‘Between being and non-being, between Light and Darkness,’ that is our situation; Responsible for the Darkness in so far as one intercepts the Light; Responsible for the Light in so far as one prevents the Darkness from invading and governing it (after Ibn ‘Arabi; in ‘Man of Light in Iranian Sufism’, by Henri Corbin).
Responsibility is the key word here, for to what extent may one be considered responsible for something that one is – for the most part – unaware of? Most people are born with the ability to empathise with other than self, and to act (progressively, as one’s awareness increases) in accordance with such awareness. Our responsibility increases in step with our increasing awareness and thus we in some real and meaningful way take on the role of carers of this Light by our interactions with other than self in more empathetic (and therefore humane )ways. What is also present here (presented to us therefore) is choice. We must engage our will, show our willingness, to become to an increasingly greater extent agents for this Light, reducing thereby the impact the Dark may have in invading or attempting to rule the Light.
Such a responsibility can be heavy indeed for those who comprehend that this is what they were born into this world for according to the Qur ‘an (Vicegerency or khalifa of God, Surah 2:30), to act on behalf of God in this world.
We don’t have to look for shadows, they are everywhere to behold, including particularly of course, within ourselves. What we must do is to engage in this conflict between the Light and the Dark in such a way as to live a life of value (which to a large extent is governed by this awareness).
What we have here is life as metaphor, and its obverse, metaphor as life. Do we then have a metaphor for life, or do we stumble along from crisis to crisis in the hope that somehow, somewhere, someone will help put it all together for us? It used to be a commonplace that a life lived without introspection was a life wasted. Introspection here used is not some glib catchphrase or throwaway line after the manner – oft derided – of ‘navel gazing’ where the subtext is time wasted when one could be acting. The two (introspection and acting) in the sense I am using them here are synonymous in that the one includes the other. Introspection is itself action directed by insight, rather than action that blindly occurs as would often otherwise be the case.
My ‘metaphor for life’ is metaphor itself.
We must create the akasha (container) or amphora that will allow us to become capable of God, carriers of the Light, if you will, in that this Light is synonymous with ‘Haqq’ or Truth (God, the One). Both metaphor therefore and that which it attempts to thus ‘carry-over’ are one and the same thing/substance. This, then, is ‘Tracks in a Pathless Land’ which also refers to that which we leave behind us when we exit this life. Shards of the amphora which were the carriers of our ‘truth’ in so far as we completed our ‘task’ that litter the empty spaces (desert) of this ‘Pathless Land’: it is up to us to find one (for these trails do exist) or even construct one that will help to guide our ‘steps.’
Let us therefore remind ourselves once more of this responsibility that we began with:
In so far as we intercept the Light we are responsible for the Darkness.
In so far as we act to prevent the Darkness from invading and governing this Light we are responsible for the Light.
In a world where obfuscation and lies increase by the day, collectively we are responsible for our situation in that we not only allow this, we actively facilitate it.
Action is therefore called upon all of our parts to turn back this tidal wave of darkness, but such action can never be just random, rather it must be directed by the Light of insight itself, then only our interceptions will not only be heard but will be seen to be heard,
Thus far we have been talking of our role in this whole process of the ‘Interception of the Light,’ and not of that of the Light itself. Our role, that of passing on of that which has been, is, received – compassion – does indicate to some extent how the world could be, if only…but it says little of how the one made capable, through the exercise of will and demonstrated through empathy in the giving to ‘other than self’ – altruistically – are affected in the process. Ibn ‘Arabi has said something to the effect that ‘one cannot know compassion until one has made oneself capable of it.’ for many in the West it is Christ who represents this embodied form, in the East it is perhaps best personified by Gautama Buddha. Each in their own way spread their message of hope through this embodiment. To a large extent, what they were in themselves was their message.
—*—
This ‘Light’ that I’ve been speaking of begs the question: if ‘Light,’ why? What is its ‘source,’ and, if ‘Dark,’ likewise.
There is a saying (I’ve forgotten its ascription) that says something like:
‘How does a fish know water?’
If one were to remove it from water, it certainly is aware of its absence!
Must we do the same here? Or is there an answer to the questions just raised?
Religions certainly claim there is, and – as a Sufi – I have for a very long time accepted those ‘answers’ that equate God with the Light and Satan/Shaitan with the Dark, but have I accepted dogma, or do I see both of these ‘answers’ as another form of metaphor for that which is ultimately unknowable by us (like the ‘fish in the water’ quoted earlier)?
There appears, at least at one level, to be no relationship between that which is finite and that which is infinite, except at the level of ‘parsing.’ One may, in other words, chose any form of measurement to divide up that which is infinite but it must always remain partial/limited and therefore arbitrary. A useful tool perhaps but one always understands that it is not, in any real sense, ‘true.’ Thus one finds oneself somewhat perplexed standing at the door of Ibn ‘Arabi’s claim that man is… ‘Intermediate: situated between being and non-being.’
What can that possibly mean except that of an attempt to situate ‘man’ in both the one (finite) and the other (infinite), and – if so – does that not lead to a suggestion of a third possibility, that ‘place’ where man is situated as the resolution of the two?
One or the other, or neither, or both?
Oscillate …somewhat after a pendulum …from the Latin ‘oscillare’ = to swing.
Digression… [A black butterfly with white wingtips just came to the window, looked in and flew away again.]
To continue…
But one may also view it (oscillation) as ‘X’ moving between two points.
That which arises – which is ever new or renewing itself – at one and the same time partaking of the one or the other (eg Light/Dark). That which manifests at any given moment moves back and forth between these two points or distinctions (being and non-being/form and formless), visible in so far as it is ‘being,’ invisible in so far as it is non-being, yet remaining always at every point ‘itself,’ never changing because change itself is always a product of time and therefore defined.
—-*—-
Many years ago now (see The Dream that changed my Life/blogged earlier) in a ‘body of light’ “I” left the confines (determinates) of my dark, heavy, time-bound physical body and moved to a place where gnosis (knowledge) was given ‘me’ of ‘the word’ that defined the connection between everything in creation…however this ‘word’ not only described this ‘connection’ perfectly, but was itself this connection; thus to know the one was to experience the other.
This ‘experience’ (for such it was) was brought to an end by the egoic mind becoming excited by this awareness/experience and – in so doing – that which underpinned the knowing was flung back into the dark physical form of the earthbound body.
On recovering from this experience (once the mind was brought back into equilibrium by an effort of focus) I knew one thing only – that it was a True experience. That ‘word’ had been known and experienced, at one and the same time, but – and it’s a very big but – the word itself (and my ability therefore to ‘experience’ its content) had been lost! In attempting to recover ‘it’ my now earthbound mind searched for something to uncover it. I knew (in the experience itself) that it wasn’t ‘vibration’ as the Indian philosophers claimed (that was why the experience was brought to such an abrupt end because, at the time it was happening, I knew that that was not ‘it’ and determined to tell/inform ‘everyone’!). Then what? For some reason the thought that ‘oscillation’ – although not it either – was, none the less closer, came to me.
For many, many years now, that which also came to me shortly thereafter, from the opening lines of John’s Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God” became the focus of my attention, and felt ‘right.’ Only in writing the earlier lines, in relation to Ibn ‘Arabi’s …Man is ‘Intermediate: Situated between being and non-being’ in relation to his positioning in this life, between the Light and the Dark and thereby responsible for both, did the idea (re)occur of the possibility of this ‘oscillation’ (between the two points) as an indicator of the reality of our lived experience of both realms occur to me.
To know the one (gnosis) was to experience the other (being) thus transcending limitation/time itself.
Between the Light and the Dark, a barrier runs, a chasm of fire, which must be bridged, and it is only from gnosis (this inner knowing) that this bridge can be constructed. It is within gnosis itself that this bridge is formed, partaking of both, yet being held by neither because it (gnosis) cannot be held, only experienced/lived. Not of time because it (potentially) accesses everything possible (the One which unites all), it is thereby timeless, and it is by and through its light (for gnosis is light) that this world and the next may be also be navigated.
Tracks in a Pathless Land 