SPIRITUALITY STUDIESVolume 11 / Issue 1 SPRING 2025
Spirituality Studies 11-1 Spring 2025 Publisher: The Society for Spirituality Studies Published in partnership with the Monastic Interreligious Dialogue and the European Union of Yoga Available online: www.spirituality-studies.org Editor-in-Chief: Doc. Dr. Martin Dojčár PhD. Graphic Design: Martin Hynek Contact: editor@spirituality-studies.org ISSN 1339-9578 Donate Spirituality Studies’ mission is to deliver high-quality studies, articles, educational materials, and information related to spirituality in its various forms. At the same time, the journal provides a forum for sharing personal spiritual experiences. By combining academic and experiential approaches to spirituality, Spirituality Studies aims to provide a unique platform for dialogue between a variety of viewpoints, approaches, and methodologies in the study of spirituality. Spirituality Studies publishes all articles under the open access policy, allowing for unlimited public use. Please consider donating to support the continued publishing of Spirituality Studies as an open-access journal for free. ←← Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961), portrait from 1935 in the collection of ETH-Bibliothek, colored. Content 1 Editorial Martin Dojčár 3 Mystical Perspectives on the Symbolism of the Eye Patrick Laude 19 Effects of Four Foundations of MindfulnessBased Intervention (FFMBI) on Salivary Cortisol Levels, Body Composition, Blood Pressure and Pulse Rate, and Brain Waves of Practitioners Nadnapang Phophichit et al. 41 Jung’s Kant: Between Philosophical Inspiration and Creative Misinterpretation Ivana Ryška Vajdová 59 Relationships Between Religiosity, Self-Esteem, and Purpose in Life Carmen María Salvador-Ferrer 71 Beyond Gender: Akka Mahadevi’s Devotion as a Feminine Way of Being Hari M. G.
Spirituality Studies 11-1 Spring 2025 1 EDITORIAL Editorial The central spiritual process of self-transcendence is always accompanied by some form of love. Love is the force that makes the process of ego transcendence possible. A typical feature of theistic spiritualities, such as a Christian one, “is particularly intent on debunking this ego-centeredness,” as Patrick Laude (2025, 4) points out in his opening study of the eleventh volume of Spirituality Studies. The spiritual instruction of The Cloud of Unknowing, a classic fourteenth-century mystical text from the same tradition, promotes loving contemplation without words and thoughts, that is, without an object of consciousness (non-intentionality), culminating in self-surrender where one’s love reaches its peak, “lovingly making itself nothing and exalting God as all in all” (The Epistle of Privy Counsel 1982, 178). The same is true of the Indian traditions of bhakti, as Hari M. G. (2025, 78) reminds us in the concluding article of the first issue of the same volume: “The sustained intensity of bhakti differentiates it from ordinary emotions – it is an all-consuming fire that transforms the devotee’s entire being.” Surprisingly, though, even the wisdom traditions are not as different as one might think. In the Spring 2024 issue of Spirituality Studies, Michael James (2024, 10) drew our attention to the Indian jñāni Ramana Maharshi’s key teachings on bhakti, which “in its deepest sense is alone what motivates us to investigate ourselves deeply enough to see what we actually are and thereby eradicate ego.” I invite you, dear readers, to explore these, and other topics featured in the Spring 2025 edition of Spirituality Studies and be inspired by the insights of its authors. Cordially Martin Dojčár
2 Spirituality Studies 11-1 Spring 2025
Spirituality Studies 11-1 Spring 2025 3 Patrick Laude Patrick Laude, Ph.D. is Professor of Religious Studies at Georgetown University in Qatar. His scholarly work is in comparative religion with a focus on contemplative and metaphysical traditions. Laude has authored a dozen books, including Surrendering to the Self: Ramana Maharshi’s Message for the Present (2021), Keys to the Beyond: Frithjof Schuon’s Cross-traditional Language of Transcendence (2020), and Shimmering Mirrors: Reality and Appearance in Contemplative Metaphysics East and West (2017). He has published over a hundred articles in academic journals and has contributed numerous chapters to books. His email contact is laudep@georgetown.edu. Received November 10, 2024 Revised November 29, 2024 Accepted November 30, 2024 Key words Symbolism, mysticism, eye, non-dualism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam Patrick Laude The symbol of the eye is widespread in mystical writings, and it covers a wide spectrum of meanings and intents. This is due, no doubt, to the fact that visual perception involves a multiplicity of aspects and standpoints. The following study, based on scriptural and mystical excerpts from Christian, Platonic, Hindu, and Islamic sources, is limited to a consideration of the metaphysical and spiritual implications of some of the most salient symbolic orientations of the eye. They are the need to correct one’s visual perception, the capacity of the eye to see reality as it is, the inward vision of the heart, and the shift from human eyewitness to divine eyewitness. The following analytic commentaries aim at providing introductory insights into the ways the eye functions as a medium between duality and non-duality. Mystical Perspectives on the Symbolism of the Eye ←← Andrea di Bonaluto, Via veritas, fresco, 1365–66. Basilica of Santa Maria Novella, Florence.
4 Spirituality Studies 11-1 Spring 2025 1 Introduction As a major signifier of mystical insight, the symbol of the eye is particularly polysemic. This is no doubt due to its connection with perception, which is given to a multiplicity of standpoints and aspects. Indeed, the wealth of occurrences of the eye as a symbolic referent to spiritual or mystical modes of consciousness is remarkable. The following study is limited to a consideration of the metaphysical and spiritual implications of some of the most salient symbolic orientations of the eye. More specifically the following analytic commentaries aim at providing introductory insights into the ways the eye functions as a symbolic marker of major aspects of God’s knowledge, and as a medium between duality and non-duality. The eye is a widespread mystical and contemplative signifier, particularly in paths of knowledge, given its static connotations as a symbol. Whether in Plato or in the Hindu tradition, the eye has been viewed as an adequate symbol of the spiritual apprehension of reality which, while presupposing empirically a distinction between the seer and the seen, entails a sense of immediacy and unity by suggesting the absorption of the seen into the seer. That which I see is within me, as it were, since it is included in my field of vision. Analogous statements could be made about the other senses, quite evidently, but in a more partial manner. There is much more to see than there is to hear or to taste – at least from a human point of view – with microscopes and telescopes extending this vision toward the “infinitely small” and the “infinitely large”, as Pascal would put it. In the following pages we explore selected excerpts from religious scriptures from within Christianity Hinduism and Islam that are rich in spiritual implications – and have, as we will see, given rise to esoteric commentaries. It will also consider ideas within Plato. While noting complexity and difference, the symbol of the eye thus allows symbolic insights borrowed from a cross-traditional spectrum of mystical statements highlighting the value of comparative spirituality. My objective is to modulate the non-dual resonances of the symbolism of the eye by means of a meditation of some of its cardinal instances. The argument is that the eye is involved as symbol in the major aspects, or moments, of the mystical life. It provides suggestive illustrations of purification, illumination, and inward union, as well as pointing ultimately to unity or non-duality. It may evoke thereby the multiplicity of perspectives flowing from the confrontation of human finitude with Divine Infinity. Thus, the few instances of the symbolism of the eye analyzed below cover a wide range of spiritual intents and implications. As such, they may provide orientations for further in-depth research and reflection. The study is divided into four sections: The deluded eye, Seeing it as it is, The inwards eye, Whose eye? Each of which explore comparative mystical expositions of the eye. The first section delves into ways of correcting one’s spiritual vision. The second section considers how the symbolism of the eye can intimate an adequate and enlightened perception of reality. The third part of the study focuses on the inward source of the vision, and its connections with the knowledge of unity. The final segment draws the whole meditation toward the horizon of non-duality. It highlights not only the reciprocity of the seer and the seen but also their identification as being the essence of spiritual vision. Methodologically, the approach is exegetical, phenomenological, and comparative. It is based on a textual commentary of a selection of scriptural and mystical sources that I read as paradigmatic instances of eye symbolism. My intent is to draw from these symbolic occurrences an elementary phenomenology of the spiritual vision. In other words, my concern is to try to answer the following question: what do we learn from the symbol of the eye about the spiritual consciousness for which this symbol is meaningful? As for the comparative aspect of the exploration it is evidenced by the inclusion of texts from Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and the Platonic wisdom tradition. The study may be read, therefore, as a phenomenological cross-religious reconstruction of mysticism based on the eye symbolism. 2 The Deluded Eye or the Purified Vision Religious consciousness is intent on purification and transformation. Vision, as a symbol of spiritual knowledge, may be hampered or distorted, and this recognition is indeed the starting point of most paths toward salvation or liberation. The need to correct one’s vision appears both in relation to one’s perception of objects, and with respect to one’s relationship with other human beings. The illusions of the self-centered subject are most likely to manifest in respect to others who challenge the self’s claim to be “the center of everything”. As Pascal puts it, “[t]his I is hateful. And those who do not renounce it, who seek no further than to cover it, are always hateful… I hate it, because it is unjust, because it makes itself the centre of everything, I shall hate it always” (Pascal 1949, 136). Christianity, given its emphasis on the relational aspect of Love, is particularly intent on debunking this ego-centeredness.
Spirituality Studies 11-1 Spring 2025 5 Patrick Laude 2.1 The Mote and the Beam One of the most meaningful occurrences of this spiritual predicament is the parable of the mote and the beam – or the speck and the plank – in Matthew 7:3–5. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. The context of this symbolic teaching is the earlier injunction not to judge: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matthew 7:1). The plain implication is that judging will result, or might result, in being judged, and indeed in being judged by one’s own judging. The Greek verb for “to judge” in the Gospel is Κρίνω (Gr. krinô), which denotes opinion, determination, and discernment. Positively, the discernment of spirits, alluded to in 1 Corinthians 12:8, is deemed to include an ability to assess the origin and nature of a phenomenon either through reflective examination or charismatic grace. Thus, it has been assessed that, according to Saint Paul, “genuine cognition takes place… [note: in it] through a symbiosis between the divine and human spirit” (Hense 2016, 10). By contrast, what is at stake in the mote and the beam is none other than what obstructs the flow of grace. It is also significant that the passage on the mote and the beam precedes the admonition not to give “which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast… pearls before swine” (Matthew 7:6). This warning evidently entails a need for discernment and an ability to perceive – metaphorically speaking – the beam in the eye of the “dogs” and “swine” from whom holy pearls must be kept. It is quite clear, therefore, that the passage on the mote and the beam cannot be interpreted, as has been confirmed by many ancient commentators, as a sweeping exclusion of all judgments in the name of a hasty and misleading understanding of charity. Hence, for instance, Saint John Chrysostom’s admonition that this passage must be read thoughtfully not to give rise to destructive delusions: “What then can the saying be? Let us carefully attend, lest the medicines of salvation, and the laws peace, be accounted by any man laws of overthrow and confusion.” (John Chrysostom 2012, 244). A careful consideration of the meaning of this parable, to which several Church Fathers invite us, leads one to observe that the Gospel spells out the conditions on which it is possible, and even necessary, to cast out the mote from the other’s eye. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus provides an insight into such purifying prerequisites in relation to the eye in Matthew 6:22–23: “Such are they [note: those whose eye are evil] who wash only the outside of the cup and platter, and do not understand that, unless the inside of these things is cleansed, the outside itself cannot be made pure” (Roberts 1886). In the same vein, John Chrysostom makes use of this distinction by drawing a contrast between a formal understanding of the Old Law and a spiritual consideration of the New dispensation [1]. What characterizes the formal understanding of the Law is poor self-knowledge because of a one-sided concentration on the external letter. Hence, the prerequisites we mentioned earlier involve a keen awareness of the beam in one’s eye, as a move beyond a purely legalistic understanding of the way. The second step amounts to fulfilling the spirit of the law, which is synthetized by the two commandments preached by Christ in Matthew 22:35–40: Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Highlighting the spirit of spiritual interiorization that the latter entails, one may point out the contrast between the verbs “to behold” – which implies “judging from the outside”, and “to consider” – which suggests looking at the heart. Indeed, the two Greek verbs βλέπω (Gr. blepô) and κατανοεω (Gr. katanoeô) – from the same root as noesis – mean respectively “to see” or “to look at”, and “to consider attentively”. It appears therefore that the main implication of the mote and the beam lies in a distinction between formal perception and internal self-knowledge [2]. It is only through the latter that a spiritual purification is possible. Further, why is the obstructing element in our eye larger than the one in the other’s eye? It is presumably because the perception of oneself is more difficult than that of others, or because there is more urgency or need for the restoring sight to one’s eye than to others’, precisely because the former is a precondition for the latter. For instance, Saint Caesareus of Arles, one of the most influential Church Fathers of the 6th century, illustrates this disproportion in terms of the relationship between the speck of anger and the plank of hatred: “There is a speck in his eye, a plank in yours, and how can an eye with a plank in it see the speck?
6 Spirituality Studies 11-1 Spring 2025 I do not know with what boldness a man rebukes another who is angry for a moment, when he himself harbors hatred in his heart.” (Caesarius 2010, 137) [3]. In spiritual matters as suggested by Jesus, the subjective dimension has precedence over the objective one, whereas the reverse might be said to be true when it comes to the law. This principle appears in countless occurrences in the Gospel, such as in the paradigmatic instance of the adulterous woman (John 8: 1–11). Christian theologians across history have argued that the sinful self misperceives reality, beginning with its own. Its misperception of itself is correlative to its being focused on others’ faults. Luther (quoted in Meyer 1880, 226) refers to this negative correlation as follows: That He [note: the Lord] may the more earnestly warn us, He takes a rough simile, and paints the thing before our eyes, pronouncing some such opinion as this, – that everyone who judges his neighbor has a huge beam in his eye, while he who is judged has only a tiny chip, (and) that he is ten times more deserving of judgment and condemnation for having condemned others. By stating that “everyone who judges his neighbor has a huge beam in his eye”, Luther seems to imply that the flaw in one’s perception and the act of judgment itself are intrinsically interdependent. There is a sinful synergy between lack of justice as discernment, and lack of charity as sense of unity. By contrast, removing the beam from a mystical perspective means doing away with what prevents us from seeing what we are, and what things are. It results in perceiving oneself and others within the context of a unity that has been restored by the removal of the beam of separateness. To judge does not mean, in this case, to be aware of evil – for this awareness is a requirement for discernment, but to be blind to the unity that removes from evil its absoluteness. The first human transgression was the consumption of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. With it the beam got into the human’s eye. In the parable, separation, and difference, resulting from the beam, prevents one from reaching self-knowledge and love of the neighbor in unity. It is in this unitive spirit of mystical knowledge that Meister Eckhart (quoted in Blakney 1941, 200) comments on the mote and the beam. As he states, Augustine says: ‘No soul may come to God except it come to him apart from creature things and seek him without any image.’ That, too, is what Christ meant when he said: ‘First cast out the beam out of thine own eye and then thou shalt see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother’s eye!’ This suggests that creatures are to be compared to beams in the soul’s eye and that they hinder union with God because they are creaturely. Therefore, because even the soul is a creature, even it must first be cast out. Indeed, it must cast out even the saints and angels and even our blessed Lady, because these are all creatures! The beam that is in the beholder’s eye is none other than the creature, indeed anything that it is perceived as separate from myself: “As long as a man has an object under consideration, he is not one with it. Where there is nothing but One, nothing but One is to be seen” (Blakney 1941, 200). The object here does not merely refer to other creatures, but to the soul itself qua creature. Meister Eckhart takes the mystical interpretation of the beam a step further by extending it to the symbolism of the “creature within”. The beam is the soul that clings to itself as a separate entity. It is not possible to “come to God” without removing the duality that lies in the relative subject itself: “because even the soul is a creature, even it must first be cast out” (Blakney 1941, 200). With this in mind, we will now turn to the treatment of the deluded eye within Hinduism, specifically Śankara’s Advaita Vedānta, as a striking symbol of the dispelling of dualistic illusion. 2.2 The Snake and the Rope Correct discernment shows us the true nature of a rope, and removes the painful fear caused by our deluded belief that it is a large snake (Śankarācārya 1991, 6). The symbolism of the deluded eye appears in Śankara’s Advaita, or Vedānta of non-duality, in a way that is a priori less moral and more epistemological than in the Gospel. While Vedānta refers literally to a commentary on Vedic scriptures, Advaita Vedānta specifically teaches that the main content of scriptures is the doctrine of non-duality according to which only the absolute Self or Ātman is real while everything else is but “appearance”, Māyā (Deutsch 1973). As in other soteriological systems originating from India the spiritual focus of this tradition lies in overcoming ignorance, fear, and suffering. In the oft-quoted passage from the Crest-jewel of Discrimination attributed to Śankara, the Sanskrit word duhkha, which is also the central concept of the Buddhist worldview – most often translated as suffering, is associated to the term bhaya, “fear”. The two terms are translated in the opening quote above as “painful fear” (Sa. bhaya duhkha). Both suffering and fear originate
Spirituality Studies 11-1 Spring 2025 7 Patrick Laude in the soil of ignorance. This is why, for Śankara, vicāra, or “discerning investigation”, is the “destructress” (Sa. vināśinī) of the complex of fear and suffering. The Advaitin point of view envisions fear as being rooted in an epistemological and ontological gap between the one who fears and that which is feared. Duality is therefore inherent to any experience of fear, whether it be induced internally or externally. One may fear the other as a representation in oneself – as in the anticipation of death or danger for instance, or in the objective field; either way, the dualistic vision that presides over ordinary experience is ever potentially a source of fear (Jha 2006, 151; Comans 2000, 144). However, in the non-dual perspective of Advaita, duality itself is not real, it is only an appearance. The dual vision is akin to a disease of the eye, a misperception. The “large snake” (Sa. mahāsarpa), see passage above, has never been, despite its appearance of being, a symbol of Māyā has been the source of one’s fright. That which appears to be is mistaken for what is, while it has indeed no true reality. Although the status of the “large snake” is not totally unreal, since it is not “nothing” as a subjective phenomenon, it is also inaccurate to deem it real. Reality cannot be assigned to an object whose reality can be dispelled through discrimination. As Natalia Isayeva (1992, 163) puts it: It would be incorrect to assume that avidyā, or māyā, in Advaita is something unreal, sine it certainly absorbs something of the reality of its ultimate origin, indeed, in Śankara’s words ‘something perceived cannot be a mere non-being’. Now the appearance of the snake is dispelled by a proper perception of the rope. The rope is here a symbol of the “ultimate” reality; or in other words Reality is That which “outlasts” discriminative investigation, or symbolically that which remains when the vision of the discriminative eye has been sharpened. At the root of this view lies a concept of Reality as withstanding any “subrating”, to use Eliot Deutsch’s expression: “An object or content of consciousness is ‘subrated’ or is ‘subratable’ when it is or can be so disvaluated, denied, or contradicted by another experience” (Deutsch 1973, 15–16). The Real, the Ātman, is that which cannot be subrated by anything else; it is the ultimate ground of Being and Consciousness. Since Reality is That which “resists contradiction”, or bādha, the most important investigation of Advaita Vedānta is to reach the core of ignorance, fear and suffering to dispel illusion. Indeed, while the question of the origin of Māyā remains unanswered, the elucidation and resolution of its cause is indeed the central point of Advaitin teachings (Deutsch 1973, 28–34; Sarasvati 1997, 661). In other words, Advaita does not account for the initial appearance of the snake, but it delves extensively – with a view to liberation – into its epistemological and ontological status as a principle of appearance. Māyā is the beginningless and indefinable, indeed not understandable, source of ignorance: “Beginningless and, yet, also called ignorance… It cannot be understood except by its action, and that, only by the illumined ones. It has created all this universe – produced it all.” (Śankarācārya 1991, 46). In fact, its dispelling is considered by Śankara to be the only way to know its true nature. Thus, when contemplating the symbol of the snake and the rope, the principle of delusion may be situated in a misperception, or in a misinterpretation of the perception. The first way of understanding the symbol implies an intrinsic inadequacy of the human self: “The Hindu regards himself as an entity to complete, a false vision to rectify, a composite of substances to transform, a multiplicity to unify” (Daumal 1982, 9). What is emphasized here is the innate, congenital aspect of Māyā as misperception, the predisposition to illusion that defines, in a way, the human predicament. The second understanding, however, suggests the way out of this predicament through the principle of misrepresentation, and a close examination of what it entails. Here, the problem does not dwell in the eye itself, but in the way its vision is misread. Hence, the perception of a “large snake” is connected to the notion of superimposition: the individual projects onto the real Selfhood the whole array of formal limitations with which it has erroneously identified. This is the key notion of adhyāsa or “false attribution”. This process of alienation of the true Self, the Ātman, through misidentification, involves “limiting adjuncts” or upādhis. This means that, from the symbolic point of view of eyesight, the deluding process of superimposition can be alluded to in terms of veiling, obstructing, limiting, blurring, or reflecting as a shadow. Thus, Śankara (Śankarācārya 1991, 44) writes: “in the ‘upādhi’ is that shadow of the Ātman which lives in the heart… it enjoys or suffers, as the case may be.” The correction of the misrepresentation can only occur, therefore, through “discrimination” (Sa. viveka) and focus on the true source of light. This is achieved through a thorough ascertainment of the nature of the true Self: as in the parable from the Gospel of Matthew, it is therefore not the eye itself, which is flawed, but extraneous associations or conditions that prevent it from reaching an adequate vision of Reality. With this in mind, we turn in section II to the image of the eye in Islam.
8 Spirituality Studies 11-1 Spring 2025 3 Seeing It as It Is or the Illuminative Vision The eye is not only the mystical symbol of a knowledge that has to be reached by correcting one’s representation of reality, it may also serve as measure of an adequate perception. Mystical traditions are replete with visionary experiences that offer glimpses into the beyond. While the visionary realm can be one of delusions and temptations, it may also provide a direct symbol of the spiritual perception of reality as it is, in its nakedness, to use Meister Eckhart’s image [4]. In this regard, the issue of spiritual vision and perception plays a central role in the spirituality of Islam as testified by the Qurʼā n itself in its evocation of the mystical journey of the Prophet. 3.1 The Prophet’s Vision of No-Vision By the star when it sets, your companion has neither strayed nor erred; nor does he speak out of caprice. It is naught but a revelation revealed, taught by him by one of awesome power. Possessed of vigor, he stood upright when he was upon the highest horizon. Then he drew nigh and came close, till he was within two bows length or nearer. Then He revealed to His servant what He revealed. The heart lied not in what it saw. Do you then dispute with him as to what he saw? And indeed, he saw him another time, at the lote tree of boundary, by which lies the Garden of the refuge, when there covered the lote tree that which covered. The gaze swerved not; nor did it transgress. Indeed, he saw the greatest of the signs of his Lord (Surah Al-Najm 1–18, quoted in Nasr 2015, 1290–1292). While images and visions do not play a central role in Islam, given the iconoclastic bent of a tradition focused on transcendence, this passage from the Qurʼā n provides a paradigm for spiritual insight as adequateness to the Divine object. The chapter of the Qurʼā n entitled “The Star” (Ar. an-Najm) narrates the Ascension of the Prophet Muhammad, the central mystical event of Islam, in addition to the nocturnal journey from Mecca to Jerusalem. In the early centuries of Islam, this mi’rāj served as a paradigm for Sufi mystical journeys (Al-Sulamī 2006; Sells 1995). In the first verses of the passage above the phonetic resonance between the Arabic words ghawā and hawā or “wandering” and “desire” – “your companion is not astray [Ar. ghawā], nor does he speak vainly [note: a result of his passion, hawā]” – may suggests the way Islam conceives of error. Spiritual wandering amounts to missing the mark of Divine Reality, as it were, because of individualistic and egotic assertion, hence lack of “surrender” (Ar. islām). Moreover, the passage emphasizes that the relation of the vision does not stem from the Prophet’s hawā, or from his “individual inclination”, but pertains on the contrary to revelation (Ar. wahyun yūhā), coming as it does from God. This is a crucial point since the inadequateness of perception results, from an Islamic point, from a lack of surrender to God’s all-powerful and omniscient Reality, a radical lack of sense of proportion that is predicated upon self-centered pride, in the image of the revolted angel Iblis [5]. An adequate perception of reality can only proceed from an obedient receptivity to wahy, or “revelation”. The brief narrative of the ascension that takes the Prophet at “two bows” length or nearer emphasizes, accordingly, the power of God to move the Prophet in his journey. The remaining distance, albeit short, has been often understood by commentators as highlighting the way in which Divine transcendence remains the core teaching of Islam, even when it comes to the highest manifestations of mystical experience (Coppens 2018; Sells 1995, 47–56). The human eye must remain at a distance from what it is given to contemplate; the gap between the servant and the Lord can never be totally filled. However, two further remarks are in order concerning the vision that ensues from the ascension. First, what is said of the object contemplated amounts to the most indeterminate of description: “and God revealed to his servant ‘what’ [Ar. mā] he revealed”. The Arabic mā does not tell us anything about the object of vision except that it is an object, thereby suggesting that the vision pertains to the unsayable. This led the Sufi Junayd to declare that on the night of the ascension, “the Prophet reached a limit for which there is neither expression nor description” (Al-Sulamī 2007, 60). Furthermore, this ineffability has been understood by Muslim mystics as a sign of the “perfect annihilation”, fanā‘, of the Prophet. The utter indetermination of the object of vision has not only been read as a “measure” of the incommensurability of God’s Reality and human limitations but also, and consequently, as a sign of the disappearance of human agency “because of his union with the one” as explained, for instance, by the 11–12th century Persian Sufi hagiographer ’Abd al-Rahmān al-Sulamī (Al-Sulamī 2007, 60). From the point of view of the human perception, the essence of the vision lies in that “the heart lied not in what it saw”. The matter is evidently not one of physical sight, but of spiritual vision of the heart. The verbal form kadhaba,
Spirituality Studies 11-1 Spring 2025 9 Patrick Laude translated here by the verb “to lie”, is one of the most frequent ones in the Qurʼā n, as it refers to the human denial of truth, which is the greatest sin. Lying implies here more than not telling the truth, since it also suggests denying the reality of the object or limiting it to one’s measures. By contrast, spiritual veracity implies an objective vision, and an adequate relation to its object. A second account, narrated a few lines later, confirms the principle of this objectivity, although with a slightly different inflection. The “sight” of the Prophet (Ar. basar) does not evade the object of vision, nor does it transgress it. In other words, it errs neither by default nor by excess. It sees perfectly, hence objectively. As for the object, here again, it is not characterized in any way but as “the greatest of the signs of his Lord”. In the Qurʼā n the term āyāt, translated by “signs”, refers to “proofs” of the existence and presence of God, whether cosmic and natural, internal and spiritual, or historical and related to the deeds of the prophets (Madigan 2001). The āyah of the mi’rāj is of a different kind, though, as it transcends all descriptions, it must therefore be referred to as the “greatest of the signs of his Lord” (Surah al-Najm 18, quoted in Nasr 2015, 1292). The Prophetic gaze at the “greatest sign” is, in a way, the model of contemplation in Islam, in so far as it preserves a clear distinction between the human subject and the Divine Object, while amounting to a complete concentration and absorption of the human gaze into its Divine object (Sells 1995, 242–250). On the one hand, there is a contemplative reverence for the distance between God and the human self, one that echoes Simone Weil’s definition of love: “To love purely is to consent to distance, it is to adore the distance between ourselves and that which we love” (Weil 2012, 65). One could speak, therefore, of a loving or worshipping eye. On the other hand, the peak of the vision amounts to an extinction into the Divine Object, but this mystical summit is in a way more akin to unity than union. While the distance between the Lord and the servant can never be abolished, the servant must disappear before the Lord in a kind of consummation of unity. 3.2 The Divine Eye of Productive Measure and Illuminative Certainty Prajāpati, the Self of All, is worshipped as the [note: sun, the] Eye of All. This [note: the sun] is Prajāpati’s all-supporting body, for in it this all is hid [note: by the light of the sun]; and the sun [note: is] the eye [note: of Prajāpati]… For in the eye is fixed man’s great measure, because with the eye he makes all measurements. The eye is truth (satyam), for the person (purusha) dwelling in the eye proceeds to all things [note: knows all objects with certainty]. (Maitrāyana Brāhmana Upanishad, VI Prapâthaka 6, quoted in Müller 1965, 309). While the Quranic narrative of the “vision of God” is founded on a sense of incommensurability between the Divine and the human – the latter being limited to an ability to behold the former without egotic straying and then disappearing before it, the Maitri Upanishad presents us with the symbolic function of the eye as a principle of measurement of everything. There could not be, in a sense, a clearer contrast between the Islamic emphasis on Divine transcendence and the Hindu sense of Divine immanence. Prajāpati is the Hindu Lord of Creation, a polymorphic divinity who is ultimately identified with the Divine Self, the Ātman (Eliade 1969, 109–11; Kramrisch 1981, 103–104). This is in keeping with the fluid polytheism of the Hindu tradition, its ability to articulate a dizzyingly complex pantheon and a most rigorous henotheistic perspective on the Ultimate [6]. In the Maitri Upanishad the sun is identified to Prajāpati’s eye, and its symbolic identification involves the various functions of projecting, enlightening, and measuring. The whole world, which is Prajāpati’s body, is first and foremost hidden in the light of his eye, and this light itself, which is the principle of projection of the whole, is hidden in “this all”. This is the metaphysical alternation of non-manifestation and manifestation; the manifestation being hidden in the ontological principle and the ontological principle in the manifestation. As soon as the world is seen by Prajāpati’s eye through its light, the latter becomes un-manifest in the manifestation that has been projected. God’s vision of the world is blindness on the side of the world. Moreover, there is also a sense in which the eye-sun is enlightening from within the world, like the light shining in darkness. The Divine light is not only diffused into the world, but also crystallized in the sacred syllable Ōṁ. It is through this syllable, a concentration of light, as it were, that worldly blindness is transmuted into vision: “He alone (Brahman as ‘light of that syllable Om’ enlightens us…) This alone is the pure syllable, this alone is the highest syllable; he who knows that syllable only, whatever he desires, is his” (Müller 1965, 308). The third aspect of the vision is measurement. The sense of perspective and distance that is inherent to the eye’s vision is in a way coincidental with productive projection itself, while introducing into this creation the order of Divine
10 Spirituality Studies 11-1 Spring 2025 intelligence. Measurement is connected to the projection and encompassing of all dimensions of space, but it is also insight into the very structure of the universe. “The eye is truth (Sa. satyam)”, is identified with the very essence of reality, Brahma satyam. That which radiates in the eye is none other than the purusha [7], which is the essential selfhood, “dwelling in the heart of man”. The meaning of the term purusha varies in Hinduism, as it may refer to the Divine Self, to the primordial cosmic Man, or to the active and spiritual principle as in Sāmkhya [38]. On all levels of consideration, however, the purusha implies active, cognizant consciousness, and “adequation” (Lat. adaequatio). The purusha, residing in the eye of the heart, proceeds to all things and knows all objects with certainty. The divine eye is here a symbol of creation, control, and knowledge: the world is projected and encompassed by it. The eye is a marker of certainty and omniscience; it means universal adaequatio. This adaequatio of the eye is a paradigm for all adequate forms of knowledge, like the theôria, contemplation/vision of the Forms in Plato’s epistemology, to which Socrates refers as the function of the “eye of the soul” (Cf. Phaedo 99c, Gorgias 523d, and Republic 518; Planas 2004, 205–224). 4 The Inward Eye and the Unifying Vision Despite important differences noted, across all the traditions discussed, it is hopefully also now apparent that the mystical gaze is primarily inward: it aims at uncovering deeper layers of selfhood, and ultimately the “virgin point”, to use Louis Massignon’s expression, where the Divine touches upon the human (Cutsinger 2002, 3). Mystics are masters at opening their eyes upon the marvels of creation, but they tend to make of the inward gaze a prerequisite for any recognition of the transcendent within the field of immanence. We find the same at play within the thought of Plato. 4.1 Plato’s Self-Seeing Eye Socrates: ‘And have you observed that the face of the person who looks in another’s eye is shown in the optic confronting him, as in a mirror, and we call this the pupil, for in a sort it is an image of the person looking? Then if an eye is to see itself, it must look at an eye, and at that region of the eye in which the virtue of an eye is found to occur; and this, I presume, is sight… And if the soul too, my dear Alcibiades, is to know herself, she must surely look at a soul, and especially at that region of it in which occurs the virtue of a soul – wisdom, and at any other part of a soul which resembles this? And can we find any part of the soul that we can call more divine than this, which is the seat of knowledge and thought? Then this part of her resembles God, and whoever looks at this, and comes to know all that is divine, will gain thereby the best knowledge of himself’ (Plato 2005, 211). In the Alcibiades, Socrates engages Alcibiades in a quest for self-knowledge [9]. The matter lies in moving beyond the appearances with which human beings, like Alcibiades himself, identify; this leads Socrates to the conclusion that the human being is neither body nor combination of body and soul, but only the soul (Plato 2005, 201). Yet the quest does not stop there; like in Advaita Vedānta, it delves further into the very essence of selfhood. It is at this stage that the symbol of the eye becomes operative as indicated in the above quoted passage. Here the function of the other becomes central in that it is only in the other person’s pupil that we can see our own eye, and this pupil is the very locus of sight. An analogy is therefore drawn between sight and wisdom or self-knowledge, whereby we can only see what we truly are in “the region of it [note: the soul] in which occurs the
Spirituality Studies 11-1 Spring 2025 11 Patrick Laude virtue of a soul – wisdom, and at any other part of a soul which resembles this”. Thus, the seat of wisdom that lies at the core of the soul can be known a priori through its contemplation in others. This leads one to realize the deepest selfhood within one’s soul, “this part of her [note: the soul that] resembles God”. The self is seen/known in and through the other as eye/self, and more precisely in that central part of the eye/soul that is the principle of vision/wisdom. The subject knows itself in and through the object, more precisely in that which in the object is subject. It is through knowing the “seat of knowledge and thought” that one “comes to know all that is divine [note: and] will gain thereby the best knowledge of himself” (Plato 2005, 213). The concentration of the outward eye on virtue as inwardness invites contemplators to look inward and know themselves, thereby reaching unity. This is yet another type of occurrence of the Platonic dialectics involved in the discovery of the truth. 4.2 Seeing Ad Infinitum [Note: The intellect – al-‘aql] perceives itself as knowing and powerful, it perceives its knowledge of itself, it perceives its knowledge of its knowledge of itself, it perceives its knowledge of its knowledge of its knowledge of itself (‘ilmuhu bi-‘ilmuhu bi-‘ilm nafsahu ilā ghayr nahayat), and so on ‘ad infinitum’ (Al-Ghazālī 1998, 6). A similar inward vision is involved in the Sufi quest for unity. In his Niche of Lights, one of the paramount works of Sufi metaphysics, Al-Ghazālī (1058–1111) distinguishes between the bodily eye and the spiritual eye by contrasting the imperfections of the first with the perfection of the second. The limitations of the physical eye are the one that must occupy us most, though, since they are an obstacle to mystical self-knowledge. As was implied in Alcibiades, the eye can see objects, but it cannot see itself. By contrast, for Al-Ghazālī, the eye of the intellect can perceive “other than itself” (Ar. ghayrihi) and the “qualities (Ar. sifāt) of itself (Ar. nafsihi)” (Al-Ghazālī 1998, 7). It is important to note, within an Islamic context, that the reference to the perception of sifāt, or “qualities”, still implies that the heart cannot perceive its own “essence” (Ar. dhāt) (Gianotti 2001). This echoes inwardly the Prophetic tradition on outward meditation: “Meditate upon the bounties of God but not on God [note: Himself, His Essence] for God is above and beyond all possibility of being described in terms of any form” (Shah-Kazemi, quoted in Volf 2012, 111). This is because God’s Essence lies beyond “form” (Ar. sūra), and analogously the “secret” (Ar. sirr) of the soul lies beyond the formal domain. By contrast with the eye that does not see the principle of its vision, Ghazālī maintains that the intellect or inner eye “perceives its knowledge of itself”. Moreover, this reflective ability has no end, since knowledge of the knowledge of itself ensues from knowledge of itself, and “so on ad infinitum”, in Ghazālī’s Arabic “ilā ghayr nahāyat”, literally “endlessly” (Al-Ghazālī 1998, 6). But what is the ultimate meaning of this unending regress if not an intimation of infinity? Al-Ghazālī, as a Sufi whose function lied at the intersection of exoteric and esoteric sciences, simply alludes to this meaning by stating that “behind this lies a ‘secret’ (Ar. sirr) that would take too long to explain” (Sherif 1975, 173). This allusive comment opens onto the question of the mystery of selfhood as embracing Unity. 4.3 The Investigative Eye If we return now to Hinduism, we find that in a parallel intuition of the mystery of subjectivity the Upanishadic tradition teaches that the true Self cannot be objectified, and therefore cannot be reached through any infinite regress of perception or knowledge. Thus, the following is stated in the Katha Upanishad: “The Self-existent One pierced the apertures outward, therefore, one looks out, and not into oneself. A certain wise man in search of immortality turned his sight inward and saw the self within” (quoted in Olivelle 1996, 240). The Upanishads teach that human beings have been created with two dimensions, as it were. Their sense perceptions are contemplated as God-given apertures that allow them to apprehend the outer world. This appears to be the natural direction of mankind, one that confirms the meaning of creation as a field of human experience. However, this outward motion is also centrifugal, therefore distancing one from the Self. Therefore, the realization of the true Self results from a conversion from natural extraversion to spiritual introversion. This is the Atmā Vichāra, or “Self-investigation”, favored by Ramana Maharshi (Maharshi 1958, 431). In a sense, this motion is “anti-natural”, if by nature is meant the outgrowth of manifestation; the type of spiritual interiorization that runs contrary to this natural flow has been coined a “decreation” by Simone Weil. As she states, “Decreation: to make something created pass into the uncreated. Destruction: to make something created pass into nothingness. A blameworthy substitute for decreation” (Weil 2002, 32). In the Upanishads, this “decreation” does not in the least affect the Ultimate, however, and it is indeed only an “appearance” since reintegration is to be understood spiritual more than metaphysically. Reality is what it is, and the Divine Self is eternally free from creation and decreation. It is in this
12 Spirituality Studies 11-1 Spring 2025 context that the eye in Upanishadic thought may become a fitting symbol of the transcendent purity of the Self, unaffected by the objects of its vision: “As the sun, the eye of the whole world, is not stained by visual faults external to it; So the single self within every being, is not stained by the suffering of the world, being quite distinct from it” (Olivelle 1996, 244). 4.4 The Unseeable Eye The “immanent transcendence” that we have just highlighted in the previous quote implies an incognoscibility of God by other than God: only the Self can know the Self. Knowing is therefore unknowing, and vision blindness. Thus, the Kena Upanishad, dated by most experts to be from the middle of the 1st millennium BCE, refers to this knowing of the unknowable in the following way: “Sight does not reach there; neither does thinking or speech. We don’t know, we can’t perceive, how one would point it out” (quoted in Olivelle 1996, 227). Indeed, the knowledge of the Self that transcends sight, thinking and speech lies paradoxically beyond the known and the unknown. This is so to the extent that this distinction implies duality and objectification, while any objectification of the Self is not Self-Knowledge. The unseeable and unreachable reality of the Ultimate is also expressed in the Qur’ān in terms of vision The context of verse 103 in the Surah Al-An’ām is an enumeration of God’s supreme attributes, among which All-Knowingness is paramount: “Sight (Ar. absār) comprehends Him not, but He comprehends all sight. And He is the Subtle, the Aware” (Nasr 2015, 378–379). The two Names translated in this verse are al-Latīf and al-Khabīr, which imply respectively subtle presence and perfect awareness. The vision of God is impossible, in the sense that no human conceptual or perceptual ability is adequate to it, but also in the sense that this vision comprehends everything. Being the very Subject of knowledge, He can never be an object of knowledge. However, the next verse indicates that some “inner vision” (Ar. basāir) has come to mankind from God: “Insight has come to you from your Lord.” And the Qurʼā n adds: “whosoever sees clearly, it is to the benefit of his own soul (man absara falinafsihi).” Three steps can be distinguished, therefore, in the Quranic account of Divine vision: no human qua human can see God, some vision is given from and by God, and this vision, if recognized, is for the benefit of oneself. One very important consequence of this threefold teaching is that the only God worshipped is the one communicated by the vision from God Himself, or which “has come to you” (the human being). A mystical hermeneutics of this restriction is developed by Ibn ’Arabī in his doctrine of the “god of belief” when he claims that the only God worshipped is the one who is “represented” in the worshipper, the “the god of binding dogmas” (al-Haqq al-makhlūq fi ’l- ’tiqādāt or al-ilāh al-mu ’taqad): “[Note: Most humans] have… an individual concept (belief) of their Lord, which they ascribe to Him and in which they seek Him… So long as the Reality is presented to them according to it they recognize Him and affirm Him, whereas if presented in any other form, they deny Him, flee from Him and treat Him improperly, while at the same time imagining that they are acting toward Him fittingly” (Ibn ‘Arabī 1980, 137). What is important in our context is to note that the Divine Essence is the Reality that “Vision perceives not”, while the God of whom humans have a vision “comes” from their own being “seen” by the Lord inasmuch as they are “existentiated”. Here is the way Ibn ’Arabī (Ibn ‘Arabī 1980, 92) articulates this crucial distinction: The Essence, as being beyond all these relationships [note: between the Divine Reality, Names and creatures], is not a divinity. Since all these relationships originate in our eternally unmanifested essences, it is we [note: in our eternal latency] who make Him a divinity by being that through which He knows Himself as Divine. Thus, He is not known [note: as ‘God’] until we are known. The Hindu tradition presents us with an analogous distinction founded on the invisibility of the Brahman which, according to the Kena Upanishad “one cannot see with one’s sight, by which one sees the sight itself – Learn that that alone is Brahman, and not what they here venerate” (quoted in Olivelle 1996, 227). In this context, a distinction is clearly drawn between the vision of the eye, which is objectifying, and that which makes this vision possible, the pure Subject. The enabler of the vision is the Brahman, or the Supreme Self. The Brahman is not that which is venerated or worshipped because the worshipped is necessarily an Object, and therefore Saguna Brahman, the Brahman with qualities, and not the Supreme, Nirguna Brahman, which is beyond qualities (Deutsch 1973, 12–14; Rambachan 2006, 112).
www.spirituality-studies.orgRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUwMDU5Ng==