Spirituality Is the Connection that Gives Final Meaning to Life
What we mean by spirituality is the connection which gives the final meaning to our life.
This is according to Iranian seminary and university scholar Hojat-ol-Islam Dr Ahmad Ahmadi, speaking at an educational course held by Al-Mostafa International University.
The following are excerpts from his speech:
I want to start by discussing the meaning of intellect or reason in my own understanding. I believe many of the problems we face in understanding one another (as far s philosophy in academic circles is concerned) come from the different definitions of intellect and different understandings of the word. There is a usual definition of Aghl (intellect), of this faculty of human kind, in the philosophical elaborations in the West, but I have my own understanding and my own definition. Then if I go through that, definitely we should also touch the meaning of spirituality.
Whether the meaning of spirituality would be what is generally referred to in the Western civilization, namely spirituality is something that finally results in being good to others and taking care of some codes of morality and thinking of goodness to human kind. Therefore, if we are spiritual persons, we devote ourselves to establishing codes of morality and encouraging people to do good things like charity, etc. Is this the meaning of spirituality or no? For him spirituality is a discipline, which connects us to a higher, transcendental level of understanding of the metaphysical world connected to the essence of revelation. Then, if this is the case, what is the relation and position of intellect toward that kind of spirituality in the second meaning? Spirituality as a discipline that provides us with intellectual facilities to get connected to the supreme world, the supreme layers of the universe.
If this is the meaning of spirituality, then what would be the relation between spirituality and intellect?
I disagree with Emanuel Kant. He believes that there is no need for putting forward a definition of the topic we are discussing. He says let us forget about clear definition, let’s go and proceed in our philosophical deliberations and in the process you will understand what we mean by what we say. But I don’t agree with such a method. I believe we should have a clear definition right from the start so that our audience know exactly what is the core our discussion and what are its boundaries.
I have been engaged in these topics for more than 60 years. I have been busy books in mysticism, philosophy, jurisprudence, principles of jurisprudence, and my life experience tells me that I am watching a scene that figures (shapes) our disputing each other consciously. From one side, a mystical figure like Rumi (Mowlawi) completely rejects the authority of Aghl. More than 600 times he refers to Aghl in different contexts. On the other hand, a figure like Hafez, his main paradigm is explaining the challenge, the continuous challenge between Aghl and Esgh (love).
Throughout the work of Hafez, we see a continuous fight between Aghl and Esgh. They are described to be basically incompatible to each other. On the one hand, jurists refute mystics. On the other hand empiricists refuse metaphysical understanding. Philosophers are opposed to mystics and argue with them because they claim that what mystics say is not compatible with Aghl and our reference point as philosophers is supposed to be Aghl while your understanding of the mystical truth does not rely on Aghl.
Therefore this fighting has been continuing. Then what is the nature of this Aghl the fight about which does not end?
I have referred to various dictionaries and encyclopedias (in search for the meaning of Aghl). In Webster you see more than 40 definitions for Aghl. In Persian, it is the same. When I look at Mulla Sadra’s works there are also six different meanings (6 meanings can be derived). Imam Muhammad Ghazali introduced four meanings. In Mufradat Ragheb which discusses the meanings of the words of the Quran, approaches Aghl from different angles. What is common among all the different approaches to Aghl, is that Aghl is the faculty of perception, the faculty of gaining knowledge.
Arbery in his translation of the Quran, has translated Aghl as understanding.
If Aghl is the faculty of perception and gaining knowledge, it means that Aghl is only an instrument and has nothing essentially from (of) itself. It is empty of everything.
In this sense, what Aghl is doing is receive data and try to classify and analyze and compare the results of different sets of data. Therefore, Aghl tells us the relation between things and the description of things in ordinary life comes through the analysis of Aghl. But Aghl does not have any original intervention into the domain of data.
Later in my studies I came through the work of Allameh Tabatabaee. In his second volume of Al-Mizan Interpretation of the Quran, I found that he claimed that Aghl has nothing from itself but the only thing that Aghl can do is understand contradiction, namely Aghl tells us a thing can not exist and at the same time does not exist. In other words, a thing can not be in a state of being and not being at the same time. This is contradiction. Allameh said this is the main faculty of Aghl. But I think that even if this is the case, Aghl needs other information from outside of it. Meaning that if Aghl does not receive signs from the outside world, it can not decide whether something is contradict or not. Therefore, even in this case, the power of Aghl is not original but depends on the external source.
The faculty of Aghl may receive data from our sensory sources (five senses). This is true, but I believe that Aghl also receives opinion, comments and understating, from the core spirit of human kind. Therefore, Aghl not only analyzes and classifies and defines the relation between different sensory data that we receive from the outside world (empirical data), it also analyses data received from the inner core of the spirit (Rooh in Islamic terminology, something from another realm) of human being. Aghl has two sources of data: senses and the inner core of the spirit. Therefore, even mystics who do not want to rely only on the sensory data, analyze the data by their Aghl data coming from the inner side of the human spirit. Therefore, we can not say that mystics so not use Aghl. They do, but the data they work on is different.
Saints, prophets, Imams, and others, who are connected to the Supreme reality, they receive data from within this connection to the Supreme world a kind of data which is different from the data received via the senses. By this, we mean that the people who are connected to the Supreme reality also use their Aghl, but the data they receive is different.
The higher facts presented in different religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam are connected with higher levels of reality. They can not be perceived by sensory perceptions. They are received from the data through the soul and spirit. In Nahjulbalaqa we have 20 different facts from higher levels which can not be perceived through sensory perception.
If accept that, this everlasting fight between scholars of different disciplines will end. I mean an schoklar in the field of chemistry will not decide to go and criticize the work of a sociologist or an astronomer will enter the realm of a Faqih and everyone will accept that there is a domain of intellectual maneuver within the domain of the data he receives. Therefore everyone knows that he only can judge within the domain of the data he receives and can not criticize or reject other people in their own domain.
So one only has the right to say “I don’t know” but not the right to say “There is not ” or “It is not so”. And this is a very important issue.
For example, Avicenna in the chapter of theology, in the book Shifa tells us that we can prove the remaining of our soul (Nafs) after death. And that there should not be an end to our spiritual life when we die. But the existence of the Day of Resurrection and that we will be resurrected with the corporeal characteristics which are defined in religious message, that can not be proven by Aghl. Because our Aghl has no data about that to prove it. So the only thing I can do is to accept it from the Prophet (PBUH) because I believe the Prophet was a truthful man and that he received the news about resurrection from the Supreme reality (God).
Therefore, as Avicenna tells us in the last two chapters of the Book Al-Isharat, if you see somebody is praying (for rain) and it started raining, or if you see someone prays for someone else and what he asks is granted, do not get surprised because there are so many transcendental developments in relations between the higher and lower levels of reality and we can argue that these relations are hidden within us.
Therefore, if you here strange things happening, I recommend you to say that it may be a possibility until your intellect and the level of your knowledge reaches a point where you can prove or disprove. Otherwise, keep it in the box of possibility.
For example, the accounts in the Bible and in the Quran about Jesus Christ (PBUH) and the extraordinary events attributed to him, can not be understood through sensory perception, but there are supreme realities and other components of knowledge belonging to a higher realm of existence. If we are purified and the mirror of our spirit is clean and purified enough to reflect that reality, then with that kind of connection we can reflect and see the past and the future or decide or talk about events that ordinary people cannot.
The point I want to make is that these kinds of understanding are not happening outside the realm of Aghl. Rather, the same faculty of Aghl which analyzes sensory perceptions also analyzes these realities. The difference is that the received data is different and is from another realm. So it is not recommended to say that because we have this kind of reflections, then we should put aside Aghl because Aghl is limited. In fact, Aghl is not limited, but what is limited is the data we receive. When the boundaries of data reception are enlarged, the conclusions would be different.
There is a sentence from Imam Ali (AS). He said the Prophet (PBUH) taught me 1000 (countless) chapters of knowledge, and from each chapter came another 1000 chapters. The result of this knowledge was that, in his personal life events happened or cases were put forward to him and he would say the prophet (PBUH) had told me about the case previously. Therefore he knew it before from a different source which is not contradictory to Aghl. It is only that there was an additional source available to him that was not available to others.
One Imam Ali (AS) was passing a bridge and he said pointed to a location and said this used to be the house of the daughter of Khosrow Parviz, former king of Iran. Imam Ali (AS) said the Prophet (PBUH) had told me before that one day you will pass that location. We know of so many cases like this in history that we can not deny them. And onbe more point is that this kind of visionary understanding is not only limited to religious people. Even non-believers sometimes see things and tell about events or realities that come from their connection to the Supreme Reality, although they may not explicitly belive the source.
Hence, we should be very cautious in our judgment, and in our judgments we should consider our limitations and the limitations in the domain of our understanding. A philosopher can not judge definitely about something related to the realm of other sciences and other sciences like humanities can not judge about the knowledge related to the realm of revelation. The only thin permissible is the blessed phrase “I don’t know”.
Now, we can refer to the concept of spirituality. Having that prerequisite already mentioned, if what we mean by spirituality is that one is good, does not tell lies, or has moral relations with others or a businessman does not cheat others or his behavior is according to the rules and norms of society, it is good, but this kind of behavior could be analyzed and supported by our sensory rationality. I mean this worldly rationality can also prove it and recommend it. In other words, our worldly rationality also tells us that if we want to have a better life, we should have this kind of behavior. This is in compatibility with our sensory rationality.
That kind of spirituality or morality that was already mentioned, meaning being rational in the day-to-day life is also possible in secular societies. For a society which is secular but wants to establish a secular standard of morality is possible to take care of that code of behavior. But if by spirituality we mean some kind of connection with the realm of beyond senses (I do not want to use the word abstract because it is not applicable here, I prefer to use the term beyond or meta-sensory realm. If by spirituality we mean that connection which gives the final meaning to our life, therefore our Aghl should be someone who also accepts that supreme components of data which come from sources like prophets and saints, in that case being in connection with understandings originated from that Supreme reality will enter to the scene of our analytical Aghl. By this, I want to say that we are putting Aghl aside to be able to consider those kinds of reality. Rather, we are nourishing Aghl through them.
It is through this connection with the Supreme realm that our life could be defined as a real human life. The one that makes us really alive. And this kind of understanding is one that strengthens the spirit of an Aref (spiritual man) and gives relaxation to it and will bring certainty (Yaghin) and will take us to a place where our spirit, our soul is embraced with some kid of certainty, which is so solid and beyond doubt that we can rely on it. Two verses of the Quran refer to this state of understanding:
(To the righteous soul will be said:) "O (thou) soul, in (complete) rest and satisfaction!"Come back thou to thy Lord,- well pleased (thyself), and well-pleasing unto Him! "Enter thou, then, among My devotees! "Yea, enter thou My Heaven! (89: 27-30)
O ye who believe! give your response to Allah and His Messenger, when He calleth you to that which will give you life; and know that Allah cometh in between a man and his heart, and that it is He to Whom ye shall (all) be gathered.
The following are excerpts from his speech:
I want to start by discussing the meaning of intellect or reason in my own understanding. I believe many of the problems we face in understanding one another (as far s philosophy in academic circles is concerned) come from the different definitions of intellect and different understandings of the word. There is a usual definition of Aghl (intellect), of this faculty of human kind, in the philosophical elaborations in the West, but I have my own understanding and my own definition. Then if I go through that, definitely we should also touch the meaning of spirituality.
Whether the meaning of spirituality would be what is generally referred to in the Western civilization, namely spirituality is something that finally results in being good to others and taking care of some codes of morality and thinking of goodness to human kind. Therefore, if we are spiritual persons, we devote ourselves to establishing codes of morality and encouraging people to do good things like charity, etc. Is this the meaning of spirituality or no? For him spirituality is a discipline, which connects us to a higher, transcendental level of understanding of the metaphysical world connected to the essence of revelation. Then, if this is the case, what is the relation and position of intellect toward that kind of spirituality in the second meaning? Spirituality as a discipline that provides us with intellectual facilities to get connected to the supreme world, the supreme layers of the universe.
If this is the meaning of spirituality, then what would be the relation between spirituality and intellect?
I disagree with Emanuel Kant. He believes that there is no need for putting forward a definition of the topic we are discussing. He says let us forget about clear definition, let’s go and proceed in our philosophical deliberations and in the process you will understand what we mean by what we say. But I don’t agree with such a method. I believe we should have a clear definition right from the start so that our audience know exactly what is the core our discussion and what are its boundaries.
I have been engaged in these topics for more than 60 years. I have been busy books in mysticism, philosophy, jurisprudence, principles of jurisprudence, and my life experience tells me that I am watching a scene that figures (shapes) our disputing each other consciously. From one side, a mystical figure like Rumi (Mowlawi) completely rejects the authority of Aghl. More than 600 times he refers to Aghl in different contexts. On the other hand, a figure like Hafez, his main paradigm is explaining the challenge, the continuous challenge between Aghl and Esgh (love).
Throughout the work of Hafez, we see a continuous fight between Aghl and Esgh. They are described to be basically incompatible to each other. On the one hand, jurists refute mystics. On the other hand empiricists refuse metaphysical understanding. Philosophers are opposed to mystics and argue with them because they claim that what mystics say is not compatible with Aghl and our reference point as philosophers is supposed to be Aghl while your understanding of the mystical truth does not rely on Aghl.
Therefore this fighting has been continuing. Then what is the nature of this Aghl the fight about which does not end?
I have referred to various dictionaries and encyclopedias (in search for the meaning of Aghl). In Webster you see more than 40 definitions for Aghl. In Persian, it is the same. When I look at Mulla Sadra’s works there are also six different meanings (6 meanings can be derived). Imam Muhammad Ghazali introduced four meanings. In Mufradat Ragheb which discusses the meanings of the words of the Quran, approaches Aghl from different angles. What is common among all the different approaches to Aghl, is that Aghl is the faculty of perception, the faculty of gaining knowledge.
Arbery in his translation of the Quran, has translated Aghl as understanding.
If Aghl is the faculty of perception and gaining knowledge, it means that Aghl is only an instrument and has nothing essentially from (of) itself. It is empty of everything.
In this sense, what Aghl is doing is receive data and try to classify and analyze and compare the results of different sets of data. Therefore, Aghl tells us the relation between things and the description of things in ordinary life comes through the analysis of Aghl. But Aghl does not have any original intervention into the domain of data.
Later in my studies I came through the work of Allameh Tabatabaee. In his second volume of Al-Mizan Interpretation of the Quran, I found that he claimed that Aghl has nothing from itself but the only thing that Aghl can do is understand contradiction, namely Aghl tells us a thing can not exist and at the same time does not exist. In other words, a thing can not be in a state of being and not being at the same time. This is contradiction. Allameh said this is the main faculty of Aghl. But I think that even if this is the case, Aghl needs other information from outside of it. Meaning that if Aghl does not receive signs from the outside world, it can not decide whether something is contradict or not. Therefore, even in this case, the power of Aghl is not original but depends on the external source.
The faculty of Aghl may receive data from our sensory sources (five senses). This is true, but I believe that Aghl also receives opinion, comments and understating, from the core spirit of human kind. Therefore, Aghl not only analyzes and classifies and defines the relation between different sensory data that we receive from the outside world (empirical data), it also analyses data received from the inner core of the spirit (Rooh in Islamic terminology, something from another realm) of human being. Aghl has two sources of data: senses and the inner core of the spirit. Therefore, even mystics who do not want to rely only on the sensory data, analyze the data by their Aghl data coming from the inner side of the human spirit. Therefore, we can not say that mystics so not use Aghl. They do, but the data they work on is different.
Saints, prophets, Imams, and others, who are connected to the Supreme reality, they receive data from within this connection to the Supreme world a kind of data which is different from the data received via the senses. By this, we mean that the people who are connected to the Supreme reality also use their Aghl, but the data they receive is different.
The higher facts presented in different religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam are connected with higher levels of reality. They can not be perceived by sensory perceptions. They are received from the data through the soul and spirit. In Nahjulbalaqa we have 20 different facts from higher levels which can not be perceived through sensory perception.
If accept that, this everlasting fight between scholars of different disciplines will end. I mean an schoklar in the field of chemistry will not decide to go and criticize the work of a sociologist or an astronomer will enter the realm of a Faqih and everyone will accept that there is a domain of intellectual maneuver within the domain of the data he receives. Therefore everyone knows that he only can judge within the domain of the data he receives and can not criticize or reject other people in their own domain.
So one only has the right to say “I don’t know” but not the right to say “There is not ” or “It is not so”. And this is a very important issue.
For example, Avicenna in the chapter of theology, in the book Shifa tells us that we can prove the remaining of our soul (Nafs) after death. And that there should not be an end to our spiritual life when we die. But the existence of the Day of Resurrection and that we will be resurrected with the corporeal characteristics which are defined in religious message, that can not be proven by Aghl. Because our Aghl has no data about that to prove it. So the only thing I can do is to accept it from the Prophet (PBUH) because I believe the Prophet was a truthful man and that he received the news about resurrection from the Supreme reality (God).
Therefore, as Avicenna tells us in the last two chapters of the Book Al-Isharat, if you see somebody is praying (for rain) and it started raining, or if you see someone prays for someone else and what he asks is granted, do not get surprised because there are so many transcendental developments in relations between the higher and lower levels of reality and we can argue that these relations are hidden within us.
Therefore, if you here strange things happening, I recommend you to say that it may be a possibility until your intellect and the level of your knowledge reaches a point where you can prove or disprove. Otherwise, keep it in the box of possibility.
For example, the accounts in the Bible and in the Quran about Jesus Christ (PBUH) and the extraordinary events attributed to him, can not be understood through sensory perception, but there are supreme realities and other components of knowledge belonging to a higher realm of existence. If we are purified and the mirror of our spirit is clean and purified enough to reflect that reality, then with that kind of connection we can reflect and see the past and the future or decide or talk about events that ordinary people cannot.
The point I want to make is that these kinds of understanding are not happening outside the realm of Aghl. Rather, the same faculty of Aghl which analyzes sensory perceptions also analyzes these realities. The difference is that the received data is different and is from another realm. So it is not recommended to say that because we have this kind of reflections, then we should put aside Aghl because Aghl is limited. In fact, Aghl is not limited, but what is limited is the data we receive. When the boundaries of data reception are enlarged, the conclusions would be different.
There is a sentence from Imam Ali (AS). He said the Prophet (PBUH) taught me 1000 (countless) chapters of knowledge, and from each chapter came another 1000 chapters. The result of this knowledge was that, in his personal life events happened or cases were put forward to him and he would say the prophet (PBUH) had told me about the case previously. Therefore he knew it before from a different source which is not contradictory to Aghl. It is only that there was an additional source available to him that was not available to others.
One Imam Ali (AS) was passing a bridge and he said pointed to a location and said this used to be the house of the daughter of Khosrow Parviz, former king of Iran. Imam Ali (AS) said the Prophet (PBUH) had told me before that one day you will pass that location. We know of so many cases like this in history that we can not deny them. And onbe more point is that this kind of visionary understanding is not only limited to religious people. Even non-believers sometimes see things and tell about events or realities that come from their connection to the Supreme Reality, although they may not explicitly belive the source.
Hence, we should be very cautious in our judgment, and in our judgments we should consider our limitations and the limitations in the domain of our understanding. A philosopher can not judge definitely about something related to the realm of other sciences and other sciences like humanities can not judge about the knowledge related to the realm of revelation. The only thin permissible is the blessed phrase “I don’t know”.
Now, we can refer to the concept of spirituality. Having that prerequisite already mentioned, if what we mean by spirituality is that one is good, does not tell lies, or has moral relations with others or a businessman does not cheat others or his behavior is according to the rules and norms of society, it is good, but this kind of behavior could be analyzed and supported by our sensory rationality. I mean this worldly rationality can also prove it and recommend it. In other words, our worldly rationality also tells us that if we want to have a better life, we should have this kind of behavior. This is in compatibility with our sensory rationality.
That kind of spirituality or morality that was already mentioned, meaning being rational in the day-to-day life is also possible in secular societies. For a society which is secular but wants to establish a secular standard of morality is possible to take care of that code of behavior. But if by spirituality we mean some kind of connection with the realm of beyond senses (I do not want to use the word abstract because it is not applicable here, I prefer to use the term beyond or meta-sensory realm. If by spirituality we mean that connection which gives the final meaning to our life, therefore our Aghl should be someone who also accepts that supreme components of data which come from sources like prophets and saints, in that case being in connection with understandings originated from that Supreme reality will enter to the scene of our analytical Aghl. By this, I want to say that we are putting Aghl aside to be able to consider those kinds of reality. Rather, we are nourishing Aghl through them.
It is through this connection with the Supreme realm that our life could be defined as a real human life. The one that makes us really alive. And this kind of understanding is one that strengthens the spirit of an Aref (spiritual man) and gives relaxation to it and will bring certainty (Yaghin) and will take us to a place where our spirit, our soul is embraced with some kid of certainty, which is so solid and beyond doubt that we can rely on it. Two verses of the Quran refer to this state of understanding:
(To the righteous soul will be said:) "O (thou) soul, in (complete) rest and satisfaction!"Come back thou to thy Lord,- well pleased (thyself), and well-pleasing unto Him! "Enter thou, then, among My devotees! "Yea, enter thou My Heaven! (89: 27-30)
O ye who believe! give your response to Allah and His Messenger, when He calleth you to that which will give you life; and know that Allah cometh in between a man and his heart, and that it is He to Whom ye shall (all) be gathered.
