#malamatiyya

[prala]

“This way is like handling pure fire while soaked in oil. Only the rarest souls, perhaps one in ten thousand, can traverse it without being completely consumed. Most who attempt it fall into either spiritual lawlessness or despair.”

- Al-Ghazali



[apenitentialprayer]

When Metaphysics Affects Mystical Motivations

On the most general level, that which tricksters, clowns, mad lamas, Zen masters, holy fools, rascal gurus, and crazy-wise adepts have in common is an active rejection of consensual reality. [...] There are, however, significant differences between these figures; these involve motivations behind their eccentric behavior. Thus, the eccentricity of the holy fools of Christianity and Islam has the declared purpose of inviting scorn and mockery, so that they are encouraged to cultivate humility. Humility is a virtue for them, but more than a virtue it is a form of grace. It is the condition of allowing the ego-personality to subside in the Ground of its existence. Humility, or self-surrender to the larger Reality, can be cultivated but not forced; whenever it is too eagerly sought, it is merely egotism in a particularly nasty guise. Nevertheless, as St. Teresa of Avila knew, self-surrender is the foundation of the entire edifice of spiritual life. Some saints of the past have found verbal and even physical abuse useful in their attempt to reduce the “I”-sense, just as not a few spiritual seekers today enlist with teachers who employ harsh methods of ego-bashing. It is quite possible that this peculiar need to be chastised by an external agency includes an element of masochism. Saints and mystics are not beyond psychopathology, as we will see, and neither are modern seekers. Yet this does not necessarily mean that the self-debasing life, for instance, of a holy fool is no more than of a deep-seated neurosis. On the contrary, without blinding ourselves to possible psychopathological manifstations, we may see an authentic spiritual impulse at work in th self-abandoning life, leading to growth and wholeness. While self-abnegation also plays a central role in th eccentricity of the crazy-wise adepts of Tibet, with them it has a different purpose. The mad lamas behave oddly not because they want to demean themselves in the eyes of the world, but because they want to teach their contemporaries a spiritual lesson. This intent may also be present in he holy fools of Christianity and Islam, but for them it does not have the same weight as the desire to grow in humility, or meekness, through society’s contempt. The motivational distinction between holy fools and crazy-wise adepts can be seen to arise from differences in their respective metaphysics, which, in my opinion, are reflective of their general level of spiritual attainment. Thus, the holy fools typically relate to the ultimate Reality as a personal God “out there,” whose voice can be discerned in the chambers of the heart. The crazy-wise adepts, on the other hand, view the Ultimate as their own essential nature. Their avowed metaphysics is clearly nondualist rather than dualist. Though not absent from nondualist schools of thought like Tibetan Buddhism, humility belongs more properly to the “language” of dualistic metaphysics. Here the Creator-God, the Holy One, is deemed the only worshipful being that exists. His rightful worship involves accute humbleness on the part of his creatures. An aspect of such worship is to identify with, and adopt the life of, fellow creatures who are especially underprivileged and who suffer from the callousness of ordinary society - the hungry, sick, and oppressed. [...] By contrast, the Tibetan adepts and their Hindu counterparts do not conceive of, or experience, Reality as an “other.” The self, or ego, is assumed to be an illusion that inexplicably arises, together with the objective universe, against the backdrop of the singular Being (tattva) or Void (shunya). The ego-personality is thus not taken seriously at all, and the notion of inviting ridicule in order to lessen the ego-sense means very little in a nondualist context. The Tibetan or Hindu adepts, ideally and generally, engage their spiritual discipline (sadhana) with the intuitive certainty that at the deepest level of being they are already fully awake, or enlightened, and that this innate enlightenment will become evident in the course of their practice. [...] The adept’s commitment to self-transcendence tends to express itself in a general disinterest in ordinary life, a penchant for the cultivation of ecstatic states, and, more rarely, in acts of active compassion.

- Georg Feuerstein (Holy Madness: The Shock Tactics and Radical Teachings of Crazy-Wise Adepts, Holy Fools, and Rascal Gurus, pages 204, 205-206, 206). Emphasis added.

[apenitentialprayer]

Thus, in Sufism, we notice an expression of  crazy wisdom very similar to the orientation adopted by the holy fools in Christianity. Both types of crazy-wise practitioner pursued the "kingdom of God" without concern for the worldly opposition their self-chosen life-styles provoked. Their guiding ideals were freedom from object-dependence (often manifesting in voluntary poverty and a life of wandering) and humility, as well as a submission to the world of the spirit that was, certainly in the case of Christian fools, frequently combined with extreme asceticism. At times their disregard for secular attitudes and institutions manifested as active disrespect and social criticism. However, they did not neccessarily expect their censure and prophecies to lead to a change of heart in others. They did anticipate further vilification from the countless many who, bereft of spiritual discernment, judge by appearances only and fail to see the purity of the fool's heart. In other words, these holy madmen and women almost invited accusations of immorality, irreligiosity, and insanity, because such criticism provided them with a stimulus for intensifying their practice of religious self-abnegation.

Georg Feuerstein (Holy Madness: The Shock Tactics and Radical Teachings of Crazy-Wise Adepts, Holy Fools, and Rascal Gurus, page 19)

[apenitentialprayer]

Sometimes I get so caught up on removing the proverbial speck from my neighbor's eye and I realize I'm failing to remove the proverbial plank from my own eyes. But, I'm often too timid to speak up when I think someone is in the wrong. So I just waste my time internally judging others, stewing in my negative emotions. As if I'm daydreaming of aggresively removing the speck from their eye, probably unintentionally injuring them in the process. In the end I remove neither the plank nor the speck.

Guilty as charged, too. I can think of no less than three times in the past five months where I became mad at someone over something they did, proceeded to spend hours or even days getting madder and madder over how I expect them to react when I finally do decide to bring things up to them... only for them to answer reasonably, with me having wallowed in poisonous thoughts and feelings for no good reason whatsoever. You’d think the first time or two would teach me a lesson, but no. :P Something that I need to try to remember are the words of Saint Paul: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief” (1 Timothy 1:15). That is not to say that we should make ourselves feel miserable all the time because of how sinful we are, but it’s good advice for how we choose to deal with sins in our lives; we should grant the people around us leeway by giving them the benefit of the doubt, while being merciless in our attempts to root out sin in our own life. We can possibly learn something from the Malamatiyya school of Islamic thought: Hamdun al-Qassar taught that when we become angry at someone who is sinning, we should try to come up with seventy excuses for them, and if we are unable to do that then we have sinned in our lack of charity. That is not to say that sinning is okay; it means that we’re supposed to be assuming the best of those around us. Remember, we’re the foremost sinner, after all. It does mean that when we admonish sinners (and that is an act of mercy, as the Church has always taught), we must do so out of love, assuming people have their reasons for doing what they do and trying not to let our anger get the better of us. And we should do it privately, in a non-confrontational way, keeping in mind our own weaknesses and faults as we do so.

[apenitentialprayer]

From recent research, it seems that Islamic mysticism originally included two distinct lines of spiritual development; one centered in Mesopotamia, principally in Baghdad, and the other in Khurasan, a province that once included northeastern Iran, Afghanistan, and parts of Central Asia. These two trends have been referred to as the Mesopotamian and the Khurasanian: the malamati and Sufi schools respectively. Hasan Şuşud called these two approaches the northern and southern branches of Islamic mysticism, but these descriptors are a bit too vague to be useful. [...] Sviri notes that only after the second half of the tenth century did the term Sufi come to be used as a comprehensive term identifying all Islamic mystics.

Yannis Toussulis (Sufism and the Way of Blame: Hidden Sources of a Sacred Psychology, pages 72, 76)

[0tricksterlove0]

Truths of the Holy Fool

Judgement isn’t Truth. It is falsity pretending to be Truth. Don’t get Tricked by your own judgement. Use Discernment. Discernment is different to judgement. Discernment Sees Clearly. Judgement clouds your Vision.

[apenitentialprayer]

If a friend among your friend errs, make seventy excuses for him. If your hearts are unable to do this, then know the shortcoming is in your own selves.

Hamdun al-Qassar, a member of the Malamatiyya movement.