2. TRUTH
The Word
“Truth” appears to have no meaning in modern science, and
Philosophers have not been able to agree on its meaning either. Yet people are
constantly insisting on it because it is impossible to live without it. Islamic
view of Truth is given thus:-
“He (Allah) said: The Truth is, and the Truth I
speak.” 38:85
“He (Allah) it is Who created the heavens and
the earth in truth. In that day when He saith: Be. It is. His word is Truth,
and His will be the sovereignty on the day when the trumpet is blown.”
6:73-74 and 15:85 and 29:44
“Allah, He is the manifest Truth.” 24:25
“... that is so because Allah, He is the True,
and that which they invoke besides Him is the False.” 31:30
“That is because Allah, He is the Truth. Lo, He
quickens the dead.” 22:6
“Say: O, People of the Scriptures, stress not in
your religion other than the Truth, and follow not the vain desires of folk who
erred of old and led many astray.” 5:77
“Say: The Holy spirit hath revealed it from thy
Lord with Truth, that it may confirm those who believe.” 16:102
“Most of them follow naught but conjecture.
Conjecture can never take the place of Truth.” 10:37
The
Universe is created by truth and all events happen through the transmission of
truth. Thus, the word truth has a similar meaning to Order or Information as
used in science except that the latter makes no distinction of quality, but
only of quantity.
All Truth
derives from a single one by continuous differentiation and by different kinds
of re-combinations and interactions.
“Lo!
We have created everything by measure. And Our Commandment is but one, as the
twinkling of an eye.” 55:49-50
The
implication may be that there are units of order and all things can be
described as quantities of order. Order in the Total Universe has many parts,
each of which has an order, and so on. The order in the parts is dependant on
the order in the whole. There is a transfer of order between the whole and the
parts and between parts. Parts may combine to form other parts.
The word Reality does not only refer to
this Universe, as it may give rise to many different Universes. Reality refers
to what never changes, Truth is the force by which things are created and
regulated, the Information, Order or Pattern. It is that which governs
structures and behaviour. The genetic pattern is an example of order. The plan
or blue print by means of which we create something is another example. There
is also a transfer of information from an object to a person who sees the
object, through the medium of light. The object organises the light in certain
ways and this is conveyed to the observer who forms a corresponding record in
his memory. This record may not be identical to the original, just as a written
or spoken word is not identical to the object it refers to. But there is a
correspondence and link between them.
Whereas
Reality is a unity which exists apart from any observer, Truth depends on the
existence of parts between which there is interaction and relationships,
thereby creating a pattern. It also refers to the connection between an object
and the context or environment in which it exists. It refers to experience. It
requires a triad. A unity has to be divided for the purposes of observation, so
that each part can be regarded as the observer with respect to the other. The
unity is not, thereby, destroyed, but we also have to consider the interaction
as the unifying factor. An experience is real in so far as it conforms to
Reality. It may not be as in the case of hallucinations and illusions. It may,
however, be said that these are real experiences, but their interpretations are
false. We attribute them to the external world whereas they are inner
experiences. Knowledge is the awareness of experience. An item of knowledge, on
the other hand, is true in so far as it conforms to experience. We are not
necessarily aware of our experiences. Since description depends on awareness,
knowledge is often identified with description, but we may be aware of more
than we describe, and a description does not necessarily correspond to what we
are aware of. Knowledge depends on the selectivity, direction and width of
attention.
Truth may
be seen from three points of view:-
(a) The relationship between a
thing and the greater whole to which it belongs, and, therefore, ultimately
with Allah. This is how truth is defined in Islam.
(b) The relationship of a thing
with other things. These relationships are also connected.
(c) The relationship between a
thing and its parts.
Apart from
the selectivity of attention, experience, too can be selective, It depends on
the following:-
(a) The properties of an object is
a relationship between it and other objects. In particular it is a relationship
between the object and its context or background. No object exists in
isolation. It is formed by the forces coming from its surroundings. All objects
are seen by their qualities, and these qualities are a function of their
relationships. The fact that we abstract it from all these relationships for
the purpose of concentrating attention and study, immediately creates a
separation between an area of knowledge and an area of ignorance. The
Description excludes the Truth.
(b) What we experience depends on
our interaction with things. These depend on the concepts we have constructed,
our motives and social relationships and the relationships with other objects.
The culture of the society affects what the observer searches for, selects,
what he does, how he relates to things. An object can be seen differently from
different angles. A biologist, psychologist, sociologist, architect, salesman,
politician, friend, spouse, parent or child and so on, may experience a person
differently.
(c) Experience depends on the
faculties for it. The worm, the cow and the monkey see the world differently
from a man.
There is,
therefore, a difference between universal or Divine Truth and Personal Truth
for man. There may be as many personal truths as there are human beings. This
may (a) create conflicts or (b) it may lead to cooperation, or (c) it may lead
to different degrees of synthesis.
Ultimately,
adjustment to reality requires the conversion of Human truths into Universal
Truths. This requires certain guidelines or Conversion Principles. These are
incorporated into a Framework of Reference with respect to which all
experiences have to be interpreted.
The
scientific view of truth assumes that the observer can be separate from the
object observed and the act of observation. Even so it produces a view of the
world which is different from that ordinarily seen by human beings who are
motivated by the desires connected with making a living, rivalry and ambition.
The scientific view, on the other hand, depends on the concentration of
attention on those features which can be used to manipulate things and to
construct a technology. The religious view consists of attending to those
features which will enable us to adjust to reality and construct a beneficial
way of life. Truth in the religious sense is, therefore, not to be confused
with the ordinary secular view of truth. What we think is not the same thing as
that which we experience. Truth cannot be invented though knowledge depends on
inventions - methods of description, mathematical models and so on. We have to
become conscious of Truth. It has to be discovered. It requires not mental
activity but passivity and receptivity. We have to surrender to it. It is a
revelation. Consciousness must be purified from all desires and ambitions.
Truth is accessible only to those who have freed themselves from subjective
factors such as wishful thinking, fantasies, self-interest, rationalisations,
and illusions created by fear and greed and laziness. They must ask for the
truth, search for it and love it. In short, it is obtainable only when there is
correct motivation, correct action and the correct capacity to see and
recognise it.
People can
gain knowledge from experiences, but not if they suppress or distort them. It
is possible to be internally blind and deaf as well as to unconsciously or
deliberately avoid seeing or hearing things. It is also possible to
misinterpret and reorganise our experiences. Experience modifies behaviour.
Behaviour also causes changes in the environment and in other people. And these
changes can again be experienced. There is, therefore, a transfer of truth from
the environment to man and from man to the environment. Experiences undergo transformation
within man by the process of analysis into parts, association, and synthesis.
Truth or Experience should, therefore, be regarded in the same light as food
and air. It is a necessity of life. The individual deprived of experience will
die even quicker than when he is deprived of air.
The life and development of the
individual depends on how well he relates and adjusts to Reality, that is, how
much Truth he absorbs. If he does not conform he will suffer (Hell). If he
conforms well (surrenders) he will develop, grow and attain peace, happiness
and self-fulfilment (Paradise). It is,
therefore, man’s duty to himself to seek Truth. But the learning process,
as we have seen, is also affected by ideas. They may facilitate, obstruct or
distort the learning process. They may be nutritious, poisonous or catalytic.
To grow, man needs a set of guiding ideas, a correct value system and to
undergo a self-discipline. This is Religion.
There is much more to total reality than
that found within a person’s experience. The experiences of each person
are limited. Since different people can experience different parts of total
reality, this ensures differences between people according to their
experiences. The collective experiences of a group of people are more comprehensive
than that of the individual. The increasing total experiences of all mankind
will progress towards Reality. If two people have different experiences, each
may think that the other is wrong while he himself is right. But an intelligent
man will recognise the limits of his personal experiences if only from the fact
that he himself is continually having experiences which he did not previously
have. Community life, moreover, is not possible without some agreement.
Agreement may be achieved by the following methods:-
(a) By
restricting experiences to a common set of conditions.
(b) By
conditioning or programming so that the mind itself is drawn to select only
certain kinds of experiences
(c) To
restrict actions so that only certain kinds of interactions with other people
or the environment is possible.
(d) To
spread and exchange information and experience. Since this broadens experience
there is an increasing likelihood that the experiences of different people will
coincide.
(e) To
come to an agreement to suspend opinions until the appropriate experiences are
available. To agree on basic principles, methods and concepts. It might be
argued that such agreements are arbitrary human choices which have nothing to
do with the truth. The point, however, is that such agreements or their absence
produce behaviour which create experiences.
(f) To
expand everyone’s experiences so that there is a progressive
approximation to the totality of possible experiences.
(g) To
expand consciousness, the capacity for experience, so that it progressively
approximates to Reality.
Science
uses several of these methods. The scientist will perform an experiment, ask
nature, and let nature settle the differences. But this still remains an
agreement between people to do so. They still need to accept the same common
concepts and methods. In particular the selfsame laboratory or experimental
situation provides a common source of experiences. However, differences due to
unequal capacities still exist. Truth now becomes a matter of the consensus of
opinion. It is certainly an advance upon the times when might was not only
right, but also the criterion of what was true. In many areas of life this has
not yet changed. This is particularly the case during and after wars. While
wars are in progress whatever is in the interest of each of the combatants is
regarded as truth by them. After the wars the opinions of the winner become
generally accepted, and those of the loser disappear. The awe and fear of
Authority or of social opinion is sufficient to determine what is accepted as
Truth. But this has only a temporary value. In so far as it inhibits
development and adaptation to reality, it becomes self-destructive. Nor is an
opinion of what is true the same thing as Truth.
In science
success in practical application is regarded as the criterion of truth. But
this may destroy human beings including their technologies. Biologically,
success in survival and multiplication is regarded as the criterion. But this
looks at an organism in isolation and does not take into consideration the rest
of the environment which may change, or the organism Itself may destroy and,
therefore, eventually lead to its own extinction. The Dinosaurs were certainly
successful, but where are they now. Objectively, and from the Islamic point of
view, the capacity to adapt and conform to Reality is the true criterion, that
is, whether it leads to self-fulfilment and growth or not.
An idea in the mind is not a truth, but
it may be useful. Different ideas are useful for different purposes. It may be
useful in leading to truth. It may modify behaviour, thereby testing it in
life. Some ideas are more useful than others. A better idea may replace a less
useful one. And, indeed, if that old idea were to be clung to, it would stop further
progress towards truth. Ideas should be held like tools, to be used when
appropriate and discarded when they become worn out or obsolete. Ideas become
worn out when extraneous associations corrupt them or familiarity with them
leads to automatism.
There is a
feeling associated with the perception of Truth, caused by the consistency with
which an idea or experience fits into the system of other experiences. It must
form an integral unity. There are several ways in which this takes place.
1. Many
unconnected memories may be floating freely in the mind for some time, and then
suddenly, in a flash of understanding and enlightenment, they re-arrange to
form a pattern. Students often have this experience during their studies.
2. There
may be several systems or complexes of experience separated from each other to
various degrees, some contradicting others. This divides the psyche into
several “selves”. An idea or experience may fall harmoniously into
one of these, or it may link others. There may be sub-divisions or
super-systems. An idea may cause a sudden reorganisation of a system. The
degree of integration may vary in extensity (how much of total experience is
integrated), or in intensity (how strong the links are), or cotensity (how many
links does each item of experience form with others). Conversion depends on
such rearrangements.
“Allah coins a similitude: A man in relation to
whom are several part owners, quarrelling, and a man belonging wholly to one
man. Are the two similar? Praise be to Allah! But most of them know not.”
39:29
3.
Psychologists demonstrate by means of certain pictures that things can be seen
in more than one way. It is, therefore, possible to interpret the same sensory
data in different ways. It is difficult for a person who sees things in one way
to see it in another way. This accounts for many differences of opinion. One
view is not necessarily truer than another, though it may be more or less
useful. We will, however, tend to see that which we are interested in, or that
which conforms to our assumptions or activities, being perhaps unable to see
all other points of view.
4. There
are several levels of justification why something is accepted and felt to be
true.
(a)
It may contribute to some prejudice or fantasy or self-interest such as pride,
greed, laziness, need for security or popularity and so on.
(b)
It may be consistent with data coming from our inner organs according to our
degree of awareness of them. Hunger, pain, various kinds of malfunctions will
affect our judgement. Some people know, as if by instinct, what is good for
them. Animals seem to. They may also learn from experience. They smell
something and this may recall a memory of how things that smell that way
affected them in the past when eaten.
(c) The
amount of data we receive from the external world depends on the concentration
and direction of attention. The scientist, for instance, directs his attention
deliberately in order to study things, and, therefore, sees more than the
ordinary man. He also uses instruments to aid him. There are a number of
forces, radiations, and influences which affect us, but we are not aware of
them, either because they are very subtle and low in intensity or altogether
out of range of our sense organs. Quite different organs with other sensitivities
may have developed in other parts of the universe. We may be able to develop
other organs, faculties or needs. We could change our environment or interpret
it differently to create other needs and desires.
(d) The
“loudness” of certain experiences obscures more subtle ones. The
stars, for instance, are still in the sky but cannot be seen by most people
during the day owing to the brightness of the sun. Yet some people can still
see them. But this “loudness” does not only depend on the objective
intensity of an experience but also on the fact that the focus of our attention
is driven by our interest, assumption or activity. We could by a change of
interest, assumption or activity, direct our attention to something else,
thereby opening up a new world.
(e) It is possible to receive data from a
much more fundamental and deeper level of ourselves, from the cellular or
sub-atomic level for instance, the area which connects us with the rest of the
universe in intimate interaction.
5. The
nature of the language we use determines what we experience. We are not
normally familiar with things until they are named. The label draws our
attention to it and makes it possible for us to think about it. Given a chaos
of data, there is a basic need (self-preservation) to make sense of it. To do
this we invent concepts and models which can then be further arranged into
systems. The same field of data could be covered by a different set of
concepts. Some sets of concepts may be better than others for particular purposes.
It follows
that:-
1. What we
experience or see may not be true. We may have illusions, delusions,
hallucinations or distortions of sensation. What we have not experienced and do
not see may be true since our experiences cover only a small area of the
totality.
2. Truth
depends on the consistency of an experience with all other experiences, and we
may not have chewed, digested and assimilated the experience.
3. There
exists much in the real world which is beyond our present capacity for
experience. It is not possible to say ‘this is impossible’, or
‘this can only be so and so’, or ‘this is the only
truth.’
4. Since
what we call evidence is also subject to the same restrictions, it is not
sufficient to say: we ought to believe only that for which we have evidence. We
need to search for evidence and more, to develop the capacity for seeing it and
processing it. The evidence may well exist within our reach, but not having
processed it correctly, it does not provide proof.
5. If all
this were not the case then there would be no point in seeking truth. If it is
the case, then we must admit that our opinions at any point may well be wrong
and should be held tentatively. We can only say: “Such and such is the
case if Allah wills”. Or such and such appears to be the case at this
moment in the light of what we know.
6. There
may be experts or more perceptive people who know more than we do. We have to
accept their word, but also tentatively. We cannot know that they are experts.
The veracity of these people depends on a different kind of evidence - on their
performance, and on the reputation which they build up on the strength of their
performance. If a man consistently manages to repair computers and many people
bear witness to this, or others who are also experts in computers bear witness
to his ability, then we must accept what he has to say about computers. But
only about the type of computers he is expert in. The same, of course, must be
applied to religious leaders. The Prophet Muhammad is reputed to have said:
”When I tell you something about your religion,
accept it. But if I tell you about something else, then remember I am but a
man.”
7. What
they say becomes knowledge for us, but it does not become Truth for us until we
experience it.
8.
We need to believe something in order to seek it or act according to it. You
would not set out on a journey to New
York unless you believed that such a place existed.
Many religious statements are of this kind. The statement “New York exists”
is meaningless unless it has some effect on behaviour. Religious statements are
equally meaningless unless they affect behaviour. The test of the statement is
whether it leads to truth. Faith differs from mere belief in that the former
leads to action. One may study the theory of parachuting, but he who actually
makes the jump has faith in it. It cannot be said that something is true for
someone if he does not have faith in it. We may say that belief is useless if
it leads to no action or no modification of the person.
Disbelief is
condemned in Islam. The reasons for this may be given as follows:-
(a)
Disbelief refers to the denial or repression of an experience and not to
opinions.
(b) To say
that one believes or disbelieves is not the same thing as believing or
disbelieving. A person who states that he believes something but does not
behave accordingly is not regarded as having a belief. The word belief is not,
therefore, being used in an intellectual sense but in an organic sense. It
refers to attitude, orientation and faith.
(c) Human
beings require beliefs or hopes since they must act. Without them no effort
will be made to get to the position where one is not. Disbelief kills hope.
(d) The
absence of belief is not disbelief. Disbelief is active rejection. It closes
the mind.
(e) One
either knows or not. If one does not know then one should make the effort to
acquire the knowledge. Disbelief is not an intelligent attitude.
(f) There
are negative subjective reasons for disbelief, namely prejudice, self-interest,
pride, laziness, none of which are virtues.
(g)
Disbelief is the result of the existence of contrary fantasies, delusions or
superstitions. They can be negated by true beliefs, not by doubt. Though it is
claimed that beliefs can be false, Islam does not admit such a possibility. The
reason for this is that the word, belief, has a particular rather than a
general meaning. It refers to the tenets of Islam which are taken as absolute
truth, and should be experienced as truth. That is, they refer to the
consistency with Reality. Accordingly, it is not possible to have a false
belief. The conviction which is false is not a belief but a mere opinion,
conjecture, or prejudice having some ulterior motive, or it may be due to
hypocrisy, conditioning, self-deception, misinterpretation, error or sheer
ignorance. We are, therefore, required to distinguish between all these and
sincere belief.
(h) All
beliefs are based on some facts. They cannot be completely false. We have to
discover wherein they are true. Some are more useful than others. Beliefs have
moral value.
Three kinds of faith can be
distinguished:-
(1) Faith that arises from
practice and the experience of what works and is useful. Faith in science or in
experts or that of experts in their crafts is examples of this.
(2) Faith as a “Working
Hypothesis”. The proof of these comes as a result of the actions based on
it. We assume that a destination exists and on the basis of this we undertake
the journey and this proves that the destination exists. The effort made to
achieve a goal is another example.
(3) Faith that arises
from the consistency of an idea with the nature of ones being, the order or
information of which we are composed. This derived from our genetic makeup as
well as from experiences. This is like instincts in animals. But human beings
ought to be conscious of this but may be conscious of it various degrees.
9. There
is no point in argumentation and controversy since this does not affect belief
or faith but causes each person to defend his original position. Discussion,
study and research are quite different matters, though here, too, the tendency
to seek confirmation of an already established position needs to be resisted.
10. It has been
asserted that though there is ‘this chair’ and ‘that
chair’, there is no ‘chair’. However, chairs do not arise by
accident. There is, therefore, something which forms that pattern. It is an
idea in the mind of a carpenter and is transferable from person to person.
Though it is not a material thing in the ordinary sense, it is nevertheless
real. Similarly, there is ‘this cat’ and ‘that cat’ but
no ‘cat’. But cats do not arise by accident. There is a genetic
pattern which reproduces cats. It is not a material thing since the materials
going into it are constantly changing. There is probably no difference between
an idea in the mind of man and a pattern of this kind. We may say there are
ideas in the mind of nature. It is these which give rise to objects. An object
is a pattern which is relatively more stable, but only relatively, since it is
also changing from birth to death.
The
parable of the elephant and the four blind men is very ancient and fairly well
known. The blind men wanted to know what an elephant was like. Each touched it
at a different place, the backside, the legs, the trunk and the ears, and
arrived at different conclusions. The elephant was experienced only partially
by each and this led to a conflict of opinions. This holds true of all
philosophies, sciences as well as religions, politics and so on.
It also
illustrates the fact that it is the pattern, or order, of experiences which is
fundamental to Truth rather than merely a collection of experiences. It is the
whole which creates the parts, and not the parts which create the whole.
Nothing has any meaning, or can exist, except with respect to the whole.
----------<O>----------
If
pattern, rather than matter or energy, is a fundamental concept, then the whole
must always be greater than the sum of its parts. This is because the pattern
is not contained in the parts but in the whole. The parts cannot be understood
except with respect to the whole. Everything that exists must be part of some
greater whole, and that will be a part of some still greater whole. This can go
on to Infinity, but we deal with this situation by drawing a limiting line so
that Infinity exists above it. The notion of Allah is such a limit. However, if
our knowledge, at some stage, should become able to get above the line, then we
merely have to redraw the line at the next level. This extra knowledge may be
said to have been acquired or bestowed by Allah. Similar considerations apply
when we speak of smaller and smaller things and so on.
We now have a Pyramid with several
levels. The Apex represents complete Unity and may be represented by the letter
A for Absolute. The Baseline will represent maximum multiplicity, X or the
material universe. The whole Pyramid is W. A is a centre which exerts control
over several sub-units, B1, B2, B3 etc.. Each of these exert control over
several further sub-sub-units, C1, C2, C3 etc.. And so on, to 7 levels or
Heavens, or levels of consciousness.
Then
Absolute Truth can be represented by ‘W’, as well as by
‘A’ and ‘X’. We have a trinity here, but only for
descriptive purposes. The word, ‘represented’ is used here in a
special sense. Allah is the Infinite Field in which the Diagram exists, but
from the point of view of any creature within the Diagram, it is only related
to Allah in these three respects.
If we take
the apex of each triangle as representing a creature then the triangle
subtended at that point represents his field of vision or experience. The
higher up we go in the diagram towards the Apex the greater is the view of the
whole base line as denoted by the base of the triangle. A being at
‘A’ can see the whole of ‘X’. There will be complete
agreement between all beings existing at ‘A’.
A being at
‘B’ can see less. Therefore, two different beings will see slightly
different areas of the totality. The lower we go the greater will be the
differences between them. The angle of vision could also be wider or narrower.
The
diagram, or vertical section through it, could represent a man. It will be
clear that if his level of consciousness exists at a level lower than
‘A’, say at ‘F’, then he will be cut off from his
Centre of Integration, or Self, and he will have several centres of control,
denoted by the numbers 1, 2, 3. 4, 5, 6, 7, which are not coordinated. He will
exist in a state of disintegration and Disorder.
The
relationship between the beings existing at the various levels will be as
follows:-
1. At
‘A’ all beings are in total agreement.
2. The
vision of the beings at a particular level includes those of some of the beings
at a lower level, but not the other way round. Thus, disagreement will be one
sided. Those at a lower level cannot understand those at a higher level. A
being at ‘B1’ will contain the visions of beings at
‘F1’, ‘F2’, ‘F3’, ‘F4’ and
‘F5’. Though these beings will disagree with each other and also
with the being at ‘B1’, the being at ‘B1’ will not
disagree with any of them (except verbally perhaps).
3. The
vision of the beings at the same level may overlap, so that they have some
common ground, but they will also have parts which are mutually exclusive. e.g.
the beings whose apexes are at ‘B1’ and ‘B3’ have in
common an area represented by the triangle subtended at ‘D3’. The
being at F1 and F2 have a common view represented by area of the triangle
subtended at G2
4. The
vision of beings at the same level may be completely mutually exclusive, but
some third being has a vision which overlaps both. He can act as an arbitrator
or reconciling force. e.g. Beings with apexes at ‘F4’ and
‘F7’ have mutually exclusive experiences, but these are joined by
the experiences of beings at ‘F5’ and ‘F6’. But there
is a bias of ‘F5’ towards ‘F4’, and bias in
‘F6’ towards ‘F7’. The relationship between the beings
at ‘F5’ and ‘F6’ belong to the previous category, 3.
5. Some
beings are too far apart to be reconciled in this way, e.g. ‘F1’
and ‘F7’. However a group of beings ‘F2’,
‘F3’, ‘F4’, ‘F5’, and ‘F6’ may
achieve such a reconciliation. A chain of associations is formed. Their total
vision, if they do not squabble but co-operate, is greater than each, and they
may be regarded collectively as equivalent to the being at A. This defines:-
(a) What we mean by a
collective mind.
(b) That the total
opinions of a community can be regarded as the will of Allah. The community
may, of course exist at a much lower level so that they are equivalent to a
being at C for instance. But in so far as that being is controlled by forces
coming from above, it makes no difference. The will of Allah may well be
disaster or destruction for that community.
(c) That if the
individuals in the community surrender to Allah, then they will also be
carrying out the Purposes of Allah.
6. The
development of an individual can be seen as an upward movement until it becomes
identified with ‘A’. This is the state of Surrender. It is also the
state of complete integration and control. Until this is the case man cannot be
said to know the Absolute Truth. He can only be said to be seeking or
approaching the Truth.
7. A being
at a lower level may be willing to accept the word of the being at the higher
level in order to make the ascent. There are, however, four degrees of this.
(a) He may accept it
verbally or intellectually.
(b) He may accept it
emotionally, in his motivations, as an example. That is, through love and devotion.
(c) Or he may accept
it by identification. The true Christian, for instance, is required to take
Christ into himself, making him part of himself and becoming part of him. (John
14:20-24) This is symbolised in the Sacrament of the bread and wine which
represent the flesh and blood of Christ. (Matthew 26:26-28). Though this is
obviously, of the three, the highest form of acceptance, it is not one which
people in general achieve.
(d) The Islamic equivalent, which may be
considered to be a still higher stage, is to take in Allah directly and
Surrender to Him. The Prophet is only a means to this end.
----------<O>----------
A distinction has to be made between Apparent Truth, Relative Truth and Absolute Truth.
Apparent Truth refers to how things are experienced by the observer
relative to himself only. Relative Truth refers to how things present
themselves relative to other things; how they appear in a context. Absolute
Truth refers to how things are with respect to the whole, to Allah.
The question is often asked: Does the object exist if there is no one to
see it? Certainly, in so far as what we see depends on the way we process the
data provided by the environment the object will cease to exist if we do not
experience it. The assumption behind this is that it is only human beings who
can observe. In fact, all things have the capacity to be affected, and are,
therefore, observers. If you remove all observers then, because of the
inter-dependence of things, nothing can exist. Since what is seen depends on
the nature of the observer also, then the removal of an observer will cause the
disappearance of what he sees. What a person sees is not, however, the only
thing that can be seen. That which other observers see remains in existence. We
could define the real object as that which Allah sees.
There is another way of looking at this. When there were no human beings
on the earth, the earth was different from what it is now. When human beings
entered into the earth, the earth must have been in a state which allowed this
to happen. The fact that human beings entered the earth, itself changed the
nature of the earth since human beings interact with it and produce new
phenomena. The very environment in which all other things exist changed, and so
did their behaviour. It is not, therefore, possible for man to speak of the
world as being apart from man.
If the truth is relative to the human observer, then it will also have
several levels according to which aspect of man we are considering, his
intellect, his motivations or his actions. The object will react differently
according to his actions on it. What the scientist sees, for instance depends
on how he measures it or what experiments he performs on it. As far as the
intellect is considered, it depends on his conceptual framework, on the
descriptive methods and models he uses. These have changed over the centuries.
As for motives, what he sees depends on whether he wants to understand things
or whether he wants to manipulate them and use them for some other purpose.
In particular we must consider whether a person is passive, active or
interactive with respect to the things observed. Human beings are not merely
acted upon, but also act on and change things, and they also exist in a
cooperative exchange with things. In so far as human beings are active they
create facts. The Universe is changing and evolving. It is moving from
“what is” to “what will be”. Therefore, facts are not
enough, values are equally important. The process of change provides the
meaning.
----------<O>----------
There has been a dichotomy in Western thinking ever since the
Philosopher Descartes made a distinction between Mind and Matter. Philosophy
tended to be either Materialistic or Idealistic. Neither of these has been a
very satisfactory explanation of existence since each has to account for the
other. It is because each in itself is unsatisfactory that the other also
exists. Those who wish to study things in what they call an objective manner,
without taking into consideration the observer, use the word,
‘material’, to refer to phenomena. But those who know that we
cannot know anything which is not an affect on our consciousness, suppose that
the Universe and all things in it are mental constructs. The real is,
therefore, thought to be either material or mental. The terms, however, have
meaning only with respect to each other. It is obvious that we cannot
deliberately manipulate everything we experience. There is something beyond us
which compels experience. The word matter, on the other hand, refers to certain
properties of experience, namely inertia and resistance. It cannot itself be
sensed.
This dichotomy is reflected in, and reflects all kinds of other
dichotomies, between religion and science, between the intellectual and manual
workers, between the masters and servants, between body and soul, between
theory and practice, between planners and workers, between morality and
commerce and so on.
The reason for the dichotomy appears to be that a third reconciling
factor, has always been neglected, the source of motivation, motion,
interaction, life, energy, behaviour, that which manages and coordinates and
creates a bridge between the other two.
Vitalist Philosophies have, therefore, arisen which seek to explain all
things in terms of processes. There are also Philosophies which concern
language and, therefore, human interactions. But they are regarded as excluding
the other two views rather than complementing and reconciling them.
From the Islamic point of view there are no such dichotomies. The Universe
is a Unity. There are only phenomena distinguished by their different
characteristics and inter-related in various ways. All these terms could be
regarded as merely describing different aspects of experience. There can be no
doubt that human beings have consciousness as well as bodies and behaviour.
There seems to be no reason for denying these characteristics to other things.
If we analyse a material object we find that it is a pattern of parts.
Each of these parts is again a pattern of still smaller parts. The parts are in
motion with respect to each other and interact. Ultimately, Matter disappears
entirely and we are left with packets of probability. The universe is merely
patterns at various levels which are being reproduced at every instant and
changing into others. It is now well established in Physics that matter and
energy are inter-convertible through the formula E=MC2. Mass is a local
concentration of energy (motion), trapped energy. The question is: what is it
that is in motion? But different kinds of energy are distinguished from one
another by their frequencies of oscillation. That is, it can be reduced to
patterns in Space-Time. But Space-Time is not constant either. Its shape is
determined by the masses and motions in it. It follows that the whole of the
Universe can be regarded as a multi-dimensional Field having a certain dynamic
or changing structure. The fundamental units in it are not matter but events,
and events are inter-related. These events and inter-relations are only distinguishable
from each other because of their structures and patterns.
Now, an ‘event’ is not an exact term. Events can overlap,
combine into greater ones or be reduced to combinations of smaller events, and
all these are still events. The events are caused by forces. The Universe may
be regarded as a Field or network of forces. There are points of convergence
and divergence and combinations. The whole of the Universe appears to be more
like a thought or dream in a Universal Mind. Our minds are small parts of it.
In so far as we look inwards we recognise it as mind, and in so far as we look
outwards we see it as matter, and in so far as we interact with the rest of
reality we see behaviour, life and energy.
We
may, therefore, dispense with the notion of matter and material objects, and
speak of patterns. These can exist at several levels of complexity and
comprehensiveness. We need no longer remain slaves to sense data. Sense data
are merely a means which gives us access to the Universe. In many cases this
way of looking at things is already operating. The Solar System, for instance,
is a Cosmic object, but it is not given to our senses as such. A Historical Era
is also an object, if we define an object as a pattern in space-time. An image
on the computer screen, a dream or a thought is also real and an object in
experience though it may lack measurable mass.
----------<O>----------
Contents