The Individual and the Community

Sayr'u Suluk II

"…And assumption does not mean anything in favor of truth."

Najm 28

In the previous article, we distinguished between the Sufi order (Tariqah) and the religious community (Jamaat) based on the principles of spiritual journey (Sayr' u suluk.) We expanded the concept of the Jamaat beyond a widely structured one, redefining it not only as a religious entity but also as setting the boundary with the Sayr' u suluk. According to this, communities or individuals that, despite lacking a religious content or discourse, trespass the boundaries outlined by the Sayr' u suluk, and exhibit characteristics falling within the definition of the Jamaat must also be considered Jamaat. For instance, commercial groups, political organizations, ideological entities, ethnic clusters, and even object sets in scientific theories that are seemingly scientific but are communalized in their establishment—all of these, albeit with different qualifications, can indeed be regarded as Jamaat.

Every form of Jamaat seeks to sustain itself, endure, compete, and aspire to power.

In this context, we mentioned that the Jamaat opposes 'unity-oneness.'

The individual is not the true opposite of the Jamaat, and the Jamaat is not merely a collective thought. What the Jamaat is fundamentally against is 'unity-oneness.'

Whether with a community or an individual, the path to 'unity-oneness' is through the spiritual journey (Sayr'u suluk). In this sense, the spiritual journey (Sayr'u suluk) is the departure path from any Jamaat. The spiritual journey distinguishes the Sufi order (Tariqah) from the Jamaat (Sayr' u suluk.)

Later, we will discuss the conditions that ensure the fulfillment of what is meant by the spiritual journey (Sayr and Suluk). In this text, we will briefly touch upon some meanings of placing the individual at the center and exploring the journey together as both the traveler and the guiding traveler. We will elaborate further on the differences with Jamaat from these perspectives.

Let's reiterate that the spiritual journey (Sayr'u suluk) centers around the individual, and let's continue from here.

Let's start right from this point. Placing the individual at the center does not mean excluding the community. However, putting the individual at the center is necessary to comprehend unity. Because the individual, the thing, cannot escape from the dominance of the Jamaat until it understands the whole as unity within itself and manifests in a singular form. 

Grasping unity as both multiplicity and singularity simultaneously harbors challenging contradictions. Successfully addressing the contradictions inherent in unity and singularity, thereby dispelling confusion, begins with a study that departs from the individual. Therefore, the spiritual journey (Sayr'u suluk) starts from the individual's standpoint.

This starting point doesn't inherently dismiss the community. Yet, centering the movement around the community not only requires the unavoidable loss of the individual and the disruption of the community but also results in the irreversible destruction of the individual. To center around the community ultimately leads to the destruction of the individual. If the individual realizes the necessity of resisting this outcome, it inevitably forces the breaking of the community. Thus, centering around the community provides a justifiable necessity for destroying the community itself. On the contrary, placing the individual at the center offers the possibility of saving both the individual and the community.

We say 'possibility' because placing the individual at the center may not always lead to the salvation of both the individual and the community. 

The reason for this complex situation is that we cannot claim that every approach that centers around the individual will yield a valid, just, and successful outcome as the challenges that arise from the requirement that 'unity-oneness' and 'singularity-uniqueness' must be simultaneously valid and thus presenting very tough, harsh, and seemingly insurmountable difficulties.

First and foremost, it is crucial to remember the following points under any circumstances. No matter the circumstances or state one finds themselves in, the essential pursuit is the truth under all conditions.

The path that does not lead to the truth gets stuck in darkness—one who does not don the robe of truth arms themselves with the sword of oppression.

However, achieving 'unity-oneness' and "singularity-uniqueness is necessary to attain the truth.

How can 'unity-oneness' and 'singularity-uniqueness' be achieved simultaneously?

It is essential to see the key aspects causing this point to linger.

Because unity signifies a 'plurality-manyness' and 'non-separateness,' meaning 'identicalness.'

'Singularity-uniqueness'  means both 'oneness' and 'dissimilarity.'

In this respect, difficulties at certain stages surround establishing 'unity and singularity.'

Looking at first-class philosophy and theology texts may be sufficient to gain a historical perspective on the challenges of establishing unity and singularity. Unfortunately, the history of philosophy and theology is a history of struggling with this difficulty and those who struggled. 

There have been those in human history who have resolved this challenging issue. These are the fathers, saints, or spiritual masters of communities.

Jamaat fathers, saints, or spiritual masters, by reconciling unity and singularity with fragmentation, establish a false 'unity-oneness' and a false 'singularity-uniqueness,' covering the paths to unity and singularity.

The Jamaat father mentioned here is the 'basis' element in the definition of the community that we emphatically stated in the previous text.

The Jamaat father doesn't necessarily have to emerge with a religious discourse or product. In a general sense, the Jamaat's beliefs, thoughts, and principles, whether religious or not, are the fathers of the Jamaat in every form, every appearance, and everywhere. Therefore, the father here, whether saint or master, can also manifest with titles like president (leader), manager, teacher, etc. Jamaat can also be an organization, institution, company, or similar. The latter sometimes are more competent, sometimes more intricate than the former.

Not every institution, every community, every father, or every leader is necessarily a jamaat and a jamaat father. However, structures that hinder Sayr'u suluk, ready to fit into the definition of the Jamaat, pose an obstacle and are potential candidates to become a Jamaat.

Jamaat is established based on support. The support is the father (Father) who brings that Jamaat together.

This father, in essence, is enslaved. He has enslaved himself to his desires, his neuroses, his dreams, and his narrow experiences. In this regard, the religion and faith of the community are the religiousness and faithfulness to the captivity of these desires, neuroses, dreams, and narrow experiences.

Those integrated into the community, therefore, have been enslaved and subjected to struggle for this reason.

Throughout history, many adept thinkers and artists who sought to address the issue of unity and singularity have resisted the Jamaat but remained helpless due to the inability to find a resolution.

Therefore, many individuals attempt to resolve such challenging issues by believing in a jamaat, relying on what a jamaat offers. However, solving this issue through belief and blind reliance is impossible.

The impossibility we mentioned for belief is also valid for thinking. In other words, resolving this issue cannot be achieved through delving into thought, progressing through thought, researching, examining, and scrutinizing.

Unfortunately, the fact that the issue of unity and singularity cannot be resolved solely through thinking is still not widely recognized in many circles. Those who believe that whatever cannot be resolved through thinking can be resolved through belief, and those who attempt to solve it by thinking share the same situation in this common point: helplessness.

The simplest way to understand through thinking that these issues cannot be resolved by thinking is to recognize that thinking is active after 'unity-oneness.' We're not delving into that topic.

Similarly, one needs to look at the nature of the term 'belief' to see that this issue cannot be resolved through belief.

Merely believing is nothing.

We believe that merely believing is not something anyone does. When people believe, they also carry specific things that lead them to believe.

In the meantime, let's make it clear that understanding what is meant by 'justified belief' is necessary to have meaning. Because what constitutes the 'justification' in 'justified belief' is crucial in terms of the legitimacy of the belief in question. If the 'justification' in question is not 'appropriate' and 'sufficient' for a certain 'belief,' then 'justified belief,' in terms of its 'justifications,' becomes an 'insufficient' and 'inappropriate' belief.

'Justified belief' determines the belief based on its 'justification.' Therefore, what matters is the 'justification' and on what basis it stands. It is then crucial to understand how the judgment expressing the 'belief' with this justification is determined.

Principally, the main issue is that the 'justification' in "justified belief" must be 'just.' However, constituting the truth, in terms of the reality of each thing, cannot be determined superficially.

The justification must first be based on the 'reality'; an explanation that does not rest on the reality renders the belief based on that justification unreal.

So, for example, in the issue of unity and singularity, what is the 'justification,' in this sense, the 'basis,' i.e., the 'reality?' That is the question.

Believing in unity and singularity, denying them, believing in the Jamaat, or rejecting them alone does not mean anything.

What basis do all these judgments arise based on? How are they made? That's what is to be understood.

It is not possible to find answers to these solely through thinking or solely through belief.

This impossibility is also the cause of the 'impossibilities' mentioned at the beginning of the previous text. 

Defining humans fundamentally with attributes like thinking, perceiving, believing, and accepting descriptions like 'Humans are beings who think, perceive, and believe' means fundamentally endorsing these impossibilities and imprisoning humans in impossibilities. That's what has been done for centuries.

Once you go for such a definition, discussing whether attributes like soul, essence, intuition, and transcendence can be added to humans becomes futile.

While engaging in these futile matters, whether the individual is a human being or a social being, how to achieve individuality and establish society will not yield meaningful and just results, and it has yet to.

Without achieving unity and singularity simultaneously, there can be no talk of freedom and truth; neither can there be talk of the individual and society.

Thinking and believing alone cannot establish 'unity-oneness and singularity-uniqueness.'Those who cannot achieve 'unity-oneness and singularity-uniqueness' when defenseless against the hunting weapons of jamaats are likely to be vulnerable and possibly hunted.

Establishing 'unity-oneness and singularity-uniqueness' is possible through embarking on a Sayr'u suluk, a spiritual journey. Therefore, Sayr'u suluk is a fundamental human behavior and need. That's what we're saying.

Sayr'u suluk makes what the Jamaat rejects and what thinking deems impossible possible. Based on this principle, Sayr'u suluk and Tariqah should be approached through this need. The rest is futile.

Understanding why the issue unfolds at the center of the individual becomes clear from these perspectives.

As mentioned in the previous text, Sayr'u suluk operates by placing the individual at the center and makes many things that seem impossible to think of possible; moreover, it nullifies the tyranny of the Jamaat at its core.

The individual here is the comprehending (Sayr) and walking individual (Salik). The salik means a traveler. Therefore, the one centered is a traveler.

In Tariqah, the journey and spiritual path (Sayr and Suluk) centered on each individual are unique and specific to each one.

This journey of the individual is directed towards 'unity-oneness.' However, let's reiterate that the practices that have become quite common nowadays, with a different foundation and a different purpose in mind, variated from this kind of path, and neglect the individual and unique journey named Sayr'u suluk, regardless of their name, fame, or reputation, are not true tariqahs in this sense because the path is not the proper path.

To center the individual is to center a human lifetime. This life, figuratively speaking, is filled with thoughts, beliefs, dreams, judgments, conflicts, pains, pleasures, wounds, inflictions, blood, appetite, agony, hurt, longing, regret, fatigue, and many other states, many afflictions.

The guide, who directs the traveler in their journey of observation, centers an individual by taking into account all aspects of their being—all thoughts, beliefs, dreams, judgments, conflicts, pains, pleasures, wounds, inflictions, blood, appetite, agony, hurt, longing, regret, fatigue, and many other states. The guide places all these aspects at the center of the entire journey. The whole universe, the entire cosmos, is established on this foundation and comes into conservation on this foundation. And the thing to observe is the 'Reality.'

Considering these and more aspects, everything will unfold in a relationship between these two travelers, becoming a journey leading to 'unity-oneness and singularity-uniqueness.'

From this perspective alone, it is possible to understand that centering the individual is not simply about adhering to individualistic thinking. Considering the meanings implied by centering the individual, we can recognize that one must be willing to center the individual before centering the individual. Centering the individual in this sense is a nuanced and delicate undertaking, requiring more attention than decisions like signing investments, deciding on a marriage, adhering to a belief, initiating a political or military operation, and steps that go much further.

This is one of the reasons for the prevalence of not centering the individual precisely.

Centering all aspects of an individual in these senses requires knowledge. Without knowledge, guiding cannot be discussed.

This knowledge must encompass the basis of the individual.

By the basis, we mean the general principles inherent in every individual.

Therefore, the path of spiritual journeying is a form of knowledge.

Ignorance does not lead to truth.

Individuals embarking on spiritual journeying Sayr'u suluk strive to comprehend 'unity-oneness' and attain 'singularity-uniqueness' by turning away from ignorance. Conversely, jamaats face divisions without unity but plurality without singularity and fall into ignorance. Thus, they destroy both the individual and society.

However, the perception of unity and placing 'unity-oneness' at the center encompasses the individual and the community. Every Jamaat is against this siege. Otherwise, the Jamaat can not exist.

Due to this necessity, we can not say that Sayr'u suluk, which centers individuals, forms a jamaat from those individuals it centers.

'Identicalness, sameness,' and 'diversity' are not specific to the Jamaat. A certain degree of identity and individuality exists in both the Jamaat and the unity-based Tariqah. The distinction arises through the lens of authenticity versus falseness.

Jamaat falsifies the truth at the core of 'unity-oneness' and what the followers of the spiritual path or Sayr'u suluk essentially constitute.

In the Jamaat, the remaining identity is slavery, and those who notice it are slaves. 

However, in the spiritual journey (Sayr'u suluk), what remains as the identity is the free essence, and those who notice are the free ones; and unexpectedly, everywhere, at all times, they emerge suddenly.

Hence, although jamaats often arise through uniformity, it is not a requirement. There may also be jamaats composed of many types, many varieties, and many choices of individuals. What remains identical in these diverse individuals with various types, variations, and options is only slavery.

Before turning to general principles, it is impossible to see the distinctions. 

Those aiming to focus on general principles must carefully understand, grasp, and know the 'places' of individuals—meaning what they embody.

Distinguishing between truth and falsehood and becoming a possessor of the 'Furqan' is only possible with knowing where and what corresponds to what.

Unity and uniqueness are not the same as the place of 'integrity and plurality.' Similarly, the place of Tariqah and the travel (Suluk) differs from the place of the Jamaat and the follower of the Jamaat. The follower of the Jamaat lives in a relative part of the human being, while the Salik lives in a different place; This place is not relative. The place within the traveler (salik) essentially exists in the follower-member of the community (Muntasib). Otherwise, we cannot speak of unity. However, the Jamaat occupies this place within its members, with itself, with the Jamaat.

The traveler (salik) traces the path in the place of 'unity-oneness.' The place of 'unity-oneness' is the realm of freedom. 

The realm of freedom resides in the heart.

The Jamaat restrains and disheartens the one who joins it unwillingly, thus making them a slave to the Jamaat by detaining them from 'unity-oneness.'

Slavery arises with the closing of the heart. After the heart is closed, the differences among those who close it ultimately become indistinguishable in terms of shutting down the heart. However, their differences are essential in understanding that the essence of the apparent diversity is the same, and in terms of differentiating the closed ones and opening the way to the heart one by one.

The Jamaat closes the realm of freedom within its members by demolishing it. 

In doing so, the Jamaat ruins both worlds by destroying the heart.

Understanding the general principles and grasping the individual based on these principles is necessary for the nature of what these matters signify to be perceived. For instance, contemplating a 'place (topos)' is needed to conceive of a being. Here, by 'place (topos),' we do not refer to thoughts such as 'location,' 'position,' or 'space' in that sense. With 'place (topos),' we mean the conception of an 'ontological foundation.' The ontological foundation refers to the basis on which something owes its existence. For instance, in the case of the annulment of that thing, the existence in question would cease to exist. Alternatively, whatever the essence of that thing is, the nature of the existence based on it becomes that, and it cannot transcend its essence on its own. In this regard, existence must be dependent on its essence. In this sense, the ontological foundation is the specific 'place' of that thing. 

Differences in places indicate differences in the fundamentals of things. Diversity or changes that do not distinguish based on places are improper distinctions or alterations. In this sense, regardless of whether they are religious or secular, any jamaat based on the destruction of the heart share no actual difference if they rely on the same place, the ruin of the heart. Likewise, members affiliated with jamaats are essentially the same, possessing identical characteristics. It doesn't matter how much they conflict or advocate for different things; they remain fundamentally similar.

All members of seemingly different Jamaats are the same in terms of being slaves, sharing the existence of the same world. This slavery is categorical. No matter how free they appear or arbitrarily they act, anyone dependent on a 'basis' is fundamentally enslaved.

The "basis" here refers to dependence on what closes the door to the heart, creating a state of dependency. For this reason, jamaats are indistinguishable from each other. However, the path of those on the journey of spiritual development (Sayr'u suluk) is different.

We can only determine a real difference and the true nature of something based on its place.

There is a difference between the "place" of the Jamaat and the "place" of those on the journey of spiritual development (sayr u sulûk). Those who differ in their "places" also have differences in their essences.

The place Sayr'u suluk emphasizes in an individual is the heart. The spiritual path (Tariqah) advances to the provinces of the self through the levels of the soul, which this place encompasses, depending on the nature of the 'Saliks,' the travelers, and who they are. The provinces of the soul are united in the land of the heart. Both the First and the Last are comprehended 'anew' and 'without repetition' in this land.

The Jamaat denies the heart within the individual. Therefore, Jamaat encompasses the individual through denial and condemns the individual to a deathless life and lifeless death between the suppressions and the depressions of their soul.

Life, which begins without a beginning, is driven to an end that has no end, and there, neither the 'first' nor the 'end' can be comprehended. The human, capable of being reborn at every moment, is entangled in the tomb of repetition.

These two points signify the differences between those on the path of Sayr'u suluk and the followers of a Jamaat.

The differences in terms of places, or locations, between those on the path of Sayr'u suluk and the Jamaat are differences in their foundations.

This determination relates to the earlier statement about the community lacking a real foundation.

The difference in terms of renewal and repetitiveness, i.e., the difference in time and moment, constitutes the roof difference.

The aspects mentioned earlier, such as the foundation and roof differences, take on slightly different meanings from various perspectives. The difference in foundation is more prioritized than the roof difference, so it is crucial to pay more attention to this point.

There is a hierarchy between the place (ground) and the roof. The foundation, i.e., the ground, comes before the roof. A change in the place and a destruction in the ground also result in a change in the roof and a destruction in the roof.

The building is the unified manifestation of the ground, the foundation, and the roof; it reveals the unity of the ground and the roof. Looking at the building, what is shown, what comes to light, becomes apparent, namely, the basis.

If Jamaat reveals something, it is slavery, captivity, and loss. What Sayr'u suluk reveals is the entirety of truths in the human individual.

The architecture of Sayr'u suluk, which reveals the truths of sentences, has two fundamental aspects and two primary elements.

One is the traveler, and the other is the guide showing the path. These two, being one, pave the path. So that a person may escape the prison they are struck in and find salvation.

In the upcoming article, we will continue to talk about the navigation by talking about Sayr'u suluk in terms of its two elements.

The previous note reiterated: We owe infinite gratitude to Prof. Dr. Yalçın Koç for the entire conceptual framework of the Community/Church (Ecclesia).