sharing it; but if you're going to share it, you want to set rules and limitations on what can be done with your precious.
I've cautioned against just that to those who see me as their teacher. I tell them that if they're going to give something, anything, to somebody else, they cannot set limitations. You don't 'give' expecting something in return: that's an exchange, a contractual transaction, an economic interaction. It implies that: idem, if the party of the second part should fail to comply with the terms of the transaction as stipulated by the party of the first part, then the party of the first part has recourse to redress of said grievance with the party of the second part. Such transactions have their place in the world, but they are not conducive to fostering a loving relationship between people.
... And, of course, there's the rub. Love.
Because in a relationship predicated upon love, such as that which exists between God and humankind, the fundamental principle is that of giving wildly without thought of return. God gives to us... well, this: the incredible and majestic universe, and furthermore to each of us individually this precious life, without any desire for return.
On our end, we have the choice of giving what we have to God. Doing so is its own reward, as the reward of love is the happiness of the beloved, and nothing more.
Now, if I really believe what I believe - that there is 'that of God' in everyone, to phrase it Quakerly; or, that God is expressed through everyone, to phrase it (clumsily) in a Bektashian sense - then in order to be an 'ashiq (meaning 'lover', you'll remember), I should be willing to give the name and identity of 'ashiq to anyone. Everyone. Being a lover requires loving.
In fact, to refuse to give the name and identity to anyone is to refuse to give to God - to set requirements - which means that I do not love God, which means, really, that I'm not an 'ashiq.
Couched in such a way, that'd mean that I'm definitely not an 'ashiq right now, since I definitely do not love each and every person as I love God. Which means the whole point is moot.
Because really? It's by doing that one is. Not vice versa.
2 comments:
Chris,
The concerns you mention about universalism vs. a specific tradition are concerns that are at the heart of most Quaker discussions nowadays. From the beginning, Quakerism was both Christian and universalist. As you point out, it's hard to maintain both of those at once. So modern liberal Quakers have generally decided to emphasize the universal even if it means seeing Quakerism as no longer a Christian faith. At the same time, there are many evangelical Quakers who emphasize the Christian aspect of Quakerism while perhaps slighting the universalist aspects.
And then there are those of us who are somewhere in the middle, trying to somehow do both. For me, at the heart of Quakerism is an understanding that our words and concepts and images are always inadequate for naming and understanding God -- in which case ALL such concepts (whether Christian, Bhuddist, Muslim, etc.)are provisional -- merely fingers pointed at the Divine. Then again, Quakerism is a particular spiritual path with a long tradition of enabling spiritual growth. Can one pull out parts of this and have them still be meaningful? Can one bring in "replacement parts" from other faiths and have them still work in the same manner?
It's a puzzle! But perhaps that's how we're supposed to live: always within the puzzle, the paradox, balancing these things -- rather than deciding once and for all that THIS is the "correct answer."
Peace,
Kent
Hu Dost!
It's rare to see such a like minded individual on the web. I've been through many of the same struggles you are expressing here. I, too, am a person drawn to the Bektashi path who considered Quakerism in the absence of a local Bektashi presence. When you're looking for a Dost, it makes sense to check out the Friends! ;) lol.
I never actually went to the Meeting, though I'd still like to. I do attend Juma and am a more-or-less Sunni though Alevi-influenced in belief, but the local masjids drive me up the wall. I am not entirely happy with that situation, but I had tried for some time attend an Episcopal Church while still being a Muslim. not surprisingly, in retrospect, that didn't work out very well. Elhamdullillah, it got me out of a vaguely malignant and potentially dangerous masjid, but I always felt that there were so many things I didn't actually believe and so many other things that were missing. Before long, I felt the need to go to Pagan rituals and a Buddhist group to fill in the gap. The odd thing was that in that experience I never really felt like a Christian, a Buddhist, or a Pagan. I was, and still am, a Sufi who needed a decent community nearby. And then, just when the pieces were coming back together, my shaykh went back to Turkey. Eyvallah.
I would have suggested that you try meeting Sherif Baba, a Turkish Rifa'i shaykh who lived in North Carolina. His teachings are essentially Alevi and his background is partly Bektashi, though his ijazet is from the Rifa'i Marufi. Unfortunately, he has moved back to Istanbul now.
Did you ever wind up going to Taylor? I'm thinking about going on the 10th of August for Baba Rexheb's commemoration.
If you have any ideas about making contact there, I'm all ears. You might also like a blog I just started--
http://fireofashk.blogspot.com/
there's a good bit of Alevi/Bektashi music and semah up there and a bunch of sohbet's from my shaykh in which many of the ideas are very close to the Alevi position. Inshallah, you may find something useful. Please stop by and share any comments you may have. You can also find me as "Wesley" on the Facebook Bektashi Dervishes page.
Huuu....
Nedim
Post a Comment