Universal Sufism

Today, I was looking at some old emails in my overstuffed inbox. It was nice going through messages sent by old friends. It was like opening a time capsule, looking at the reflection of my past. While going through my inbox, I came across an email sent by Hafizullah, a Sufi sister, that I would like to share. The following is her take on Universal Sufism, the form of Sufism I practice.

Dear Friends:

I don't know what "Universal Sufism" is exactly, but I can give some background that may be helpful.

Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan (ra) was perhaps the first public Sufi teacher in the West and one of the first to bring what might be called "universal Sufism." Since his time, there have been others, Sayyed Idries Shah being one. He grew up and was trained in the four major Orders of Sufism in India; recent inter-religious strife notwithstanding, India has a long history of religious tolerance.

The Turkish incursions to India in the 12th Century CE were not to spread Islam but basically just a land grab; the local people were allowed to keep their religion, and many Hindu princes became vassals of the Turkish (they weren't "Mughals" yet) conquerors, retaining both their religion and their holdings. When Hazrat Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti (ra) came to India from Khorasan during this time, he recognized the deep spirituality in the Hindu and Buddhist yogis. (Hinduism actually has a secret doctrine of the Unity of God that is taught only to the Brahmin caste.) Khwaja Moinuddin learned Sanskrit in order to discourse with the Brahmins and was impressed enough with the yogic techniques of spiritual practice that he laundered and incorporated some of them into his teaching. He also began the practice of accepting initiates regardless of their birth religion without asking them to convert. Many of them did convert, impressed as they were with the being of Moinuddin Chishti; also, Islam does not support a caste system - something very attractive to the disenfranchised lower castes.

The tradition of accepting initiates regardless of religion without asking conversion was made official policy when Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya (ra)became the pir of the Chishti Order in India, and this became *written* policy of the Nizami branch of the Chishtiyya about 300 years ago. So, as far as the Indian Chishtis are concerned, the question of whether one has to be a practicing Muslim to be a proper Sufi was settled a long time ago.

Inayat Khan grew up in an atmosphere of not just religious tolerance but really, inter-religious respect. He kept a Bible by his bedside as well as the Quran, and even prayed in Hindu temples. Additionally, the Chishti teachings are metaphysical/esoteric in a way that is much more explicit than in some Orders, and focus upon the mechanics of the subtle energies and of deep consciousness that is not framed in a religious "languaging" but can illuminate the religious formulations in a particular way. This manner of teaching makes the underlying unity of spiritual practice and also what Inayat Khan termed the fundamental "unity of religious ideals" much easier to see than when one is limited to language and mental constructs. The Indian perspective of seeing the world's prophets as a continuum of bringing the same basic message to humanity was very much a part of his spiritual ethos, the Hindu "gods" (Krishna, Shiva, etc.) being actual historical persons who were prophets in their time.

So, the Sufism brought to the West by Inayat Khan was seen as based not upon religion as it is usually understood but upon something implicit in the fundamental structure of the human being which transcends time, space, mind, language, and certainly culture. "Religions" as they are usually practiced are the reified, one might almost say "waste products," of a divine gift to humanity that was once very much alive on all the planes of existence, and which either revivified the existing religious forms or did away with them. Even though the religions founded by "the followers of the followers" of a prophet have become static and rigid, the *beings* of the prophets themselves are still enormously alive on the inner planes and can be contacted through pure intent and spiritual practice, thus informing ones life and consciousness in an ever-deepening way.

Inayat Khan did not wish to make a mish-mash homogeneity of the religions, but to recognize and honor the unique purpose of every soul and its unique relationship to a Prophet. The manner of spiritual practice is a matter for the esoteric school and is between the guide and the student; the manner of *religious* practice is a matter between each soul and God, such that the religious practice and the spiritual practice of each of us eventually becomes unified in the heart and not something subject to external prescription/coercion. (I think of Quran 2:256 in this connection.)

As I see it, Islamic Sufism seeks to make the religion alive from the outside in; through spiritual practice (riyazat), one finds deeper and deeper meaning in the religious forms and practices. Perhaps "Universal Sufism" seeks to purify the being from the inside out, and many "universal Sufis" have found great meaning in the once-repudiated religion of their birth through their involvement with Sufi practice, and some have found a deep connection to a religion other than the one into which they were born.

In the final analysis, each soul belongs only to God, not to a masjid, temple, church, or Prophet, exalted though they be.