Spirituality Studies 103 Nina Bilokopytova Key concepts, particularly “processual spirituality”, are operationalized through a set of analytical criteria that allow for evaluation. Processual spirituality is defined not as a collection of beliefs or intense experiences, but as a configuration of “practices” (Ar. dhikr, ethical discipline as work on the nafs), “experiential structures” (Ar. maqāmāt and aḥwāl as modalities of the process), and “ethical outcomes” (Ar. adab – responsibility, and transformations in one’s mode of being in the world). Spiritual progress is assessed not by the subjective intensity of experiences, but by the degree to which internal transformations are integrated into practice, behavior, and social relations. The author seeks to demonstrate that Sufism represents a model of spirituality in which repetition, incompleteness, and recursivity are not signs of imperfection but constitute its fundamental structure. Rejecting a linear model of “mystical ascent” allows the Sufi path to be interpreted as a dynamic process in which each stage contains the whole, and each practice reenacts the logic of the entire path. Methodologically, the article combines a critical analysis of existing approaches in Sufi studies with a process-oriented ontology of spirituality. The metamodern framework is employed not as a description of a cultural epoch, but as an analytical tool that enables the sustained tension between the internal traditional logic of Sufism and contemporary philosophical reflection. Such an approach makes it possible to avoid both theological normativism and secular reductionism. Structurally, the article proceeds as follows. It begins with a critical overview of experience-centered approaches to Sufism, followed by an outline of a metamodern methodological perspective. The subsequent sections analyze Sufi spirituality as a process of subject transformation, with particular emphasis on the roles of practice, ethics, and the repetitiveness of spiritual states. The conclusion summarizes the theoretical implications of the proposed model and highlights its potential applicability within the broader field of comparative mysticism. 2 Mystical Experience in Sufi Studies: A Critical Overview Throughout the twentieth century, the study of Sufism within the Western academic tradition was shaped primarily by the influence of the phenomenology of religion, comparative mysticism, and the psychology of religious experience. From the early works of William James (1902) to the classical studies of Mircea Eliade (1958) and Rudolf Otto (1924), mysticism in general and Sufism in particular was interpreted through the lens of intense inner experience characterized by its extraordinariness, transcendence, and resistance to full conceptual articulation. Within this framework, Sufi spirituality was often presented as a variation of a universal mystical experience shared across diverse religious traditions. This approach yielded important heuristic gains. It facilitated the inclusion of Sufism in broader discussions of mysticism, helped to challenge colonial and orientalist stereotypes, and underscored the depth of the inward dimension of Islamic spirituality. At the same time, the reduction of Sufism to mystical experience introduced a set of methodological limitations that have become increasingly evident in contemporary scholarship. First, experience-centered approaches tend to isolate ecstatic or liminal states from the context of everyday spiritual practice. Sufi descriptions of ḥāl (Ar. “states”) and maqāmāt (Ar. “stations”) are frequently interpreted as a sequence of inner experiences culminating in a moment of mystical “union”, while sustained discipline, ethical work on the nafs (Ar. “ego”), and the social dimension of spirituality remain marginal. As a result, Sufism appears as an individualized form of religious experience detached from its normative Islamic context (Chittick 1989, 264). Second, the phenomenological reduction of Sufi spirituality to experience presupposes an implicit linearity: the mystical path is understood as a gradual ascent from less intense states toward more “elevated” or “pure” ones. Such a model aligns poorly with the internal logic of Sufi texts, in which spiritual movement is frequently described as non-linear, cyclical, or even paradoxical. The recurrence of spiritual crises returns to “lower” states, and the persistent need for spiritual guidance do not fit neatly into a teleological scheme of mystical progress.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUwMDU5Ng==