Musings on fear

[Michael Larkin]

Premise: fear can only exist where there is vulnerability.

Hmm. Some things are definitely vulnerable - such as the body. The mind, too.

Still, we can in some circumstances ignore these seemingly legitimate causes for fear. For example, when protecting the life of a loved one.

Is there any aspect of us that is invulnerable and therefore fearless?

One can believe there is, but is that wishful thinking? Who knows...

Let's assume that there isn't anything that's invulnerable in us. If so, then we can, and will, lose everything.

But hang on. If we will lose everything, nothing means anything and so why be afraid of losing it?

So actually, fear only seems legitimate if there is something that can't be lost, and moreover, that fear can't be for the body or the mind, because as we know, they can both be lost.

So the only thing that's worth being fearful about is whatever can't be lost.

But hang on. If it can't be lost, it's invulnerable, and so why be afraid?

It seems that in any event whatsoever, there is no point being afraid. The original premise was wrong; fear has nothing to do with vulnerability, or for that matter, lack of it.

So what is fear and where does it come from? What conceivable use is it?

[Michael Larkin]

Hi Rajan,

What you say is perfectly fair. The phenomenal is the bridge to the real, after all. Whatever floats one's boat is fine. As long as it is floating, of course, and not sinking.

[Rajan Arulganesan]

What I mean is, yes, I can understand the concept that eventually one has to give up all this identifying with schools of thought and philosophy in favour of something higher. For me, at the moment, the label sufism is very useful, because before encountering this strain of spirituality, all I've come across have been lots and lots of non- specific, wishy- washy literature on spirituality that I was simply dismissing based on their inconsistencies and irrelevances.

[Rajan Arulganesan]

I agree with your analogy between fitness regimes and their purpose compared against the spiritual quest; the parallels that you draw between these endeavours. Your statement regarding the limitations of labels could have come straight out of a book by Shah. You could call it sufic, but, expressed in the terms of the culture and times we are living in. I am not trying to defend being attached to labels and institutions, but I do feel in these days of distortion and dilution of all human thought, cleaving for and identifying authentic sources of real knowledge, at least, for people at a certain level is necessary.

[Michael Larkin]

Hi Mike,

Don't get me wrong - you may be right about PK. All I'm saying is that I personally keeping an open mind. I have no problem if you think he's not the real deal, and to some extent can understand your reasons for saying that.

[Michael Larkin]

Hi Kareana,

perhaps you could explain a bit more, it sounds as if you make a differentiation between Love as it is experienced in 'Islamic' Sufism and "other" schools that also identify as Sufism.

I’ll try to explain. I belong to a school that doesn’t explicitly identify itself as a Sufi one, but it has certain elements which might be considered Sufic, and I know that some members do consider it as Sufism.

Occasionally, one does experience certain sensations of “unity” and “love”, and these can be extremely pleasant. One may find oneself wanting these sensations all the time, but I’ve always had reservations about that. “Reservations” might sound as if it’s a rational thing, but it’s not. It’s more of an instinct or an intuition that can be expressed intellectually by saying something like: This isn’t the real point, having these sublime feelings. There’s something behind them, something for which they are a superficial expression. Whatever it is, this thing is something distinct from these feelings, and they distract me from concentrating on that.

If I might draw an analogy here, one might think about doing physical exercise in a gym. Some people can become addicted to it, get a high from spending hours a day exercising. In the end, experiencing this high as often and for as long as possible may become the aim. That can lead to problems for the exerciser, who really only needs a few sessions a week to keep in shape, which is the real objective.

Now: some people may swear on doing weight training, others on aerobics, and others on other exercises; but they may all be perfectly adequate in attaining bodily fitness. Each kind of exercise may give highs, and each practitioner may think in the vocabulary and concepts of how the exercise gives them those highs, missing the point that the real objective is simply to maintain physical fitness.

Being physically fit isn’t inherently an ecstatic experience. It’s something that enables one to function that much more effectively in the world. Carrying things past the point where they achieve that aim simply in order to maintain the ecstasy is counterproductive. Having discussions where someone addicted to weight training highs interprets everything to do with fitness in terms of weight training and its benefits can lead to misunderstanding.

I am convinced that true “enlightenment” isn’t experienced as a “high”. I think it’s a matter-of-fact state of being. I am convinced there are as many ways to enlightenment as there are seekers of it. All the stages along the way are accompanied by limited and limiting understandings, be those couched in terms of Classical Sufism or Zen or Christian mysticism or anything else. At some point, the donkey that got you there should become redundant.

[Mike MacLeod]

Hi Michael,

Well...I said too much, but yes, I didn't feel like this book made much of a contribution, for reasons Dr. Kingsley was not aware of then (but which he may have encountered by now), and for reasons of which I think any scholar should be aware when writing such books.

While the library system was locating the book and sending it to me, I read the reviews of it on Amazon, starting with the one-star reviews, then continuing up to the five-star reviews. I find this has a certain predictive value based on the discourse of the people at the extremes. If the five-star reviewers say things like, "A stupendous book...I never heard of all this before, it must have been covered up...these reviewers who don't like it are all jealous old twits who feel threatened and are worried about their tenure" I get one kind of impression, and if I read "a profound meditation on overlooked aspects of Greek experience...a brilliant synthesis of traditional and nontraditional thought...adds depth to a branch of studies thought mined clean centuries ago..." I get a very different impression. In this case, I found that for the most part I agreed with the low-star reviewers, and had my own considerations based on my own personal experiences outside the scope of received wisdom. So, having said too much already, I have said too much more.

I should look into his latest book and these other materials.

Having said all this, there is nothing at all that suggests that this may not be a very fruitful path to pursue. I agree that publication by the Golden Sufi Naqshbandi group suggests that his studies have great value, but I did not get that impression from this book at least.

[Kareana Kee]

hi Michael,

Im interested by your comment:

I have long suspected that it’s all too easy to get carried away by certain feelings which might be categorised as “spiritual love”, and to associate those feelings with a particular formulation, such as “Islamic” Sufism.

perhaps you could explain a bit more, it sounds as if you make a differentiation between Love as it is experienced in 'Islamic' Sufism and "other" schools that also identify as Sufism.

Yes I do agree it is all just words in the end. Conceptualising and rationalising will never be a substitute for "doing the work"...at the end of the day that is where the true knowing happens..in our hearts ....tht is according to the Sufis, whoever they are :)

[Rajan Arulganesan]

Thank you Jane, I will check out this link.

[Michael Larkin]

Hi Mike,

You don’t seem to have a very high opinion of PK. That’s fine, of course; you are entitled to your opinion! :-) As for myself, I’m just keeping an open mind.

He has a set of CDs on his site – the one entitled “Everything” contains details of the “practices and teachings” PK adopts, including incubation. I know this because I enquired from PK’s site and received an answer from his wife. I’m considering whether or not to get this set. Check out the description here: http://www.peterkingsley.org/Details.cfm?ProdID=50&category=4.

[Michael Larkin]

Hi Kareana,

what does PK mean by love as a deception?

Good question I’m trying to sort out whether he is talking about love as I think Sufis understand it. It may be that he is concentrating on Eros rather than Agape. And it is interesting that Reality is published by the Golden Sufi Centre (Associated with Tweedie and Vaughan-Lee), and that PK appears to have had contact with contemporary Sufis. He has some MP3 materials on the Golden Sufi site, having presented them at one of their annual meetings, so there doesn’t appear to be any overt conflict.

Maybe he will have resolved the issue when I get to the end of the book – will just have to wait and see. Certainly, the love referred to by Sufis doesn’t appear to me to be a soppy affair; as important as the love itself is the anguish one may feel in its absence – the expansion and contraction you refer to. The contraction may equate to strife; but mind you, the expansion shouldn’t in theory be deceptive.

Having said that, I have long suspected that it’s all too easy to get carried away by certain feelings which might be categorised as “spiritual love”, and to associate those feelings with a particular formulation, such as “Islamic” Sufism. I feel that there is something beyond any particular formulation with its specific concepts and vocabulary. This was the source, really, of certain difficulties I used to have with some of James’ posts.

Is fear the absence of love/the remembrance of unity? In the end, it’s all just words, isn’t it? I suspect it’s the absence of something, at any rate. Yes, I agree that fear may have a positive aspect, as I mentioned earlier when I drew the parallel between it and pain. Both draw attention to, or signal, as you put it, that something is wrong or missing, which can be, essentially, constructive – because it prompts us to seek a solution to a problem or difficulty.

Again, it may be an example of strife being the way forward; without dissatisfaction, there is no impetus for change. It may not be so much that fear and love are different sides of the same coin, as that there is a presence and an absence, or an existence and a non-existence, of something - insert your own concepts or words. Concepts and words are all more or less deceptive, limiting or binding. The Truth, whatever it is, lies beyond deception or limitation.