THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: tariqas@europe.std.com
From: nagasiva@luckymojo.com (haramullah)
Subject: Re: Authority 

50000514 IVom Happy Mother's Day!

assalam alaykum, my kin.

a correspondent wrote:
>>I think it would be pretty difficult for Amany NOT to take all these
>>exchanges personally, especially if she is, as she says, seeking the 
>>Path through dialogue on this forum.   

having made that choice, one will learn that the internet (and at
times this forum) will include all manner of individual with whom
one may interact. some of these individuals will be ignorant,
rude, arrogant, and vindictive. over time one must learn to
differentiate the expression of these from those whose heart
shines with love, kindness, and humility through their words. all
we may have is a string of letters, spaces and punctuation, but 
these qualities can easily come through to those who take the 
time to perceive them ("those who have eyes will see").

>>"Tariqas" is not a tariqa, but it sure looks like there are a 
>>lot of teachers here willing to take anyone on as a student if 
>>such a person asks questions, whether one considers those 
>>questions to be appropriate or not.  

in a forum such as an email list which allows the public to
subscribe and unsubscribe as one wishes, especially as it 
pertains to subjects of mysticism and esoteric cultural data,
it is natural that we shall encounter a number of people who
are exploring a variety of methods of interaction. one of the
most sensitive and controversial (because it is typically
socially controlled and restrained) is that surrounding
instruction and authority.

there is a tendency I have noticed for people to use 
discussion groups such as in usenet and email as a kind of
'open encounter group', a sounding board for reflections of
their experience or ideas upon which we have stumbled and
are struggling. we may discover a new discipline, consider
a deep philosophical issue in a new way, or be wrestling
with information we have gleaned from questionable sources.

to develop relationships with others who value mysticism,
from whatever position, to compare experiences and to get
feedback on the matters which concern us, has positive and
negative repercussions. on the one hand we may find that
the issues which concerned us are commonplace, learn how
others have dealt with them, and integrate novel approaches
to old conundrums into our lives. on the other hand, our
inquiries and speculation influences those around us, and
at times those who wish to assume the role of authority may 
be encouraged by our inquisitive and curious approach to 
try out new (or old) wings of certitude, benefaction, and
counsel. 

for those with tact and the benefit of long years of having
had successful tutelary relationships offline, this shift
to an authoritative role will go smoothly. for others, it
may take quite caustic and rough forms. as with any kind
of skill, beginning it includes failure, and the failure of
authority can be painful to all involved.

taking on students requires MUTUAL consent. it is one thing to 
share advice with virtual friends in email and quite another 
to begin instruction with these friends, especially when we 
have not asked for this type of relationship. shifting to an
air of expected capitulation is, in such a context. the height
of arrogance.

>>...have really wondered why this one person continues to be 
>>addressed personally...

attention to personal characteristics is usually a sign that
those who draw it are frustrated about the target's expression
and wish to somehow find a way to dismiss the person by virtue
of association with the profane and ignorant. it is a clumsy
and unskilled method of social rebuke. 

>>No matter what level or ego or anything, it would be more 
>>respectful to claim one's own opinion as one's own opinion, 
>>and not play "one with objective spiritual knowledge and 
>>experience" on this forum. If you want to teach, go teach.

I cannot sufficiently underscore this statement. those who
ignore it and enter into arrogance betray their lack of
discipline and respect (perhaps equivalent to 'adab').


another correspondent wrote: 
>...Idries Shah, ...repeats time and again the necessity of 
>deferring to a teacher with a developed perspective; in the 
>writings of purely Islamic Shayks were find an even greater 
>reliance on initiatic transmission and authority.

how do we determine who is a teacher with a developed
perspective when we are entering into this email 'circle'
from all manner of culture, experience, and knowledge?
are we to take some particular cultural assessment as to
the development of any single individual in such a public
forum, or shall we each decide ourselves how much respect
we provide to those with whom we interact? 

my preference is to reserve obligatory respect for PRIVATE
grounds and presume that honour and depth of compassion,
sincerety of expression and keenness of insight will
inspire the proper respect for those who participate.
where it does not, then we have left to understand the
motivations for the outburst.
 
>I personally know that there are initiated, *trained*, 
>Shaykhs with many years of experience reading this group 
>and sometimes posting to it. I have met some. 

that is very interesting to me. when someone identifies
themself here as "sheikh" or "shaykh", perhaps saying
for whom they are functioning in this manner, then I
will be happy to address them as such. usually I watch
the signature line and see if they include 'sheikh' therein.

>How should we speak to them?  

with all the respect, courage, honour and patience that one
can muster. why treat them any differently than others in
this regard?

>If they don't want to come forward and claim big or little 
>A/authority, how should we respond to them?  

as kindred, if we are able.

>If we don't know, are we better off arguing with all and 
>sundry or assuming that everybody is a Shaykh?  (My own 
>Shaykh calls everybody he interacts with 'Shaykh'.)  

as I have made quite plain, I am outside tradition. I have
intentionally interacted with many religious social authorities
in the spirit of conviviality, learning, and friendship, and
yet while I can acknowledge the authority these people wield
in their own social groups, I cannot always ascertain that
they are qualified to demand anything from those outside this
group. sometimes I find that religious figures of authority
have too great a self-conception for me to consider humble.
social position becomes connected with personal condition.
deference, avoidance of argument, and an acknowledgement of 
perfection become *expected*.

it was in part to escape from this kind of expectation that
I have avoided traditions, though certainly arrogant
presumption is not restricted to the religious society. what 
is interesting to me is how the stratification of a society
of any sort pans out. at some point it become incompatible
with what I'd identify with spirituality in that humility
is left behind. does the religious leader feel that she is
'too pure' to engage menial and/or objectionable tasks
like sweeping out dust, cleaning a toilet or scraping out
the bottom of a garbage can? will she delegate this to
'underlings' whose condition is 'suited to the task'? it
is amazing how far this type of stratification can be
enculturated (to the point of caste -- cf. classic Indian
culture and its 'untouchable' caste, which continues in
some form to the present day).
 
>We all have to answer these questions for ourselves, but I'm
>not sure it's appropriate to automatically fall into the 
>"democratic discourse" mode - or automatically into any mode, 
>for that matter.

for better or worse there is no stratification cemented to
the Tariqas email list, meaning that other than those social
authorities designated to resulve technical or practical
problems of connection and topicality, little or no status
from the world outside it need influence those in the forum.
 
>The intense feeling that one has revealed knowledge that must be shared may
>be a useful feeling, but it is also a  particular stage that individuals go
>through on the Path, and for those who have experienced it the way that
>individuals communicate while in this stage is a plain indicator of where
>the person is, as we used to say, "coming from".  I still do this myself.

it is a popular feint of conversation to evaluate what someone does or
says as "from a lesser stage on the Path". one may even sympathize with
those who are "going through what I used to do", yet my experience is
that individual courses vary too much to generalize in this way (the
Path is more complex than a simple set of stages may successfully and
completely describe) and the more respectful approach is to accept the
shared revelation as SIGNIFICANT FOR THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SHARES IT, and
perhaps no more than this. we may also find that others resonate with
what is shared, that experiences may significantly compare such that
others who listen are able to draw inferences which are useful.

too often I find that evaluations like that mentioned above are used
to hurt or demean others, to devalue what we bring in good faith
to the forum in which we are expressing ourselves. it is simply too
easy to project a "Path" which is the same for everyone, a set of
"stages" through which all people pass, and stratify the world into
gradations of authority based on this perceptual lens. suddenly we
are able to acknowledge that another's revelation is a "useful
feeling" from a state of immaturity, and we can easily dismiss it
without considering the rationality of the expression on its own.

>As Idries Shah writes, 'The call to teach is not felt as a desire to
>teach'. From some real teachers I have spoken with, it may be a sinking
>feeling in the pit of one's stomach that *you* are going to have to 
>pick up the responsibility and carry it until the grown-ups "get home". 
>For real teachers, I don't think that wanting to teach has much to do 
>with it.

I would agree here, and wonder how you tell the "real" from the "false"
teachers. it seems to me that the best teachers are foremost students,
and that humility is the earmark of even the most strident speaking
student. too often people 'pick up the responsibility and carry it' 
where it is neither warranted nor welcome, overlooking the fact that 
the world is not so easily divided into "grown-ups" and "children". 
ignoring true spiritual maturity, it takes no great sacrifice to 
present oneself as a stand-in for an authority one merely has not
PERCEIVED to be present. this has the effect of overlooking,
displacing and disrespecting any true spiritual authorities who may
have been more easily seen by the clarity of their tone and the
simplicity of their message, now obscured through the escalation of
personal differences.

I have usually looked upon those who clamoured for the role of
teacher (even as a 'stand-in') as arrogant unless their purpose
was philosophical (democratic: "ok, then *you* be the teacher)
or farcical (humourous: "you *must* accept what I say!"). this
need and desire for instructors and differentiated relationships
is certainly present throughout human societies, and yet there
are some (anarchists such as I) who voice support for a more level
ground of meeting (in public), and a more firm confirmation of
the soveriegnty of individual authority in the sight of Allah.

peace be with you,

haramullah