Letters to a Mystic

Yes, indeed, unrequited love as the condition for true, mystical love. Easy to see even in our small, personal lives -- for instance, if we give a cup of coffee or a Danish to a homeless person and they treat us with disdain, how do we feel? This is indeed the mystical question -- threaded into our everyday life. After all, love with the expectation of anything in return isn't love at all, but barter.
This ideal of love entered into Jewish mysticism, via the Kabbalah and then Hasidism, originating, of course, in Sufism. Here is a passage concerning the Kabbalah:

"God contracted Himself because He, non-dual and relation-less unity, wanted to allow relation to emerge; because He wanted to be known, loved, wanted; because He wanted to allow to arise from his primal one Being, in which thinking and thought are one, the otherness that strives to unity. So there radiated from Him the spheres (Sephirot): separation, creation, formation, making, the world of ideas, the forces, the forms, the material, the kingdom of genius, of spirit, of soul, of life."

God willed into being a separate consciousness (that of all sentient beings) so that this consciousness could perceive and love God. Ultimately, however, human love of God represents an act of self-knowledge, self-love, as humans ultimately exist within God. And this, so say the Jewish mystics, Sufis and others, was the purpose of creation, to bring knowledge of God to God.
This explains the divine purpose of love -- and the fact that love alone is the ultimate goal, and not a manner of achieving something more. This ideal stemmed directly from earlier Sufis and, certainly the female saint Rabia, who was one of the first and most ardent to propose this manner of mystical realization – a love beyond desire.
Start small -- you don't want to burn up like a small pebble entering the Earth's atmosphere.
_________________________________

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you -- I am at a show, finishing up a very nice couple of days of talks, reception, meetings with students etc.

In a general sense, the idea of relevance is antithetical to Sufism. "Sufism is about degradations and anonymities." As well, "The true Sufi is like a small ball of dust that, when lightly moistened, neither muddies the sole of the shoe when trod upon, nor bruises."
Indeed, Sufism, pointing as it does towards unity -- everything, every action, all individually perceived moments and objects are all arrows pointing towards The One -- does not prioritize actions or outcomes. Nor does Sufism believe in the cause and effect relationship.
However, what it does posit (and in this, it had a profound influence on Jewish mysticism) is a deep respect for every moment and each action undertaken by an individual. "Look to what you do, for that is what you are worth." As such, it offers a definite and vital road-map for social and communal behavior. With the kind of profound respect that Sufism offers (and demands) acting as a basis for private and public action (the Sufi, after all, has no "public face" -- they are the same in public or private), the idea of respect for all peoples and their needs becomes a driving force. For instance, Sufis believe that all prophets from all religions take their energy from the same source -- God -- and as such, that all religions offer valid spiritual responses for those that follow those paths. In Sufism, we can find a bedrock philosophy for responding to the world and working for the public good.
The details must be worked out in each individual's life and milieu, however the motivation, stemming from the Sufi doctrines, will help the actor infuse their actions and beliefs with the deep respect of these gentle mystics.
Let me add, however, that Sufis are often viewed (still) as heretical within Islam; it is a problem that they have had for more than 1000 years. In fact, a Saudi Muslim man set up a museum of religions in Japan (I don't remember the name of the museum) that highlights the similarities between all religions -- with one stipulation, that Sufism never be included in the museum. This was the only religious practice excluded, pointing to the somewhat unstable relationship between certain facets of Islam and Sufism.

Ultimately, Sufism becomes socially relevant through the actions of Sufis themselves. Not offering a "creed" in the normal sense, that is to say a list of rules or specific rituals, the practice simply suffuses a person's actions with awareness and respect, thereby helping to positively color the world around that person. It is the most relevant manner of acting in the world, as it is based on complete respect and an appreciation for the unity of all things and beings. Additionally, unlike Buddhism, a passionate love is yearned towards, and a sense of appreciation for the world as it is, including the world of the five senses.
I hope that this helps in some way; I'll see you tomorrow!
__________________________________________

"Rabia," acrylic, ink and collage on canvas, 72" x 30", 2007

"Love to be pure, must be unrequited" -- don't get too excited, though, they're not talking about human love, just the Big Love.
Unrequited human love does not equal mystical realization.
The Sufis absolutely are contained within the vessel of Islam -- though non-Islamic Sufis have recently popped up in the West; but they are really of the New Age variety, and no different than crystal-worshippers and oregano smokers. And the Jewish/Sufis about whom I am incessantly prattling, actually considered themselves to be recapturing lost Jewish worship practices, which actually has some truth to it, if you look into the influences on early Islamic mysticism (i.e. the Jewish prophets and Talmudic Hasidim).
However, mainstream, normative Islam has always had an uncomfortable relationship with the Sufis, as they (the Sufis) have never subjected themselves to the rule of orthodox Islam, the law of the Imams etc.
For this reason, I think that normative Islamic scholars and practitioners would be very open to the message of my show -- as in "The Jews can have the Sufis, and Good Riddance!"
I think that Sufism is an exciting direction for you, though you must be careful -- a too open mind can lead to libertinism (as you suggested) and perhaps even worse. Beware the Qalander Sufis, and stay away from active Hookahs.
I might note, on another topic, that I highlighted my painting of Rabia in the Coffee House interview, and spent almost a minute talking about the work, during which time the painting was on the screen. A bit of a nod in your direction, I think -- you latter day Rabia.
Remember, though, she believed in neither heaven nor hell. Which kind of leaves us adrift, if you think of it in the certain manner . . .
As my grandfather used to say, everything in moderation, including moderation. Something the Sufis could agree with, I'm almost certain . . .
__________________________________

I'm sorry that you found my opening comment from the last e-missive "patronizing" -- I simply meant to be obnoxious and inappropriate. But still, a trifecta -- who can argue?
Let me add, while we are on the subject of sensual desire, that both Jewish and Sufi mystics held that phenomenological love and desire could open to the doorway to mystical love. Rabbi Isaac of Acre (13th century C.E.) said that a man who didn't love women was no better than a donkey. Ibn Arabi wrote intensely sensual poetry, so desirous and sexual that his son had to issue an "apologia." And this Hasidic tale (18th century) illustrates that all aspects of "profane" behavior could be seen as entryways towards a divine appreciation:

"The Gamblers
A Hasid complained to Rabbi Wolf of Zbarazh that certain persons were turning night into day, playing cards. "That is good," said the tzaddik. "Like all people, they want to serve God and don't know how.
But now they are learning to stay awake and persist in doing something. When they have become perfect in this, all they need to do is turn to God – and what excellent servants they will make for Him then!""

Al-Ghazali, of course, was the "Renovator of Islam" and (much like Maimonides for Judaism), brought together the mystical and orthodox aspects. Still, it is hard to say in this day and age how easily reconcilable these two impetuses are -- after all, religion is often (I would even hazard "always") about the temporal power-needs of the religious leaders, while mysticism is about the personal spiritual experience of the individual. These two are by their very nature not reconcilable.
And, after all, if we look at the spectrum of "Muslim" countries, how much of their public policy and political worlds are truly influenced by the Hadith, or the heart and soul of the Koran? Not much different than American politics' relation to Christianity, I would say – or Jewish law and ideas of respect, and the manner in which Israel is treating the Palestinian people. As Machiavelli said, a prophet without an army is a LOSER -- and most self-proclaimed "prophets" today are well armed and angry . . .
Worrying about the "common good" is left to the Dalai Lama (a prophet without an army) and under-funded international bodies, who remain either horribly venal, or completely de-fanged.
The intersection of spirituality and the public square is absolutely the most vital question of our times -- or any other time, really.
Soon, evolution will have made these issues moot, but we must still struggle with them for now. After all, the unfolding universe is simply the process of God's self-discovery, and we struggle to comprehend for reasons far greater than we can ever understand or appreciate.
Keep at it; and never lose the twinkle or the jaundice in your gaze -- both are vital.
____________________________________

So now you get to it! Of course, the intersection of the political/social reality (false and absurd though it may be) with the mystical reality is the most important aspect of this whole conversation. You mentioned Mandela -- he is one of three great spiritual actors who operated in the political realm in the last century, the other two being Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi (note: no white men; no women). There were many lesser lights, some of whom even were able to change policy, some who weren't, and then pure prophets like Thomas Merton and Simone Weil.
The most important question, of course, is how to insert Sufi and/or mystical awareness and actions into the public square. I attempt to do this (in a kind of sad, hopeless way) with my art. Not easy, since the public square is generally peopled by the least spiritually mature among us, as they enter into it to find existential meaning from exterior achievement, unlike the spiritually realized, who find their meaning in other realities.
I am not really qualified to get into a conversation about Islam, radical or otherwise, though I think that the growth of the Muslim community in the United States can only help open that religion achieve new possibilities. It certainly did just this for Judaism, and I suspect as more and more Muslims like yourself and Karim find their way out of the Islamic world, the religion will have no choice but to stretch itself.
Also, political issues (dictators in much of the Islamic world, though the religion itself espouses a much more egalitarian social structure) and the battle over a piece of dust hard-by the Mediterranean (masquerading as a thousand-year long religious struggle) are hard to overcome, when the "public square" always accepts political realities over other possibilities, including real history, spiritual (immanent) realities etc. The binary, conflict oriented reality sells newspapers, after all, and makes heroes out of spiritual midgets.
Ultimately, what will be is what will be (Sufi!). Perhaps the Stoic attitude (oddly similar to the Sufi posture) makes the most sense. As Epictetus said: "Wish for things to happen exactly as they do happen, and your life will be serene." A recent Sufi tale told by the living Sheikh, al-Haqqani, had a very similar message, though the tale itself is too long to beleaguer you with here.
Shalom/Salaam or whatever.
____________________________________

In terms of politics, the true Sufi would never get involved. I found the important piece of that Sufi tale that I told you about in my last emissive; here it is (and it gives a good sense about why the true Sufi would never get involved with politics):

A Sufi dervish was asked: "If you were the lord of this world, and had the
reigns of divine power in your hands, what would you do, what decrees would
you issue?"
"Oh, my master, if I were in that position, I would have everything continue
upon the course that it is presently on. I would never intervene to altar
the forces of destiny." ("In the Mystic Footsteps of Saints," Sheikh
Nazim Adil al-Haqqani, Naqshabandi Haqqani Sufi Order, Fenton, MI,
2002, pg. 90-91)

This was in the context of an aging Sufi master looking for a student to replace him. The other students had various suggestions to make the world a "better" place (though some of their responses were of dubious quality, in my opinion), and this answer took the day.
Not to say that I entirely believe this point of view, mind you, but the point is that once one gets involved in the public square, the personal ego gets involved, and no matter how we slice it up, this is not a good thing. I think that the best we can do is hope to ally the narcissistic energy of the driving, desirous personal ego with the thrust towards the "common good," though even this idea (common good) is so fraught with personal interpretation that maybe, in the end, the Sufis really do have it right.
I struggle with the idea of morality -- a friend of mine just wrote and basically said that morality is not more or less important or noteworthy than mitosis, and that both are simply representative of an evolutionary stage. Can I honestly disagree with her? After all, I am unshackled by religious faith, relying instead on the simple energy of the universe to give my movements meaning.
Please, whatever you do, keep your wits about you!