The First Contact

Sayr'u Suluk III

"Submerged in the sea, water at your throat's embrace,

Oh hapless soul, don't plunge in frenzy, sunk in deep." Yunus Emre

This text lays the groundwork for describing and analyzing the two essential components of the Sayr’u Suluk structure, considering our specific context.

In the previous two texts, we endeavored to establish our own context. In the first text, by addressing the issues of 'time,' 'primacy,' and 'finality,' we sought to demonstrate that Sayr and Suluk constitute an art and science practiced by individuals striving to resolve these problems. In this regard, it became necessary to make a distinction to clearly perceive the essential need for Sayr'u Suluk as a pure human duty and requirement. Hence, we found it imperative to differentiate between Tarigah (Sufi orders) and Jamaat (community), and by defining these two, we have separated them from each other.

We asserted that the foundation distinguishing Tariqah from Jamaat is Sayr and Suluk. In this regard, we consistently emphasized the significance of individuality and the necessity of being a 'traveler' on this path. In order to enhance the understanding of the definitions provided for Jamaat and Tariqah in this text, we penned the second essay, extensively delving into the issue of 'Individual and Community.' Accordingly, we attempted to observe that the jamaat can be formed sometimes in the guise of 'community' and sometimes as an 'individual.' This result demonstrated that the 'individuality' in Sayr’u suluk and the 'oneness' of all existence, along with the ‘uniqueness’ in these two principles, are not based on a simple thought or belief of ‘individualism.’ Yet, this conclusion revealed that a subtle approach, suggesting the attainment of 'individuality' by outright rejecting the concept of 'community' in all aspects, lacks relevance to the serious and weighty nature of practices like Sayr’u Suluk. Moreover, it should be noted that the necessity for the simultaneous formation of 'plurality,' expressing 'oneness,' and 'singularity,' expressing 'uniqueness,' should not be overlooked, and to emphasize once again, the approach solely centered around 'rejecting community' not only hinders the well-being of both the individual and society but has also been strongly underscored as contrary to the principle of 'unity.’

Jamaat is not simply a notion of community, and individuality, in this respect Fardiah is not merely a concept of an individual. When making the distinction between Jamaat and Fardiah, the notions of 'individual' and 'community' represent just steps, mere stages. Sayr’u Suluk, fundamentally grounded in ‘Fardiah’, embraces both the notion of the individual and the concept of the community. Because Fardiah, or the 'individual essence,' inherently encompasses both singularity and oneness within itself. Contrastingly, the Jamaat, in order to deny the Fardiah rooted in singularity and oneness, confines the individual and the community by surrounding them. In this respect, the conclusion is as follows.

Every community is not necessarily opposed to the individual, but every jamaat is inherently against Fardiah. To perceive the distinction, it is essential to unravel the multiplicity within the 'individual,' revealing its ‘places’ or the essence. Otherwise, there is no possibility of understanding this matter.

In this sense, unlocking the individual, the individual essence of the self, is only possible through Sayr’u Suluk. Thought and thought-based paths, such as philosophy, science, and theology, can only partially unfold this aspect to the extent allowed by the nature of thought and only if there are things that come to them from their individual essence.

If the individual essence were thought-based, established and existing through thought, and if its primary act were thought, then 'thought' and thought-based sciences might suffice to unfold the individual essence. However, the situation is not so. The individual essence is transcendent beyond comparison or explanation through thought. On the contrary, every act of thought and thought-based science is based on and operates using the possibilities provided by the individual essence. Meaning that the individual essence precedes the act of thinking. At any moment a person begins to think, the individual essence comes before this action, standing prior to it. Therefore, every time we think, the individual essence has already preceded our thinking process. In other words, we have started thinking based on the individual essence. Given this situation, it is impossible to speak of the act of thinking and the nature of an understanding limited to thought being capable of unlocking and examining the individual essence. Thought can unfold and examine things based on thought; however, it cannot directly examine the things on which it relies because it cannot comprehend them. How can it examine what it cannot comprehended?

Thought, unable to examine what it cannot comprehend, cannot describe the uncomprehended thing neither as existing nor non-existent. Forming judgments about the uncomprehended  in terms of comprehension is absurd.

However, thought, on its own, is not an essence, an independent foundation, or a self-subsistent entity. Therefore, thought cannot claim itself as a 'foundation' or a 'principle.' Since thought is not inherently an essence, there must be specific essences that enable thinking. Since these essences precede the act of thinking, it is impossible for them to be 'directly' comprehended by the act of thought. It is also impossible for the 'primaries,' which cannot be directly comprehended, to be 'directly' determined by thought.

The 'direct' unfolding and examination of the individual essence through thought is impossible from these perspectives. What thought can do is attempt to recognize and describe the individual essence within thought based on the material provided by the one comprehending the individual essence.

Without recognizing the individual essence, issues specific to the thoughts of the individual and the community cannot be resolved. More importantly, the individual and society cannot truly know and accept their own reality. Since happiness, or bliss, is not possible when one does not know their own truth, true happiness can never be inherent to the individual. Because the knowledge of truth is simultaneously happiness. Knowing one's unique truth is contingent on recognizing the individual essence. Without recognizing the individual essence, one cannot begin to know the truths specific to humanity. Without knowing the truths specific to humanity, the truths pertaining to the universe cannot be known. In this sense, the absence of 'knowledge' permits 'ignorance.' In the void left by ignorance, the Jamaat finds an opportunity to pursue its age-old mission of 'Jahiliyya,' as it has done since ancient times. Thus, by denying the Fardiah, it enslaves both the individual and the community, making one a slave to another.

Here, the one taken captive is the heart, burning with the longing for its Owner and Beloved. In this regard, the primary activity of the jamaat is to disrupt and dismantle the heart's abode. Otherwise, it would not be possible for it to maintain its dominion over the servants of God.

The Fard, the Individual and competent Human, being a threat to the dominion of the jamaat, possesses 'knowledge' and 'power' to resist every trick, betrayal, and deception of the jamaat. In this respect, the Fard is not only a threat but also a terror to the jamaat.

The terror of the individual essence is also recognized by the practitioners of Sayr’u Suluk. Hence, some travelers on the path of sayr may bear visible traces of encounters with these terrors. The practitioners of Sayr’u Suluk are the only group on Earth who dare to recognize the Fard, the Individual Human, and it makes them the greatest exception among humanity. Therefore, understanding this matter requires looking at them as the paradigm.

In conclusion, the Fard, the Individual Human, and the individual essence can be recognized and examined through a special journey called Sayr’u Suluk. Therefore, without embracing Sayr’u Suluk, the individual essence cannot be found, and resisting the dominion of ignorance becomes impossible.

Sayr’u Suluk, as we refer to it, is the path and process of comprehending where the Individual identifies and shapes all the distinct truths within oneself. While other names and descriptors are possible, we believe using this term is more accurate in many aspects.

Since the goal is for the individual to diagnose and comprehend the truths unique to oneself, the process becomes quite challenging depending on the conditions of the relationship between the individual and truth. Opening up such a concept so challenging, both in verbal expression and addressing the thoughts, may require giving up conveniences. Therefore, we expect your patience in embracing terms and approaches that are not easily found.

Above all, it must be emphatically stated that Sayr’u Suluk is the profession of the Prophets. Therefore, it is a matter of 'Revelation,' that is, the 'Word of God.' Due to its connection with the 'Word of God,' and there is no aspect of this matter that can be taken lightly.

Careful consideration of this point and a thorough understanding of what the jamaat stands against are crucial for recognizing the Jamaat and resisting its deceptions.

Considering the perspective outlined above, the written content will be better understood.

Secondly, another point to emphasize is the resemblance of Sayr’u Suluk to a kind of 'master and apprentice' relationship. Therefore, the two essential elements of the Sayr’u Suluk structure are designated as the 'guiding traveler' for the master and the 'comprehending traveler' for the apprentice. What they both share is being 'travelers.' The distinction between the one 'guiding the way' and the one 'comprehending' lies in the knowledge of the Path, in essence, the guide being a native 'Traveler.' Hence, Sayr’u Suluk is both a science, for it involves knowledge of the Path, and an art, as the native one guides the traveler on the path. This art, as an architectural artwork, reveals the Path and manifests as a beacon of hope for the captive human, serving as a means to remind them of their original homeland.

The guiding traveler has many names in all language, with the most well-known being 'Pir (sheikh)' or 'Hace (spiritual guide).'

The journeying traveler is referred to by various attributes such as 'dervish,' 'fakir,' 'muqsid,' 'murid,' 'child,' 'talib,' and more.

Without delving into many distinctions, let's state it broadly.

Now, let's begin to elucidate these points in their context below and form our preparation.

Let's reiterate: Sayr’u Suluk is a journey between the comprehending traveler and the guiding traveler.

The path emanates from the source to the traveler and unfolds within the traveler. Due to this unfolding within the traveler, the path exists in a 'place' specific to the traveler. This 'place' defines the composition of the journey.

The journey and the place, the places of 'Sayr,' are valid for each individual. In general, everyone journeys from a place. Yet, for the practitioners of Sayr’u Suluk, the difference lies in recognizing the 'places' within themselves by unfolding them, traverse what is perceived, and traveling in harmony with each unique 'place'.

In this regard, what needs to be considered is the 'places' within the individual and what 'comes to Sayr', i.e to their comprehension in these places.

Hence, it should be understood that by the concept of 'sayr,' we refer to 'comprehension.' If it is understood that 'sayr' implies 'comprehension,' then it becomes evident that everyone who comprehends is essentially on a journey. From this point onward, the distinctions and the uniqueness of the practitioners of Sayr’u Suluk can be better appreciated.

Every individual who comprehends is essentially on a journey.

The same person, in different places of comprehension, perceives the same thing in different natures.

The traveler, by unfolding the same thing in different places of comprehension during the journey, arrives at the Path.

As an instance, a particle contains a universe within it. The traveler thus perceives both the particle within the universe and the universe within the particle.

The one who touches with their hand is on a journey through touch. The one who sees with their eyes is on a journey through sight. What is touched with the hand and seen with the eyes is the same thing. Different things are perceived within the same thing by unfolding.

If the hand of the one who touches is outside of themselves, what they touch with their hand is on a journey outside of themselves; the same applies to seeing with the eyes.

For instance, since this person's hand is outside, there is also an inside that is relative to this outside and serves as a place of Sayr. In other words, what is found outside is perceived within this inside. This comprehension, where what is outside is comprehended as inside, is called 'perception.' In this sense, for the one who perceives by Sayr, the inside and outside are 'distinct.'

But the sayr journey depends on making ‘one.’ Nothing can be watched without being ‘one’ and ‘unified.’

However, the way to 'perceive' the separate entities as 'one' can be achieved by covering the separateness of those entities. Due to this covering, the one who perceives -what is found outside lies within themselves- acts as if there is no distinction between inside and outside, asserting that they 'perceive' as 'one.'

Because without covering the distinction between inside and outside, one cannot perceive as 'one,' in short, cannot 'Sayr.'

Since the Sayr is contingent upon 'uniting' and 'oneness.'

To distinct between the 'outer place' and 'inner place,' in terms of perception as 'one,' secretly disrupts the oneness in the journey. The most apparent way to notice this disruption is by examining the times of these separate places.

We can illustrate this point with some examples.

The time of the 'outer place' seems to flow continuously, as if there is no 'one moment,' just an ongoing process. On the other hand, the time of the 'inner place' flows 'moment by moment.'

Consider a ripe Amasya apple, for example. Let's assume that this Amasya apple is decaying over time. Thus, we perceive the decay of a ripe Amasya apple over time. In the inner place, this apple is remembered with each moment and remains the same apple with each moment. However, in the outer place, it is either fresh and ripe at one time, or it has decayed and is gone at another time.

The decaying Amasya apple exists in the inner perception with its ripe state and decayed state. If we think about its ripe state, the decayed Amasya apple exists in the inner perception as if it hasn't decayed.

While in the time of the outer place, the same thing deteriorates, in the inner place, both its decay and its state before decay persist exactly as they are.

In this regard, the 'existence' of the Amasya apple is also divided into two due to this distinction between the inner and outer.

If the time of the inner place were not 'separate' and 'different' from the time of the outer place, the being of the Amasya apple would not be divided into two.

The same apple does not cease to exist in the inner place as long as it is not forgotten. However, in the outer place, it can be erased from our hands and sight.

As for the question of whether the Amasya apple exists or not, the concept of 'perceiving as one' allows something to be perceived as both present and not present at the same time. This implies that something can be 'perceived as one' even when it exists in one place and is absent in another, challenging the notion of how something that is present in one place and absent in another can be 'one.'

The distinction in the perception of the Amasya apple, is it from the Amasya apple itself or from the conditions of the observer?

If there were no distinction between the inner and outer, how would the Amasya apple be perceived? In other words, what would be the sayr, the comprehension of the apple?

While subject to the distinction between the inner and outer, the heedless person, who acts as if there is no distinction, can perceive the Amasya apple for a while as 'one.' Then, this unity, which is in the state of 'being,' disappears with the external decay of the apple. For the heedless person, the decay of unity is not considered significant, relative to their narrow needs or interpretations regarding the Amasya apple.

But if the decay of unity regarding the apple was crucial, the process of separation and reunion would become a serious matter, depending at one’s sweet will.

However, the actions of the heedless are all frivolous, even when they appear most serious. If it were otherwise, they would probably have concerns about an Amasya apple eventually questioning one day its rights in this context.

For the travelers of Sayr’u Suluk, every object, every being is serious. Because in every being, there is a truth awaiting to be known. That truth is also the truth of the Suluk.

Let's now create a similar example, focusing on an internal entity. Imagine a fictional Amasya apple. Let it exist in the inner place. However, let it not exist in the external place, neither in hand nor in sight.

Due to the separation in perception, this Amasya apple, existing internally but not externally, is not 'one' and 'unified' in terms of 'Sayr'.

Due to not being in sayr, its existence and non-existence are 'distinct.' However, it is still 'one' and 'unified' only in terms of internal perception. This unity and oneness, relative to negating the external, is one and unified. However, considering the inability to ignore the external, in terms of the integrity of observation, the unity within is just a relative individualization activity specific to one aspect of the observation.

For even if individualized within, what is not existent externally, as separated as internal and external, is not present as one in the unity of the observation as the internal and external are distinguished.

For example, in this case, the apple in question exists for the person imagining it. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any internal perception, judgment, assumption, or any form of mental construct about this thing. However, it is done, in the inner space, that is within oneself, a form of existence is created. But this inner existence is not present outside. Therefore, for instance, one cannot show the imaginary inner Amasya apple to someone outside. If one wishes to show it, they have to describe this imaginary inner existence in a way that enables someone outside to visualize it in their imagination; this image can only form externally through narration, not by itself. In other words, for example, without showing this image to his own hand or his own eyes outside even to his own hand, or, let's say, to the hand of another person outside, without directly perceiving the existence of the imagined Amasya apple inside. Neither his own hand nor, let's say, the hand of another person outside can grasp the presence of the imagined Amasya apple through touch. Ultimately, the external hand cannot claim the existence of what it cannot perceive as ‘existent.’ The Amasya apple inside is created exclusively for the internal imagination; externally, it is left void.

The examples of offering hope of existence and leaving things void for the heedless are abundant. Let's not delve into that topic.

In this example, the person has found an existence within but a void outside.

Because in this example, the external void does not ‘touch’ the internal existence, and the internal existence does not ‘touch’ the external void. This ‘lack of contact’ is what we refer to as ‘separation’ or ‘disjunction.’

The absence of internal existence in the external realm is a vital and a truth not to be neglect for those on the path of Sayr’u Suluk.

What brings out the issue here is not just the creation or absence of dreams and ideals in the external realm but something more subtle; it's the recognition of this state of ‘separation.’ Why is there separation, why is there distinctiveness? That's what brings out the issue. Because those on the path of contemplation see that here, there is a false ‘unity’ masking the distinctiveness, and truly, there is a hidden ‘distinctiveness’ concealing the unity. Or the issue is not primarily about realizing what was imagined initially. The concern for those on the path of contemplation is first to awaken to the separation masked by the false unity. Indeed, those on the path of contemplation perceive even the imaginations as inherently truthful, embodying the essence of ‘oneness’ and ‘unity.’ They are unfamiliar with lies and empty fantasies. They do not override the right of anything by placing it in a state between existence and non-existence.

As can be understood from these examples, the ‘separation’ found in the ‘outer place’ and ‘inner place’ in the journey indicates that the unity of the journey is flawed. In other words, it reveals that one is deceived into thinking that something flawed is not flawed.

The traveler, realizing that he has been deceived in the aspect of place" during his journey, takes action to reach the truth in his sayr. Certainly, this action involves abandoning the deceived ‘place.’

For these reasons, the journey begins with abandonment and ultimately concludes with sealing through abandonment.

Between these two abandonments, ‘necks are severed,’ ‘hearts come to mouths,’ ‘children turn into aged elders’... the sky splits open, stars fall, the Sun and Moon roll up like a towel. This point, except for what Allah has exempted, cannot be expressed in any language, nor can it be narrated.

Let's leave it at this point. What the traveler notices is just the beginning, sparking the awareness of more to come. The recognition and traversal of these places begin with seeing ‘the one who shows the path’ on the ‘place’.

Because without someone natively knowing the path on the place, indicating the path, the path remains unseen, and can not be found. Let me briefly and appropriately elaborate on this point.

The one showing the way, generally speaking in the context mentioned earlier, is visible from the ‘external place.’ He appears before the prospective traveler in the ‘external place’ and speaks from the external place. For example, they manifest in places like the market, bazaar, lodge, school, coffeehouse, or similar locations. They speak in various expertise, interests, and human languages, addressing the traveler in external contexts that are visible, such as the market or bazaar, and using languages that are external to the traveler.

‘The one showing the path’ in terms of appearing externally has entered the prospective traveler’s broad sense of ‘external,’ becoming part of their Sayr. In other words, just like the prospective traveler perceives colors, objects, people, and structures in the 'external journey,' the ‘guide’ has also entered his comprehension from the external.

If observed closely, generally, those entering their comprehension from the external may have voices or understandable languages, and some even address the traveler candidate using these sounds and languages.

However, not every sound or image entering the comprehension from the external is a language.

The things observed from the outside have a ‘place’ inside, in the inner contemplation. Without this place, the external observation does not merge with the inner contemplation to become unified as a Sayr. We mentioned this earlier. Let's recall it once again.

Now, every sound and image coming from the outside, purely in terms of being sound and image, is specific to a place inside. Attention should be paid to the question of where inside it belongs.

Without the occurrence of the external entering the internal place, we cannot discuss what comes into the external Sayr. The mere combination of sound and visuals does not constitute an inherent ‘meaning’ or ‘significance’ on its own. Therefore, a Sayr consisting solely of sound and visuals is not a Sayr in the sense of comprehension. Sounds, visual patterns, and similar elements, such as tactile sensations, must somehow be incorporated into the place of ‘language’ to acquire meaning and significance. In other words, they must ‘come into language.’

The person of the Sayr, externally, brings elements like sound, visuals, and touch into the inner place with a kind of ‘language.’ In other words, all these elements come into the inner ‘language’ of the traveler and find ‘meaning’ there; they come into meaning.

However, when what is observed externally comes into the Sayr with a 'language' independent of the inner language, the situation changes. Because these comprehensions are no longer solely dependent on the language of the Sayr but speak with languages specific to themselves. For this reason, the necessity arises to 'understand' what these perceived things 'mean', what and who they are, and how they explain and introduce themselves instead of depending on the traveler’s internal 'place of meaning.'

This point is also the beginning of things getting complicated.

What will those in the external 'language' say? And what will the one in Sayr say to them?

This point represents one of the most intricate and challenging aspects of the sayr, beyond the understanding of anyone except those skilled in Sayr’u Suluk. Everyday dilemmas related to this issue are experienced by everyone at different levels. Feelings of uncertainty, being surprised by events, and making mistakes are common outcomes. Philosophers, scientists, and theologians who have attempted to tackle these challenges have often found themselves in a situation where these issues seem nearly insurmountable. Indeed, the education received often serves as a guide to further complicate matters. Ultimately, foundational problems that have been pondered for centuries persist like an immovable concrete block.

We have previously explored these issues in the context of the limitations of philosophy and theology. Let's not dwell further on this helplessness here. Instead, let's bring attention to the awareness of the guiding traveler.

The guiding traveler comes to the Sayr from the outside, in an external place, and with an external language. The prospective traveler, generally speaking, notices the 'guiding traveler' in these circumstances. However, this realization occurs before understanding who He truly is. Yes, this is simply a situation of 'encounter.' This encounter, from the external perspective of addressing to guide, is also considered as the 'first contact' in terms of local address for guidance.

All those concrete block-like issues will be put on track with this first contact. However, in this contact, there are more important things than that.

'The first contact' could revolve around various topics, encompassing different emotions. It might arise from the need for a glass of water or a meal, seeking a solution to an intellectual problem, searching for treatment due to an illness, or engaging in shopping. It could happen while having fun at an entertainment venue, feeling melancholic in a deserted place, following a matter of interest on a platform like social media out of curiosity, searching for medication, conducting business, looking for a job, or even seeking a partner in a game... it doesn't matter.

In every form, in every environment. What remains constant amidst the variations in forms and environments is only and only the 'states' that will underlie the 'first contact' between the guiding traveler and the prospective traveler, no more.

The 'states' that will underlie the 'first contact' are the unique, quest-related states of the prospective traveler. In other words, it is a state that captures the attention of the prospective traveler, located in a place within oneself. This state, as a call to contact with the one who will guide, makes the 'first contact' possible.

The place where the state originates is a place where the guide is also present. In other words, it is a place of prior contact with the one who will guide.

The state is in the place of this prior contact.

The 'first contact' that comes in the form of an external encounter is a consequence of it.

Therefore, this prior contact comes before the 'first contact'.

Due to coming before the 'first contact,' the contact that materializes through the state is the place of the 'original contact.'

It is the 'original contact' that enables the 'first contact' between the guiding traveler and the traveler seeking guidance.

If there were no 'original contact,' there would be no 'first contact'.

The 'first contact' is, in terms of what precedes this contact, a beginning. It is the beginning of the architectural artwork called Sayr’u Suluk. What initiates this beginning is the 'language' that exists outside but actually cannot be outside, in other words, the 'language' of the guide. To put it more explicitly, it is the first real coming of the separated external world to the 'language'.

For the first time, because the thing that comes to language is the language in the essence of the 'original contact'.

Original contact is neither located in the separate outside nor in the separate inside. The place of the original contact is within the undivided innerSelf. Therefore, the thing that makes the contact 'first' is the arrival of something seen outside, overcoming the external and internal separation, to the essential innerSelf.

For the first time, in their separated comprehension so far, the prospective traveler immediately recognizes their 'original innerSelf' upon encountering this 'first contact'. From this point, s/he begins to feel and understand what it will show. Therefore, the world prior to this encounter is set aside, and what s/he encounters in a different place begins.

'First contact' is a hope of the original contact, as the beginning of the prospective traveler's Sayr and the beginning of the ultimate artwork of the path.

Hence, irrespective of the context, the most conspicuous aspect perceived in the external guide is hope. In the perspective of the murshid, hope exists. This hope is the murid.

From this perspective, one steps into the construction of Sayr’u Suluk with the basmalah of hope, and with the first encounter, everything commences in the name of Allah.

- to be continued