Introduction to Laleh Bakhtiar's, Rumi's Original Sufi Enneagram

11 INTRODUCTION BY SAMUEL BENDECK SOTILLOS “[The human individual’s] situation is like this: an angel’s wing was brought and tied to a donkey’s tail so that the donkey perchance might also become an angel, thanks to the radiance of the angel’s company.”1 “By God, you were born from His Attributes in the first place: Now return to His Attributes”2 – Rūmī That after eight hundred years the enduring influence of a thirteenth century Persian mystic of the Islamic tradition such as Rūmī (1207-1273), described as the “`most popular poet in America” or that UNESCO, a division of the United Nations, declared the year 2007 as the “Year of Rumi” is a remarkable confirmation of the timeless relevance of traditional wisdom. While the world in the post-9/11 era is quite a different place from the one that Rūmī lived, his message still recalls anew the immutable and eternal truths that are neither of the East or West. Regardless of the xenophobia and the myriad predicaments confronting within and without the contemporary human psyche, Rūmī has entered the global marketplace and become an icon of popular culture in order to satiate the spiritual hunger that longs for an alternate world and Reality altogether.3 Rūmī, a magisterial Sufi, understood well that esoteric knowledge could never be a commodity for mass consumption as it has become today: “[T]hey [the masses] are not open to receive them [things of a transcendent order]; God has set a seal upon their ears and eyes and hearts. Their eyes see things other than as they truly are….4 Their ears hear things other than as they truly are…” , thus, “The world is ill in its confusion”.5 There are fewer figures of the ancient world more misunderstood than Rūmī and by the same token when examined alongside the Enneagram or the Presence of God (wajh Allah), one can again see how esoteric knowledge is repeatedly misappropriated by popular culture to be reinterpreted in a new guise that is often misleading if not altogether contrary to its original source. In regards to the nine pointed symbol of the Enneagram, it is necessary to recall: “[T]he Enneagram is being popularized in America and used as a new psychological parlor game—‘Want to find your Self? Take a number!’—which is very unfortunate.”6 This myopic way of approaching both Rūmī and the Enneagram, if not the whole of the sapiential traditions, has further obscured “The Elephant in the Dark”: Rumi’s Original Sufi Enneagram 12 Some Hindus had brought an elephant for exhibition and placed it in a dark house. Crowds of people were going into that dark place to see the beast. Finding that ocular inspection was impossible, each visitor felt it with his palm in the darkness. The palm of one fell on the trunk. ‘This creature is like a water-spout,’ he said. The hand of another lighted on the elephant’s ear. To him the beast was evidently like a fan. ‘I found the elephant’s shape is like a pillar,’ he said. Another laid his hand on its back. ‘Certainly this elephant was like a throne,’ he said.7 In effect all of the parts of the elephant correspond to the transcendent unity of religions, which acknowledges both the outer and inner dimension of religion. What is shrouded by many popularizers of spirituality is the mistaken notion that the “elephant” of Truth is perceivable as disconnected from the outer dimension of religion. The perception of the “elephant” requires, at least in light of the perennial philosophy, both exoteric and esoteric dimensions in order for it to be fully perceived. Al-Hujwīrī (d. 1071) articulates the complementary facets of the inner (bātin) and outer (zāhir) dimensions of Islam: “The exoteric aspect of Truth without the esoteric is hypocrisy, and the esoteric without the exoteric is heresy. So, with regard to the Law, mere formality is defective, while mere spirituality is vain.”8 Rūmī provides an astute statement on this theme, “If they do not show respect outwardly, it becomes known that inwardly they are impudent and do not respect the men [and women] of God.”9 SUFISM AND THE NINE POINTED SYMBOL IN THE MODERN WEST The popularization of both Sufism (tasawwuf) and the Enneagram in the modern West share several significant features which can be traced back to key individuals. To understand the fullness of how religion and spirituality have come be interpreted in the present era, requires knowledge of the theoretical antecedents that have shaped these developments. The Enneagram became primarily known in the West through contact made with the Naqshbandī Sufi order, attributed to the founder of the order Bahā adDīn Naqshband Bukhari (1318-1389). It was G.I. Gurdjieff (1877-1949) who had contact with Shaykh Abd Allah al-Faiz ad-Daghestani (18911973) of the Naqshbandī Sufi order and learned about the Enneagram through this encounter.10 Some have also suggested the influence of the Medieval Christian philosopher Ramón Lull (1232-1315) and the German Jesuit scholar Athanasius Kircher (1601-1680), who published Arithmologia in 1965, containing the Enneagram on the frontispiece of the volume, to have in- 13 Introduction fluenced Gurdjieff’s ideas on the nine pointed symbol of the Enneagram.11 Gurdjieff is reported to have alluded to the primacy of the Naqshbandī Sufi order in understanding the fullness of Islamic spirituality, “‘If you really want to know the secrets of Islam,’ he [Gurdjieff] said, ‘you will find them in Bokhara.’ This is equivalent to saying you will find them if you can find the centre of the Naqshbandi.”12 Gurdjieff in turn introduced the Enneagram to his Russian pupils in Moscow and Saint Petersburg in 1916. So central was the Enneagram to Gurdjieff’s teaching that an important disciple expressed the following: “I think you will agree that if we could only establish where Gurdjieff found the Enneagram, we would understand where he found what is most important about the content of his teaching. It would tell us where he found that which is missing in the Western Tradition.”13 Several noteworthy disciples and disciples of disciples within the Fourth Way system who brought the Enneagram to wider audiences are: P.D. Ouspensky (1878-1947), J.G. Bennett (1897-1974) and Rodney Collin (19091956). Ouspensky authored the first book making note of the Enneagram to those outside the Gurdjieff teaching in his, In Search of the Miraculous: Fragments of an Unknown Teaching published in 1949. Rodney Collin, a British disciple of Ouspensky’s made the Enneagram not only more known in the English speaking world but also in the Spanish speaking world with his book The Theory of Celestial Influence (El Desarrollo de la Luz) published in 1952. (A curious relationship exists between Collin relocating to Mexico and the formulation of Oscar Ichazo’s Arica Institute or Instituto de Gnoseologia in 1968 in Chile, which deserves more attention). Some three decades later, in 1983, Bennett released his own work on the subject under the title, Enneagram Studies.14 After Gurdjieff’s passing, Idries Shah (1924-1996) self-proclaimed “Grand Sheikh of the Sufis”15 came onto the scene and directly appealed to the followers of Gurdjieff. It was in 1961 through the appearance of an article “Solo to Mecca” by Omar M. Burke, authored under what many suggest to be one of the various pseudonyms of Idries Shah,16 attracted Fourth Way students due to its similitude to Gurdjieff’s teaching.17 It was an early disciple of Ouspensky and old friend of Bennett’s from Military Intelligence, Reginald Hoare, who had read this article and suggested to Bennett that he meet Idries Shah. Hoare was convinced that Shah had been in contact with the similar esoteric knowledge of the Khwajagan that Gurdjieff encountered in Central Asia. Bennett recalls the letter that he received from Hoare regarding the appearance of Idries Shah, Rumi’s Original Sufi Enneagram 14 With his letter he enclosed a newspaper cutting describing a visit made by the author to a sanctuary in central Asia in which he had found a teaching that was unmistakably of the same origin as much that we had learned from Gurdjieff. This letter prepared the way for the announcement that Reggie and three or four other old friends and fellow-pupils [of Ouspensky] had met Idries Shah, who had come to England to seek out followers of Gurdjieff’s ideas with the intention of transmitting to them knowledge and methods that were needed to complete their teaching.18 Bennett’s first meeting with Idries Shah occurred in 1962, and was somewhat of a disappointment to Bennett, “Our first impressions were unfavourable.”19 Yet Bennett continued to meet with Shah regularly as he remained hopeful that Shah was indeed an authentic emissary of what Gurdjieff had called “The Inner Circle of Humanity”, particularly because Hoare “verified his credentials”.20 Bennett elaborates further: “Knowing Reggie to be a very cautious man, trained moreover in assessing information by many years in the Intelligence Service, I accepted his assurances and also his belief that Shah had a very important mission in the West that we ought to help him to accomplish.”21 Hoare also emphasized that Idries Shah had inner knowledge on the Enneagram that superseded what they had learned from Ouspensky: “Reggie attached special significance to what Shah had told him about the Enneagram symbol and said that Shah had revealed secrets about it that went far beyond what we had heard from Ouspensky.”22 Shah’s attempt to present the Fourth Way teaching of Gurdjieff within the fold of Sufism is clear for all to see: “G.I. Gurdjieff left abundant clues to the Sufic origin of virtually every point in his ‘system’; though it obviously belongs more specifically to the Khagjagan (Naqshbandi) form of the dervish teaching.”23 Bennett while being a teacher himself and having his own students was still determinedly seeking for a guide after Gurdjieff’s death. When Bennett learned that Idries Shah had identified himself as the spiritual Pole or Qutb of this age, and that he had claimed to be a representative of the “Invisible Hierarchy” and the Khwajagan of Central Asia where the Naqshbandī Sufi order is said to originate, Bennett fell under his influence. Bennett writes, “I had seen enough of Shah to know that he was no charlatan or idle boaster and that he was intensely serious about the task he had been given.”24 In 1966 Shah’s efforts to undermine Gurdjieff and simultaneously subsume his mantle reached their zenith through the publication under a pseudonym who some suggest was prepared by Idries Shah’s brother, Omar Ali Shah (1922-2005), under a pen-name of Rafael Lefort, The Teachers of Gurdjieff. In this book the alleged Lefort describes 15 Introduction a trip to the Near East and Central Asia in search of the original sources of the Gurdjieff’s teaching by way of describing not only his own encounter with the Naqshbandī but also entering into this Sufi order. Thus drawing a conclusion for the reader that postulates Shah’s brand of Sufism originating in and being a continuation of the Sarmoung Brotherhood or the Khwajagan of Central Asia. Oscar Ichazo (b. 1931), the founder of the Arica Institute originally claimed to be a “Sufi Master” either by his own admission or likely by his student Claudio Naranjo (b. 1932). In an early book presenting firsthand descriptions of the teachings of the Arica Institute and the Enneagram, Transpersonal Psychologies published in 1975, gives the overall depiction that Ichazo’s system had Sufi origins.25 Ichazo asserts that while he studied with various Sufi orders such as the Suhrawardī, Bektāshī and the Naqshbandī, the Arica Institute is not attributed to Sufism.26 By the same token although Ichazo first qualified his knowledge of Sufism and the Enneagram to the “School of the Bees” the same source of Gurdjieff’s teaching, he later denied that the Arica Institute is in anyway linked to Gurdjieff or the Fourth Way system. Ichazo asserts, “I found the enneagon before reading Gurdjieff.”27 With this said, Naranjo has verified that Ichazo on several occasions alluded to his affiliation with the Sarmouni: “As we worked with Oscar [Ichazo], I had no doubt about regarding him as a link with that tradition which had been the main element in Gurdjieff’s own background.”28 Yet Ichazo later denounced Gurdjieff’s influence upon the formation of the Arica system, as Naranjo informs us, “Originally Oscar Ichazo claimed that the enneagram was passed on to him orally by the Sarmouni, a Sufi brotherhood. In a recent interview, he said that he had never met a single Sufi who knew about the enneagram.”29 In an interview Ichazo suggests to the primacy of the Enneagram within the Arica teaching: “Every manifestation can be divided into nine points—anything.”30 This is very similar to Gurdjieff’s own affirmation on the Enneagram: “Everything can be included and read in the enneagram.”31 Similarly, we must note Idries Shah’s influence upon “distinguished Professor Claudio Naranjo”,32 as Naranjo writes: “I should interpolate here for the sake of context that, as many who were deeply affected by the Gurdjieff heritage, I had been disappointed in the extent to which Gurdjieff’s school entailed a living lineage. I had turned in my search towards Sufism and had become part of a group under the guidance of Idries Shah”.33 Although Shah only references the Enneagram to our knowledge in one book,34 he was a key source for the popularization of Sufism in the West which has filtered into modern psychology and was only strengthened with Rumi’s Original Sufi Enneagram 16 Naranjo being one of his students. In summarizing the nexus of relationships gravitating around the events that have lead to the popularization of Sufism and the Enneagram in the modern West, we have Gurdjieff at the center; this is especially the case with the Enneagram. It was then through the writings of Ouspensky, Collin and Bennett that the Enneagram reached those outside the Gurdjieff circles. Likewise it was through the Fourth Way teachings of Gurdjieff and his students that Oscar Ichazo and Claudio Naranjo came to learn about the Enneagram and likely some facets of Sufism. Ichazo further elaborated on the Enneagram to some degree to Naranjo and Naranjo then developed the Enneagram of personality types and went on to teach it to his students who then disseminated the Enneagram en masse.35 The suggestion that Gurdjieff’s teaching originated with the Khwajagan of Central Asia consequently brought significant confusion to many seekers trying to find Islamic esoterism within Gurdjieff’s Forth Way teaching.36 It was after all, this notion that led Bennett to Idries Shah and similarly Naranjo first to Oscar Ichazo and then to Idries Shah. Although Gurdjieff’s system has assimilated certain facets of Sufism, Gurdjieff himself challenges this assertion: “[T]he teaching whose theory is here being set out is completely self-supporting and independent of other lines and it has been completely unknown up to the present time.”37 Here we have in a nutshell the constellation of relationships that have made both Sufism and the Enneagram known to the modern West. In mentioning Idries Shah, we need to recall that it has been considerably demonstrated that Shah’s brand of Sufism is highly distorted and does not reflect the authenticity of traditional Islamic spirituality. Professor Annemarie Schimmel (1922-2003) provides her appraisal on Idries Shah: He has no scholarly background, and his ramblings combine things which can really not be brought together; historical interest is nil, and accuracy very limited … I am willing to accept a genuine Sufi, who is not a scholar but has a deep experience, if his words radiate truth and honesty, even though he may be unable to express himself in an ‘academic’ style; that is not the problem; but I cannot accept Idries Shah’s claims which are mere pretensions.38 Elsewhere Schimmel writes: “Idries Shah, The Sufis [1964], as well as his other books, should be avoided by serious students.”39 Much of Shah’s work has entered both the Human Potential Movement and the New Age Movement, including modern psychology most notably within the humanistic and transpersonal orientations and remains a central introductory 17 Introduction source on Sufism for seekers in the contemporary West. IN SEARCH OF THE REAL RŪMĪ Although Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī was a universalist in that he acknowledged the transcendent unity of religions, it is barely stressed that he was both pre-eminently a Sufi and a Muslim. This ecumenical spirit of Rūmī was demonstrated by the Christians and Jews, also known as Ahl al-Kitāb or “People of the Book,” who gathered for Rūmī’s funeral procession in order to honor him. What is overlooked is that the universal message of Rūmī which attracts so many is in fact a mirror reflection of the universal dimensions of Islam itself. For instance take the following passages as an example of this universal message abiding at the heart of Islam: “Every nation has its Messenger” (10:47) or the ensuing: Unto every one of you We have appointed a [different] law and way of life. And if God had so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community: but [He willed it otherwise] in order to test you by means of what He has vouchsafed unto you. Vie, then, with one another in doing good works! Unto God you must all return; and then He will make you truly understand all that on which you were wont to differ. (Koran 5:48) Perhaps no quotation of Rūmī’s has been more misunderstood than the following one, which has unfortunately been exploited to support the false notion that he was not a Muslim but a Sufi, and that as a Sufi he had no religion as such: I am neither Christian nor Jew nor Parsi nor Muslim. I am neither of the East nor of the West, neither of the land nor of the sea…. I have put aside duality and have seen that the two worlds are one. I seek the One, I know the One, I see the One, I invoke the One. He is the First, He is the Last, He is the Outward, He is the Inward.40 Again, although Rūmī’s mystical awareness transcends the limits of the rational mind, we cannot overlook that this oneness is at the heart of the credo of Islam found within its first testification (shahādah) of the Islamic faith, Lā ilāha illa 'Llāh, “There is no god but God” (and the second testification being specific to Islam, Muhammadun rasūlu Allāh, “Muhammad is the messenger of God.”) Another verse that has equally brought misunderstanding is Rūmī’s adherence to both a given spiritual form and a Rumi’s Original Sufi Enneagram 18 universal perspective: Beyond Islam and unbelief there is a ‘desert plain’. For us, there is a ‘yearning’ in the midst of that expanse. The knower of God who reaches that plain will prostrate in prayer, For there is neither Islam nor unbelief, nor any ‘where’ in that place.41 We could additionally include another example: Cross and Christians, from end to end, I surveyed; He was not on the Cross. I went to the idol-temple, to the ancient pagoda; No trace was visible there. I went to the mountains of Herāt and Candahār; I looked; He was not in that hill-and-dale. With set purpose I fared to the summit of Mount Qāf; In that place was only the ‘Anqa’s habitation. I bent the reins of search to the Ka’ba; He was not in that resort of old and young. I questioned Ibn Sīnā of his state; He was not in Ibn Sīnā’s range. I fared towards the scene of “two bow-lengths’ distance”; He was not in that exalted court. I gazed into my own heart;42 Rūmī summarizes with brevity the inner dimension of all faiths: “Love’s creed is separate from all religions: The creed and denomination of lovers is God.”43 Two additional examples are, “From the transcendent viewpoint, all religions are one, and a hundred thousand years and a single hour are one.”44 and, “Every prophet and every saint has his own spiritual method, but it leads to God: All are one.”45 Although Rūmī is universalist in his spiritual hermeneutics he remains grounded within his own tradition of Islamic spirituality based on the Koran and the Prophet Muhammad, while at the same time acknowledging the One Truth hidden in all of the diverse revelations, as confirmed in the following quatrain: I am the servant of the Qur’an as long as I have life. I am the dust on the path of Muhammad, the Chosen one. If anyone quotes anything except this from my sayings, 19 Introduction I am quit of him and outraged by these words.46 For those whose minds are impervious to the mystical dimension of the Koran, Rūmī has the following message: The Koran is like a bride. Although you pull the veil away from her face, she does not show herself to you. When you investigate the Koran, but receive no joy or mystical unveiling, it is because your pulling at the veil has caused you to be rejected. The Koran has deceived you and shown itself as ugly. It says, “I am not that beautiful bride.” It is able to show itself in any form it desires. But if you stop pulling at its veil and seek its good pleasure; if you water its field, serve it from afar and strive in that which pleases it, then it will show you its face without any need for you to draw aside its veil.47 That Rūmī had the highest regard for the Prophet Muhammad is visible in his Fīhi mā fīhi: “Know now that Muhammad is the guide. Until a man first comes to Muhammad he cannot reach unto Us.”48 Also, “Muhammad does not have a state in which a stinking creature like you is not contained!”49 Furthermore, Rūmī emphasizes Prophet Muhammad’s role in establishing an unbroken chain (silsilah), which if it were not for the Prophet no Sufi order would exist: “God’s way is exceeding fearful, blocked and full of snow. He [the Prophet Muhammad] was the first to risk his life, driving his horse and pioneering the road. Whoever goes on this road, does so by his guidance and guarding. He discovered the road in the first place and set up waymarks everywhere”.50 Rūmī, as is revealed in the Koran, indicates that the Prophet Muhammad represents both the continuation and the return to the primordial monotheism of Abraham: “Any seals which the Prophets of the past left in place have been taken off by the religion of Muhammad.”51 To the surprise of many, Rūmī speaks of orthodoxy and is far from ever being accused of being narrow-minded: “The (right) thought is that which opens a way: the (right) way is that on which a (spiritual) king advances”.52 The following lines from Rūmī are often cited in an effort to demonstrate how modern science or rather scientism (the reduction of Reality to what can be exclusively verified through the five senses) and in this case evolutionary theory can be proven through the wisdom of the ages, yet this could not be further from the truth.53 Rūmī is speaking here to the original Unity underlying all phenomena and not the evolutionism (the notion that the greater can derive from the lesser) of modern science: Rumi’s Original Sufi Enneagram 20 I died as mineral and became a plant, I died as plant and rose to animal, I died as animal and I was a man. Why should I fear? When was I less by dying? Yet once more I shall die as man, to soar With angels blest; but even from angelhood I must pass on: all except God doth perish. When I have sacrificed my angel soul, I shall become what no mind e’er conceived. Oh, let me not exist! For Non-existence Proclaims in organ tones, ‘To Him we shall return.’54 Rūmī expresses his own thoughts on poetry, which warrants much attention to clarify the notion that he was first and foremost a poet rather than a spiritual master who used poetry as a teaching modality: One of my traits is that I do not like to distress anyone…. I am so concerned to please others that when these friends come to visit me, I dread the thought that they might become bored. So I recite poetry to keep them busy. Otherwise, what have I to do with poetry? By God, I detest poetry. In my eyes, there is nothing worse…55 Elsewhere Rūmī emphasizes: What is poetry that I should boast of it, I possess an art other than the art of the poets. Poetry is like a black cloud; I am like the moon hidden behind its veil. Do not call the black cloud the luminous moon in the sky.56 THE QUANDARY OF MODERN PSYCHOLOGY From its inception through the events of the so-called Enlightenment that occurred in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries, modern psychology has fundamentally repudiated its roots in the spiritual domain. In cutting itself off from the sacred it has become an illegitimate “science of the soul” as it denies the very reality that it allegedly attempts to address. The time seems to have come when psychology must discard all reference to consciousness; when it need no longer delude itself into thinking that it is making mental states the object of observation.... This suggested 21 Introduction elimination of states of consciousness as proper objects of investigation in themselves will remove the barrier from psychology which exists between it and the other [modern] sciences.57 In no longer viewing the human state in divinis or as the intersection the human and the Divine, has had irrevocable consequences upon the entire way that Reality was perceived in the premodern or traditional world. These events have led to the promethean and narcissistic characteristics that define the present era. To begin with I must say that practically never in history has psychology stood at so low a level as at the present time. It has lost all touch with its origin and its meaning so that now it is even difficult to define the term “psychology”: that is, to say what psychology is and what it studies. And this is so in spite of the fact that never in history have there been so many psychological theories and so many psychological writings. Psychology is sometimes called a new science. This is quite wrong. Psychology is, perhaps, the oldest science, and, unfortunately, in its most essential features a forgotten science.58 The negative synopsis of the human condition tends to be a predominant feature within modern psychology, as disclosed by the founding father of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) whose aim was: “[T]ransforming your hysterical misery into common unhappiness.”59 Meanwhile some have also suggested the same about the Enneagram of personality types, “This pathological view of ordinary human nature is pervasive.”60 It is this negative and dehumanizing outlook that unfortunately frames much of modern psychology: “I am still haunted by the reality, however, that humans—and I mean practically all humans—have a strong biological tendency to needlessly and severely disturb themselves and that, to make matters much worse, they also are powerfully predisposed to unconsciously and habitually prolong their mental dysfunctioning and to fight like hell against giving it up.”61 The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which has long been considered the “bible” for psychiatrists and psychologists, now in its fifth edition, is another example of modern psychology’s quandary. Despite the fact that it attempts to procure empirical evidence for a panacea, it in the meantime haphazardly diagnoses and medicates human individuals in the name of treatment on a mass scale, without realizing that this crisis, rather than being “The Elephant in the Dark”, is the spiritual sickness that has been brought about by modernism. “Psychoanalysis is a characteristic expression of [modern] Western man’s Rumi’s Original Sufi Enneagram 22 spiritual crisis, and an attempt to find a solution.”62 Although there are now more inclusive forms of modern psychology they are constructed on the erroneous foundation of their predecessors, no matter how positive we might wish to frame it: “Freud [through psychoanalysis and Watson through behaviorism] supplied to us the sick half of [modern] psychology and we must now fill it out with the healthy half.”63 Modern psychology for the most part begins and ends with the point of view of the empirical ego. This however is not the case with the integral psychologies of the perennial philosophy. In essence, the identification with the empirical ego is the root of the problem and this is why modern psychology’s emphasis on ego development is precarious, if not altogether erroneous according to the perennial philosophy: “All unhappiness is due to the ego”64 or “the ego—the cause of all misery”.65 Rūmī makes this clear, “Concern yourself not with the thieflike ego and its business.”66 The empirical ego or self cannot leap beyond itself; it requires what is beyond its own point of view. Western and profane psychology…the supposed unity of the ‘self’ [or empirical ego]…is a fragmentary unity, since it refers to a part of the being only, to one of its states taken in isolation and arbitrarily from among an indefinite number of others (and this state, too, is far from being envisaged in its integrality), while on the other hand this unity, even if only considered in reference to this special state, is as relative as possible, since this state is itself composed of an indefinite number of diverse modifications.67 The inclusion of the spiritual domain within modern psychology is a definitive step in reconciling the mishaps of the beginnings of modern psychology that for the most part pathologized spirituality. In fact a key representative of this broader interpretation of modern psychology has made an indispensable observation that many within psychology today can greatly benefit from: I should like to call attention to the following facts. During the past thirty years, people from all the civilized countries of the earth have consulted me…. Among all my patients…there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life. It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because he had lost that which the living religions of every age have given to their followers, and none of them has been really healed who did not regain his religious outlook.68 Even though modern psychology has come a long way in acknowledg- 23 Introduction ing the Spirit and its role in establishing integral health and well-being, as demonstrated: “Healing may be called a religious problem.”69 However, the inclusion of the transpersonal within modern psychology has also presented other challenges such as psychologism and New Age thought to identify a few. “[T]wo special evils. One consists in psychologizing the spiritual life (‘reducing’ it to psychology with nothing left over). The other evil consists in mistaking widespread, popular perversions of the spiritual life for the real thing, thus often providing incisive analyses of something which is familiar though incorrectly labeled. This mistake has lent support to the reductionist error”.70 To make an important distinction between modern psychology and Sufi psychology, like all integral psychologies is linked to a Divinely revealed religion. It is the spiritual domain alone that possess the breadth and depth of what psychology as a “science of the soul” requires. Since it is often forgotten, we must recall anew the etymological root of the English word “religion” is from the Latin religare, meaning to “to re-bind,” or “to bind back” by implication to the Divine or the Supreme Identity that is at once transcendent and immanent. Modern psychology, in its more open-ended expressions—humanistic and transpersonal psychology—tends to diminish or disregard the outer dimension of spirituality accepting only the esoteric or mystical dimensions which are founded on the direct experience of the Absolute while failing to recognize such esoterism as fundamentally orthodox. They do not grasp that this is not a spiritual possibility. “[O]rganized religion can actually function as a grave impediment for any serious spiritual search, rather than an institution that can help us connect with the divine.”71 We can see this position in the writings of the father of American Psychology William James (1842-1910) and C.G. Jung (1875-1961), including Abraham H. Maslow (1908-1970), who were all instrumental in the formation of both humanistic and transpersonal psychology. We might refer to the following words by Rūmī with regard to those who adopt a pick and choose model selecting bits and pieces from the sapiential traditions: “Alter yourself, not the Traditions: abuse your (dull) brain, not the rosegarden (the true sense which you cannot apprehend)”.72 The conundrum that modern psychology and contemporary interpreters of the Enneagram must face is that they cannot solve the enigma of human identity with a viewpoint fixed in the empirical ego. Again, “the ego is error: it is a principle of illusion”.73 In clinging to one’s relative identity, one loses sight of the Supreme Identity that is hidden in the innermost center of the human individual. Rumi’s Original Sufi Enneagram 24 HUMAN COMPLETION ACCORDING TO ISLAMIC SPIRITUALITY Essential to understanding any of the sapiential traditions is that they are not a man-made system; they originate in a supra-individual source. With regard to Sufism it is contains three facets: the Law (sharī’ah), the Path (tarīqah) and the Truth (haqīqah). In this connection Sufi’s refer to the saying of the Prophet Muhammad: “The Law is my words, the Way is my works, and the Truth is my inward states.” For those who presume that Rūmī has thrown morality and metaphysics to the winds, we point out: “The Law is like a lamp: It shows the way. Without a lamp, you will not be able to go forward. When you enter the path, your going is the Way. And when you reach the goal, that is the Truth.”74 Sufism devoid of sharī’ah, leaving only tarīqah and haqīqah is no longer Sufism: “[T]he Law is not the cloak or the symbol of haqīqa, of a hidden truth that might be reached by transgression. It is the haqīqa”.75 This is also apparent in the Koranic verse, “Enter houses by their doors” (2:189). To disregard the exoteric dimension of a religion in favor of its esoteric dimension is to enter the houses of the Spirit through their back doors, which is a betrayal of Spirit. This is a core challenge that contemporary spiritual approaches face, especially the ones appealing to consciousness expansion. A hallmark of this outlook is situated in the confusion of the psychic with the Spirit. It is through participating in the fullness of an integral tradition that one’s lower soul may be transmuted, as Rūmī illustrates: “When you become straight, all those crookednesses will disappear.”76 Each of the spiritual traditions recognizes that the human microcosm is a reflection of the macrocosm. This important interrelationship between the human and cosmic order is articulated in the well-known Hermetic axiom of the Emerald Tablet, “As above, so below”. While this not only challenges but contradicts the widespread notion that the human individual is a tabula rasa, we might look at it from another point of view to see that the sapiential traditions make a tabula rasa out of the human individual in the Absolute. Rūmī articulates this doctrine of correspondences: Therefore in outward form thou art the microcosm, While in inward meaning thou art the macrocosm.77 “Sufi psychology, like everything else in Sufism, is based on Koranic ideas—the ideas on the nafs, the lowest principle of man…. Higher than the nafs is the qalb, ‘heart,’ and the rūh, ‘spirit.’”78 In acknowledging the integral psychology found within the spiritual traditions, one can allow 25 Introduction each domain—the psychic and the Spirit—to function in their respective levels without confusing them. The confusion of levels is unfortunately a problematic feature of modern psychology. “This confusion moreover appears in two contrary forms: in the first, the spiritual is brought down to the level of the psychic...in the second, the psychic is...mistaken for the spiritual”.79 Rūmī confirms: “The soul is one thing, and the spirit is another.”80 It goes without saying that the lower is included in the higher, the human microcosm consisting of Spirit/Intellect, soul and body requires all of these facets to be complete, however what cannot be forgotten is that the lower is subordinate to higher. Rūmī makes this clear: “Only a knowledge that comes directly from Him can take one to Him.”81 In the same way that contemporary interpretations of the Enneagram have distorted this sacred symbol, so too has the spiritual message of Rūmī been distorted. It is in the traditional interpretation of the spiritual path that the inner dimension of both Rūmī and the Enneagram come alive. Sufi psychology could then be defined as “the science of the transformations undergone by the spirit in its journey to God.” One must remember, however, that this science bears no resemblance to “psychology” as known in the West today. For in Rūmī’s terminology, modern psychology is based totally upon the ego’s study of itself. But the “ego” (nafs) is the lowest dimension of man’s inward existence, his animal and satanic nature. Only God or the spirit can know the spirit…. Ultimately the ego cannot even know itself without a totally distorted viewpoint, for it gains all of its positive reality from the spirit that lies above and beyond it.82 In varying ways each of the sapiential traditions has outlined a corresponding doctrine of human identity in divinis, which recognizes the integral relationship between the human state and the Divine. The Koran declares, “We are nearer to him than his jugular vein” (50:16). This is why it has been said that to know oneself is to know the Divine. As the Prophet Muhammad has confirmed: “He who knows himself knows his Lord.”83 In contradistinction, Kabīr (1398-1518) asserted, “He who knoweth not himself is mad”.84 Identity itself belongs to the Divine and thus the mystery of human identity cannot be resolved without the inclusion of what transcends egoism. Rūmī astutely writes: “The idol of your self is the mother of (all) idols...”85 True identity lies beyond one’s relative identity. What is unanimous about the doctrine of identity is the process of thought in forming identity, as articulated in the Ashtavakra Gita, “You are what you think.”86 or in the Dhammapada, “All that we are is the result of what we have thought”.87 In order to fully comprehend what is meant by both of these Rumi’s Original Sufi Enneagram 26 profound teachings requires discernment between the relative and the Absolute or the horizontal and the Vertical. Perhaps the quintessence of Hinduism or the sanātana dharma is exemplified by Vedantic metaphysics, tat tvam asi, “thou art That” and in Islam the tenth-century Sufi Mansūr al-Hallāj (858-922) who pronounced anā’l-Haqq, that is, “I am the Truth” or “I am the Real”. It becomes known that identity itself in its most complete form belongs to the Divine and for this reason it is the Divine that alone can remove the veil of one’s relative identity. Shankarāchārya (788-820) has exclaimed, “only the Self [Ātmā] knows the Self [Ātmā]”.88 According to certain Fathers of the Church, “God became man so that man might become God”.89 Rūmī describes a similar point through his poetic verse: “You see yourself as the drop in the ocean, but you are also the ocean in the drop.”90 The process by which the empirical ego or relative self becomes transmuted to allow for the transcendent Self to be known is articulated by Rūmī: “Make a journey from self to Self…. Purify yourself from the attributes of self, so that you may see your own pure essence!”91 Most importantly the root cause of all suffering is: “Forgetfulness of the Self is the source of all misery.”92 Sufi psychology does not separate the soul either from the metaphysical or from the cosmic order. The connection with the metaphysical order provides spiritual psychology with qualitative criteria such as are wholly lacking in profane psychology, which studies only the dynamic character of phenomena of the psyche and their proximate causes. When modern psychology makes pretensions to a sort of science of the hidden contents of the soul it is still for all that restricted to an individual perspective because it has no real means for distinguishing psychic forms which translate universal realities from forms which appear symbolical but are only the vehicles for individual impulsions.93 The goal of human existence is to restore ones transpersonal identity, imperative to this task is reclaiming the noetic faculty of the Intellect, which is both transcendent and immanent: “We shall show them Our signs upon the horizons and within themselves, until it is clear to them that it is the truth” (Koran 41:53). By definition the human state cannot be completed without returning to one’s primordial nature (fitrah), the “image of God” (imago Dei), Buddha-nature (Buddha-dhātu) or the Self (Ātmā), our true identity in divinis. As communicated in the hadīth of Sahih al-Bukhārī (d. 256/870) and Sahih Muslim (d. 261/875), “Each is facilitated for that for which he was created.” This process is not about forging a new identity, but to reclaim the identity that always was. As cogently conveyed in Tao- 27 Introduction ism, “Realize thy Simple Self. Embrace thy Original Nature.”94 Rūmī similarly writes, “Return to the root of the root of your own self!”95 After all, it is the Divine seeking the Divine, as conveyed in the hadīth qudsi: “I was a Hidden Treasure. I loved to be known. Therefore, I created the world so that I would be known.” The Supreme Identity is mirrored in the doctrine the Perfect Man or Universal Man, found in the traditional exegesis of the world that symbolizes the completion of the human condition in divinis. The idea of Perfect Man or Universal Man is found throughout the plenary traditions known in Hinduism as Purusha, in Taoism as Chen Jen, in Judaism as Adam Kadmon, in Islam as al-insān al-kāmil. Again we are reminded of the symbol of the mirror in relation to human identity and its fulfillment in the Divine prototype of Perfect Man or Universal Man, “As a mirror in which a person sees the form of himself and cannot see it without the mirror, such is the relation of God to the Perfect Man, who cannot possibly see his own form but in the mirror of the name Allah; and he is also a mirror to God, for God laid upon Himself the necessity that His names and attributes should not be seen save in the Perfect Man.”96 We must be clear that both men and women are insān, in the same way that each human individual originated in Spirit and was the original anthrōpos or androgyne, both male and female before the sexes were divided, prefixed in the Divine Archetype prior to being born into the world of duality. One cannot perceive Divine immanence without first perceiving Divine transcendence. Paradoxically, it has been also affirmed that the opposite is also not possible: It is not possible to understand that the statement “I am not Brahma” is false before having understood that it is true. Likewise it is not possible to understand that the statement “Brahma is outside me” is not precise before having understood that it is; and likewise again it is not possible to understand that the statement “Brahma is the almighty Creator” contains an error before having understood that it expresses a truth.97 Foremost in the transmutation of the empirical ego or self is the spiritual battle that wages within the seekers heart. Rūmī writes: “Two persons are warring within this one entity.”98 It is the spiritual battle acknowledged within the various sapiential traditions that is neglected within modern psychology and its way of looking at the human psyche. Rūmī poetically outlines this spiritual battle within the seeker: Outside this world of which we are speaking there is another world Rumi’s Original Sufi Enneagram 28 for us to seek. This world and its delights cater to the animality of man; these all feed his animality, whilst the root principle, man, goes into a decline. After all, they say, ‘Man is a rational animal.’ So man consists of two things. That which feeds his animality in this material world is these lusts and desires. But as for that which is his true essence, its food is knowledge and wisdom and the sight of God. The animality in man flees away from God, whilst his humanity flees away from this world.99 Rūmī makes it very clear that the battle of all battles is not an external one but wagged within the seeker: “[W]ithin me is a mighty enemy whom the sword cannot reach. I have no greater enemy in the world than he.”100 Spiritual combat is a transformative process that is connected to a doctrine and method of a Divinely revealed tradition. Spiritual combat, like any integral practice, involves the human psyche and the Spirit/Intellect. Again, the spiritual domain includes the psychological but the same is not true of the psychological. Travelling the spiritual path requires not only human effort, but most importantly requires grace (barakah) from the Divine. Rūmī confirms this, “Grace is one thing and effort another. The prophets did not achieve the station of prophethood through effort; they found that good fortune through grace.”101 Elsewhere he has stated, “Divine favour is one thing, and personal effort is something other.”102 Within both modern psychology and the enneagram circles the inclusion of grace is virtually absent, yet grace is quintessential to traveling the spiritual path as reflected in the following: “Nothing happens that is not an expression of God’s grace.”103 Since the human individual is reliant upon the Divine for everything, it is the Divine alone that is capable of providing integral health and well-being. Without the aid of the Divine, the seeker is incapable of moving beyond the relative point of reference of the empirical ego. Rūmī impeccably describes the restless and overstimulated human mind of today: So many thousands of thoughts and moods come over you without your having any hand in them, for they are completely outside your power and control. If you only knew whence these thoughts arise, you would be able to augment them. All these things have a passage over you, and you are wholly unaware whence they come and whither they are going and what they will do. Since you are incapable of penetrating your own moods, how do you expect to penetrate your Creator?104 This is a poignant example of why spiritual practice is essential for taming the mind which is identified with the empirical ego or self in order 29 Introduction to reestablish the noetic faculty of the Intellect or the Eye of the Heart. In contrast, we must be weary of the popular appeals to accept ourselves as we are in our egoism devoid of the most vital element that makes the human what it is: “[T]he curious paradox is that when I accept myself as I am, then I change.”105 The human individual will not be content with anything less than the full recovery of one’s integral identity in divinis. “The health of this body is the sickness of the spirit.”106 Furthermore, Analogically speaking: if a man is distressed by a flood and seeks a way to escape from it, psychoanalysis would remove the distress and let the patient drown…. This is not to say that it never happens that a psychoanalyst discovers and dissolves a dangerous complex without at the same time ruining the patient; but we are here concerned with the principle, in which the perils and errors involved infinitely outweigh the contingent advantages and fragmentary truths.107 Although the metaphysical principles within Sufism have been far more overlooked than acknowledged by the users of the Enneagram, which is evident in their attempt to establish a personality typology that correlates with the diagnostic criteria of modern psychology, it goes without saying that it fundamentally differs from Sufism’s perspective on what the human state is. Rūmī makes this principial knowledge available by way of allegory in his “Story About an Argument Between a Husband and Wife” found in his Mathnawi, Book 1:2253 ff. It is in this rich and symbolic story that Rūmī unfolds the inner dimension of the Enneagram or the Presence of God (wajh Allah). Even though Rūmī makes use of simple and down-toearth language to articulate the dynamic nature of the nine pointed symbol, he does so by touching upon the most intimate facet of human relationships. The husband and wife depicted in the tale are speaking and relating together not only conveying lessons on how we relate to one another on a daily basis, but the deeper implication or inner message which is more important is the dialectic that occurs between the Intellect and the ego. “Let not your animal nature rule your intellect….”108 It is from this perspective that we are travelling the nine points of the Enneagram from moment to moment. To understand the deeper nuances of Sufism and the Enneagram requires the participation in a spiritual path. To study them from the outside is of very limited value. As the cardinal Koranic principle states, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256), yet without traveling a spiritual path the mystical dimension of the world’s religions will remain opaque to the outsider. It is commitment to a single spiritual form while remembering that Spirit takes on myriad forms is what is common to both the message Rumi’s Original Sufi Enneagram 30 of Rūmī and the Enneagram. Rūmī provides seekers with the tools to lead the human psyche back to its source, which may very well be the medicine for a world in escalating disarray: “Through the invocation man is reintegrated into his center and ultimately attains union with God.”109 Instrumental to the teachings of both Rūmī and the Enneagram is Sufi psychology which must be contextualized within the fullness of Islamic spirituality. Laleh Bakhtiar has made an utmost discovery to the field of Islamic studies and Enneagram studies in identifying an essential connection between the two. Her tireless work that began over two decades ago has now culminated in this sublime summation that distills the timeless wisdom of nine pointed symbol. We recall that Rūmī predates the life of Bahā ad-Dīn Naqshband Bukhari, who was born over four decades after Rūmī’s death. Although the Enneagram primarily became known to those outside Sufism through contact made with the Naqshbandī Sufi order, Bakhtiar has again led us into a deeper layer of the enigmatic origins of the Enneagram, not only illuminating its roots within Sufism, but now attributing Rūmī as its originator within Islamic spirituality. It is unclear who first formulated the nine points on the circumference of the circle of the Enneagram. It might have been Nasīr al-Dīn Tūsī (1201-1274) a contemporary of Rūmī or Rūmī himself, yet an instrumental facet of the enigmatic origins of the Enneagram has been unveiled. While the transcendent wisdom found within Rūmī’s poetry can bring much clarity to the post-9/11 era that is besieged on all fronts with Islamophobia, we must be additionally mindful of the attempts from New Age enthusiasts to co-opt Rūmī in order to contextualize him outside the Islamic tradition, which is not only problematic but erroneous. This timely work by Laleh Bakhtiar presents a definitive case, appearing to be air tight ensuring the Enneagram’s origins within the inner dimension of the Islamic tradition by the magisterial Sufi Rūmī. The Sufi origins of the Enneagram or the Presence of God (wajh Allah) affirm the Divine Unity or tawhīd at the heart of all sapiential traditions. We hope that this work Rumi’s Original Sufi Enneagram will draw more seekers to this authentic presentation and that it will also renew interest for those within the enneagram community who are interested in recovering the original Enneagram. We conclude with Rūmī’s directive on excavating our human type in divinis: “Before you were this body, you were a pure spirit. How long will you keep yourself separate from that?”110 31 Endnotes to the Introduction ENDNOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION 1 Rūmī, quoted in Annemarie Schimmel, “A Donkey’s Tail with Angel’s Wings,” in I Am Wind, You Are Fire: The Life and Work of Rumi (Boston, MA: Shambhala, 1992), p. 90. 2 Rūmī, quoted in William C. Chittick, “The Descent and Reascent of the Spirit,” in The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1983), p. 81. 3 Some interesting examples of Rūmī becoming a commodity for Western consumption are noted in the following: John Ryle, “Madonna Loves a Whirling Dervish,” The Guardian (February 15, 1999); Ptolemy Tompkins, “Rumi Rules!” Time Magazine (October 29, 2002); Satya Paul Anand, “Rumi: On a Journey from Persia to Hollywood,” Span Magazine (March/April 2008), pp. 50-53; Yahiya Emerick, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Rumi Meditations (Indianapolis, IN: Alpha Books, 2008); For an important essay exposing the errors in the popularized versions of Rūmī, see Charles Upton, “The Real Rumi,” in Vectors of the CounterInitiation: The Course and Destiny of Inverted Spirituality (San Rafael, CA: Sophia Perennis, 2012), pp. 182-193. 4 Rūmī, quoted in A.J. Arberry, Discourses of Rumi (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004), p. 38. 5 Rūmī, quoted in William C. Chittick, “The Discipline of the Way,” in The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1983), p. 154. 6 Ken Wilber, “The Enneagram and the Basic Skeleton,” in A Brief History of Everything (Boston, MA: Shambhala, 1996), p. 210. 7 Rūmī, quoted in A.J. Arberry, “The Elephant in the Dark,” in Tales from the Masnavi (Surrey, UK: Curzon Press, 1994), p. 208. 8 Al-Hujwīrī, quoted in Cyril Glassé, The New Encyclopedia of Islam, Revised Edition (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2002), p. 10; “[W]here exoterism and esoterism are directly linked to the constitution of a traditional form in such a way as to be as it were the two faces, exterior and interior, of one and the same thing, it is immediately comprehensible to everyone that one must first adhere to the exterior in order subsequently to be able to penetrate to the interior, and that there can be no other way than this.” (René Guénon, “The Necessity of Traditional Exoterism,” in Initiation and Spiritual Realization, trans. Henry D. Fohr, ed. Samuel D. Fohr [Ghent, NY: Sophia Perennis, 2001], p. 42); “The exoteric viewpoint is, in fact, doomed to end by negating itself once it is no longer vivified by the presence within it of the esoterism of which it is both the outward radiation and the veil. So it is that religion, according to the measure in which it denies metaphysical and initiatory realities and becomes crystallized in literalistic dogmatism, inevitably engenders unbelief; the atrophy that overtakes dogmas when they are deprived of their internal dimension recoils upon them from outside, in the form of heretical and atheistic negations.” (Frithjof Schoun, “The Limitations of Exoterism,” in The Transcendent Unity of Religions [Wheaton, IL: Quest Books, 1993], Rumi’s Original Sufi Enneagram 32 p. 9). 9 Rūmī, quoted in A.J. Arberry, Discourses of Rumi (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004), p. 158. 10 See Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, “A Meeting with Gurdjieff,” in Classical Islam and the Naqshbandi Sufi Tradition (Washington, DC: Islamic Supreme Council of America, 2004), pp. 403-405. Gurdjieff’s disciple J.G. Bennett also made contact with Shaykh Abd Allah al-Faiz ad-Daghestani in May of 1955, See Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, “A Meeting with John Bennett,” in Classical Islam and the Naqshbandi Sufi Tradition (Washington, DC: Islamic Supreme Council of America, 2004), pp. 449-451; J.G. Bennett, “North Persia,” in Witness: The Autobiography of John G. Bennett (Charles Town, WV: Claymont Communications, 1983), pp. 308-311. 11 James Webb, “The Sources of the System,” in The Harmonious Circle: The Lives and Work of G.I. Gurdjieff, P.D. Ouspensky, and Their Followers (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1987), pp. 499-542. We might make note of Kircher’s warning about unqualified individuals pursuing the esoteric knowledge of the nine pointed symbol of the Enneagram: “And I have exposed to the curious reader things which are told to few. Farewell, and guard your tongue.” (James Webb, “The Sources of the System,” in The Harmonious Circle: The Lives and Work of G.I. Gurdjieff, P.D. Ouspensky, and Their Followers [New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1987], p. 508). 12 J.G. Bennett, “The Sources of Gurdjieff’s Ideas,” in Gurdjieff: A Very Great Enigma (Surrey, UK: Coombe Springs Press, 1963), p. 41. 13 J.G. Bennett, “The Sources of Gurdjieff’s Ideas,” in Gurdjieff: A Very Great Enigma (Surrey, UK: Coombe Springs Press, 1963), p. 38. 14 See also J.G. Bennett, “Appendix II: The Great Laws,” in Gurdjieff: Making a New World (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), pp. 281-296. 15 See the back cover of the book, Idries Shah, The Sufis (New York: Doubleday, 1964). 16 “From time to time I have had occasion to tell people that I write under names other than my own—pen-names. Can you believe that, in at least nine instances out of ten, after hearing this, the person has said: ‘Indeed? And what are your pen-names?’ This is a good illustration of the almost complete automatism of much thinking. If people write under pseudonyms, it is surely because they do not want their real name to be known as attached to that writing. Why, then, would such a person be thought likely to tell anyone else what that pen-name was? This is all the more remarkable because the people reacting in this way were almost always strangers, comparatively—people who would be supposed less likely than close friends to receive such confidences.” (Idries Shah, “Pen-Names,” in Reflections [London: Octagon Press, 1968], p. 88); See also Augy Hayter, Fictions and Factions (Reno, NV: Tractus Books, 2002). 17 Omar M. Burke, “Solo to Mecca,” Blackwood’s Magazine, Vol. 290, No. 1754 (December 1961), pp. 481-495; See also Roy Weaver Davidson (ed.), Documents on Contemporary Dervish Communities (London: Hoopoe Ltd., 1966). 18 J.G. Bennett, “Service and Sacrifice,” in Witness: The Autobiography of 33 Endnotes to the Introduction John G. Bennett (Charles Town, WV: Claymont Communications, 1983), p. 355. 19 J.G. Bennett, “Service and Sacrifice,” in Witness: The Autobiography of John G. Bennett (Charles Town, WV: Claymont Communications, 1983), p. 355. 20 J.G. Bennett, “Service and Sacrifice,” in Witness: The Autobiography of John G. Bennett (Charles Town, WV: Claymont Communications, 1983), p. 355. 21 J.G. Bennett, “Service and Sacrifice,” in Witness: The Autobiography of John G. Bennett (Charles Town, WV: Claymont Communications, 1983), p. 355. 22 J.G. Bennett, “Service and Sacrifice,” in Witness: The Autobiography of John G. Bennett (Charles Town, WV: Claymont Communications, 1983), p. 355. 23 Idries Shah, “Notes and Bibliography,” in The Way of the Sufi (London: Octagon Press, 1968), p. 40. 24 J.G. Bennett, “Service and Sacrifice,” in Witness: The Autobiography of John G. Bennett (Charles Town, WV: Claymont Communications, 1983), p. 358. 25 See Charles T. Tart (ed.), Transpersonal Psychologies (New York: Harper & Row, 1975). 25 See Dorothy De Christopher, “I am the Root of a New Tradition,” in Interviews with Oscar Ichazo, ed. John Bleibtreu (New York: Arica Institute Press, 1982), p. 133. 27 Dorothy De Christopher, “I am the Root of a New Tradition,” in Interviews with Oscar Ichazo, ed. John Bleibtreu (New York: Arica Institute Press, 1982), p. 144. 28 Claudio Naranjo, “A Report to the ‘First International Enneagram Conference,’” Enneagram Monthly, Vol. 2, No. 2 (February 1996), p. 16. 29 OM C. Parkin and Boris Fittkau, “The Distorted Enneagram: The Gnosis Interview with Claudio Naranjo,” Gnosis, No. 41 (Fall 1996), p. 22. 30 Dorothy De Christopher, “I am the Root of a New Tradition,” in Interviews with Oscar Ichazo, ed. John Bleibtreu (New York: Arica Institute Press, 1982), p. 144. 31 P.D. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous: Fragments of an Unknown Teaching (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1949), p. 294. 32 Idries Shah, “Notes,” in The Dermis Probe (London: Octagon Press, 1980), pp. 190-191. 33 Claudio Naranjo, “Foreward,” to Character and Neurosis: An Integrative View (Nevada City, CA: Gateways/IDHHB, Inc., 2003), p. xxviii. 34 Idries Shah, “Symbols, especially the Enneagon,” in The Commanding Self (London: Octagon Press, 1997), pp. 286-287. 35 “The paradigm of the enneagram community is a little peculiar. It’s peculiar in that it’s mainly rooted in the work of one person, Oscar Ichazo, as interpreted by one other person, Claudio Naranjo. Most of the leading teachers of the enneagram were originally students of Naranjo’s. He taught his students, and they in turn taught their students. With each succeeding generating of enneagram teachers, the enneagram community grew in numbers.” (Susan Rhodes, “Let’s De-pathologize the Enneagram,” Enneagram Monthly, Vol. 12, No. 9 [October 2006], p. 21). 36 “I concluded...that this symbol and the ideas for which it stands, originated with the Sarmān society about 2500 years ago and was revised when the power of Rumi’s Original Sufi Enneagram 34 the Arabic numerical system was developed in Samarkand in the fifteenth century” (J.G. Bennett, “The Great Laws,” in Gurdjieff: Making a New World [New York: Harper & Row, 1973], p. 293). In response we might provide the following observation: “Gurdjieff’s provocative claim to have found and entered ‘the chief Sarmoung Monastery’ is in effect a litmus test, differentiating literal minds from those preferring allegory.” (James Moore, “The Long Search,” in Gurdjieff: The Anatomy of a Myth [Longmead, UK: Element, 1991], p. 31). 37 P.D. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous: Fragments of an Unknown Teaching (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1949), p. 286. Paradoxically, Ichazo appears to be affirming the same position as Gurdjieff, yet now divorced from the Fourth Way system, “Since I am proposing a completely new method, I am certainly correct when I say ‘I am the root of a new tradition.’” (Oscar Ichazo, “Letter to the Transpersonal Community,” The Arican: International Journal of Arica Institute, No. 5 [Autumn 1991], p. 104); See also Dorothy De Christopher, “I am the Root of a New Tradition,” in Interviews with Oscar Ichazo, ed. John Bleibtreu (New York: Arica Institute Press, 1982), pp. 129-150. 38 Quoted from a letter dated May 25, 1985 in Peter Lamborn Wilson, “The Strange Fate of Sufism in the New Age,” in New Trends and Developments in the World of Islam, ed. Peter B. Clarke (London: Luzac Oriental Press, 1997), pp. 193194; See also L.P. Elwell-Sutton, “Sufism and Pseudo-Sufism,” Encounter, Vol. XLIV, No. 5, (May 1975), pp. 9-17; James Moore, “Neo-Sufism: The Case of Idries Shah,” Religion Today: A Journal of Contemporary Religions, Vol. 3, No. 3 (1986), pp. 4-8. 39 Annemarie Schimmel, “What is Sufism?” in Mystical Dimensions of Islam (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1975), p. 9. 40 Rūmī, quoted in William Stoddart, What Do the Religions Say about Each Other? Christian Attitudes towards Islam, Islamic Attitudes towards Christianity (San Rafael, CA: Sophia Perennis, 2008), p. 76; “I am neither Christian, nor Jew, nor Gabr [Parsi], nor Moslem. I am not of the East, nor of the West, nor of the land, nor of the sea.... I have put duality away, I have seen that the two worlds are one; One I seek, One I know, One I see, One I call. He is the first, He is the last, He is the outward, He is the inward” (Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī, Selected Poems from the Dīvāni Shamsi Tabrīz, trans. and ed. R.A. Nicholson [Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge, 2006], pp. 125, 127). 41 The Quatrains of Rumi: Rubā 'īyāt-é Jalāluddīn Muhammad Balkhī-Rūmī: Complete Translation with Persian Text, Islamic Mystical Commentary, Manual of Terms, and Concordance, trans. Ibrahim Gamard and Rawan Farhadi (San Rafael, CA: Sufi Dari Books, 2008), p. 407. 42 Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī, Selected Poems from the Dīvāni Shamsi Tabrīz, trans. and ed. R.A. Nicholson (Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge, 2006), pp. 71, 73. 43 Rūmī, quoted in William C. Chittick, “The Religion of Love,” in The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1983), p. 213. 44 Rūmī, quoted in Ibrahim Gamard, “The Seal of the Prophets,” in Rumi and Islam: Selections from His Stories, Poems, and Discourses Annotated & Explained 35 Endnotes to the Introduction (Woodstock, VT: SkyLight Paths, 2004), p. xvii. 45 Rūmī, quoted in William C. Chittick, “The Role of the Saints,” in The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1983), p. 136. 46 The Quatrains of Rumi: Rubā 'īyāt-é Jalāluddīn Muhammad Balkhī-Rūmī: Complete Translation with Persian Text, Islamic Mystical Commentary, Manual of Terms, and Concordance, trans. Ibrahim Gamard and Rawan Farhadi (San Rafael, CA: Sufi Dari Books, 2008), p. 2. 47 Rūmī, quoted in William C. Chittick, “Understanding Poetry and Speech,” in The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1983), p. 273. 48 Rūmī, quoted in A.J. Arberry, Discourses of Rumi (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004), p. 232. 49 Rūmī, quoted in A.J. Arberry, Discourses of Rumi (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004), p. 232. 50 Rūmī, quoted in A.J. Arberry, Discourses of Rumi (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004), p. 232. 51 Rūmī, quoted in Ibrahim Gamard, “The Seal of the Prophets,” in Rumi and Islam: Selections from His Stories, Poems, and Discourses Annotated & Explained (Woodstock, VT: SkyLight Paths, 2004), p. 157. 52 Rūmī, quoted in William C. Chittick, “Knowledge and Method,” in The Sufi Doctrine of Rūmī: Illustrated Edition (Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom, 2005), p. 88. 53 “There is no evolution for that which is Eternal.” (Sri Ramana Maharshi, quoted in B. Sanjiva Rao, “Bhagavan Sri Ramana and the Modern Age,” in Golden Jubilee Souvenir [Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1995], p. 87). 54 Rūmī, quoted in Reynold A. Nicholson, Rūmī: Poet and Mystic (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1978), p. 103. 55 Rūmī, quoted in William C. Chittick, “The Worth of Poetry,” in The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1983), p. 270; “My disposition is such that I do not want anyone to suffer on my account. . . . I am loved by those who come to see me, and so I compose poetry to entertain them lest they grow weary. Otherwise, why on earth would I be spouting poetry? I am vexed by poetry. I don’t think there is anything worse. It is like having to put one’s hands into tripe to wash it for one’s guests because they have an appetite for it. That is why I must do it.” (Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī, Signs of the Unseen: The Discourses of Jelaluddin Rumi, trans. W.M. Thackston, Jr. [Putney, VT: Threshold Books, 1994], p. 77). 56 Rūmī, quoted in Seyyed Hossein Nasr, “Rūmī and the Sufi Tradition,” in Islamic Art and Spirituality (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1987), pp. 140-141. 57 John B. Watson, “Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It,” Psychological Review, Vol. 20 (1913), pp. 163, 177. 58 P.D. Ouspensky, “First Lecture,” in The Psychology of Man’s Possible Evolution (New York: Vintage Books, 1974), p. 3. Rumi’s Original Sufi Enneagram 36 59 Joseph Breuer and Sigmund Freud, “The Psychotherapy of Hysteria (Freud),” in Studies on Hysteria, ed. James Strachey (New York: Basic Books, 1957), p. 305; “‘Happiness,’ said Freud, ‘is no cultural value.’” (Herbert Marcuse, “Introduction,” to Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud [New York: Vintage Books, 1962], p. 3). 60 Susan Rhodes, “Let’s De-pathologize the Enneagram,” Enneagram Monthly, Vol. 12, No. 9 (October 2006), p. 1. 61 Albert Ellis, “The Impossibility of Achieving Consistently Good Mental Health,” American Psychology, Vol. 42, No. 4 (April 1987), p. 365. 62 Erich Fromm, “Psychoanalysis and Zen Buddhism,” in D.T. Suzuki, Erich Fromm, and Richard De Martino, Zen Buddhism and Psychoanalysis (New York: Grove Press, 1960), p. 80. 63 Abraham H. Maslow, “Introduction: Toward a Psychology of Health,” in Toward a Psychology of Being (Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand, 1968), p. 5. 64 Ramana Maharshi, “Suffering,” in The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi in His Own Words, ed. Arthur Osborne (New York: Samuel Weiser, 1978), p. 36. 65 Ramana Maharshi, “Self-Enquiry,” in The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi, ed. Arthur Osborne (Boston, MA: Weiser Books, 1997), p. 38. 66 Rūmī, quoted in William C. Chittick, “The Ego and the Intellect,” in The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1983), p. 33. 67 René Guénon, “Foundation of the Theory of the Multiple States,” in The Multiple States of the Being, trans. Henry D. Fohr, ed. Samuel D. Fohr (Ghent, NY: Sophia Perennis, 2001), p. 27. 68 C.G. Jung, “Psychotherapists or the Clergy,” in Modern Man in Search of a Soul, trans. W.S Dell and Cary F. Baynes (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1933), p. 229. 69 C.G. Jung, “Psychotherapists or the Clergy,” in Modern Man in Search of a Soul, trans. W.S Dell and Cary F. Baynes (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1933), p. 237. 70 Herbert Fingarette, “Introduction,” to The Self in Transformation: Psychoanalysis, Philosophy and the Life of the Spirit (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), p. 6. 71 Stanislav Grof, “The Cosmic Game: Exploration of the Farthest Reaches of Human Consciousness,” in Psychology of the Future: Lessons from Modern Consciousness Research (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2000), p. 285. 72 Rumi, quoted in William C. Chittick, “Knowledge and Method,” in The Sufi Doctrine of Rūmī: Illustrated Edition (Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom, 2005), p. 89. 73 Frithjof Schuon, “The Spiritual Virtues,” in Spiritual Perspectives and Human Facts: A New Translation with Selected Letters, trans. James S. Cutsinger (Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom, 2007), p. 196. 74 Rūmī, quoted in William C. Chittick, “Three Dimensions of Sufism,” in The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi (Albany, NY: State Uni- 37 Endnotes to the Introduction versity of New York Press, 1983), p. 10. 75 Ibn ‘Arabī, quoted in Michel Chodkiewicz, An Ocean Without Shore: Ibn Arabi, the Book, and the Law, trans. David Streight (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1993), p. 57. 76 Rūmī, quoted in A.J. Arberry, Discourses of Rumi (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004), p. 21. Similarly without taming the human ego, it can lead to myriad abnormalities, which contemporary spiritual circles and the New Age are not immune to, “There are other of these spiritual persons, again, who fall into another kind of spiritual wrath: this happens when they become irritated at the sins of others, and keep watch on those others with a sort of uneasy zeal. At times the impulse comes to them to reprove them angrily, and occasionally they go so far as to indulge it and set themselves up as masters of virtue. All this is contrary to spiritual meekness.” Including the following profile, “There are others who are vexed with themselves when they observe their own imperfectness, and display an impatience that is not humility; so impatient are they about this that they would fain be saints in a day. Many of these persons purpose to accomplish a great deal and make grand resolutions; yet, as they are not humble and have no misgivings about themselves, the more resolutions they make, the greater is their fall and the greater their annoyance, since they have not the patience to wait for that which God will give them when it pleases Him” (St. John of the Cross, “Chapter V,” in Dark Night of the Soul, trans. and ed. E. Allison Peers [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959], p. 53). 77 Rūmī, quoted in Seyyed Hossein Nasr, “Rūmī and the Sufi Tradition,” in Islamic Art and Spirituality (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1987), p. 139; “So you are the microcosm in form, the macrocosm in meaning.” (Rūmī, quoted in William C. Chittick, “Man,” in The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi [Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1983], p. 67). 78 Annemarie Schimmel, “Some Notes on Sufi Psychology,” in Mystical Dimensions of Islam (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1975), p. 191. 79 René Guénon, “The Confusion of the Psychic and the Spiritual,” in The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times, trans. Lord Northbourne (Ghent, NY: Sophia Perennis, 2001), p. 237. 80 Rūmī, quoted in A.J. Arberry, Discourses of Rumi (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004), p. 68. 81 Rūmī, quoted in William C. Chittick, “Seeing Things As They Are,” in The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1983), p. 25. 82 William C. Chittick, “Introduction,” to The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1983), p. 12. 83 “The greatest of all lessons is to know oneself; for if someone knows himself, he will know God” (Clement of Alexandria, quoted in Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way [Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995], p. 55); Rumi’s Original Sufi Enneagram 38 “If you want to seek the Buddha, you ought to see into your own Nature, which is the Buddha himself.” (D.T. Suzuki, “On Satori—The Revelation of a New Truth in Zen Buddhism,” in Essays in Zen Buddhism [New York, Grove Press, 1987], p. 234). 84 Kabīr, quoted in S.N. Dasgupta, Hindu Mysticism (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing, 1959), p. 161. 85 Rūmī, quoted in William C. Chittick, “The Nafs,” in The Sufi Doctrine of Rumi: Illustrated Edition (Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom, 2005), p. 82. 86 “The Self,” in The Heart of Awareness: A Translation of the Ashtavakra Gita, trans. Thomas Byrom (Boston, MA: Shambhala, 1990), p. 3. 87 “The Twin Verses,” in The Dhammapada, trans. Irving Babbitt (New York: New Directions, 1965), p. 3. 88 Shankara, quoted in Reza Shah-Kazemi, Paths to Transcendence: According to Shankara, Ibn Arabi, and Meister Eckhart (Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom, 2006), p. 207. 89 Quoted in Martin Lings and Clinton Minnaar (eds.), The Underlying Religion: An Introduction to the Perennial Philosophy (Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom, 2007), p. 243. 90 Rūmī, quoted in Mark Perry, The Mystery of Individuality: Grandeur and Delusion of the Human Condition (Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom, 2012), p. 105. 91 Rūmī, quoted in William C. Chittick, “Naughting the Self,” in The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1983), p. 173. 92 Ramana Maharshi, “Self-Enquiry,” in The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi, ed. Arthur Osborne (Boston, MA: Weiser Books, 1997), p. 37. 93 Titus Burckhardt, “The Branches of the Doctrine,” in Introduction to Sufi Doctrine, trans. D.M. Matheson (Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom, 2008), pp. 2627. 94 Tao Te Ching (XIX), quoted in Mehrdad M. Zarandi (ed.), Science and the Myth of Progress (Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom, 2003), p. 102. 95 Rūmī, quoted in William C. Chittick, “The Beloved’s Beloved,” in The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1983), p. 339. 96 Reynold A. Nicholson, “The Perfect Man,” in Studies in Islamic Mysticism (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1921), pp. 106-107. 97 Frithjof Schuon, “Vedānta,” in Spiritual Perspectives and Human Facts: A New Translation with Selected Letters, trans. James S. Cutsinger (Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom, 2007), p. 116. 98 Rūmī, quoted in A.J. Arberry, Discourses of Rumi (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004), p. 69. 99 Rūmī, quoted in A.J. Arberry, Discourses of Rumi (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004), pp. 68-69. 100 Rūmī, quoted in A.J. Arberry, Discourses of Rumi (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004), p. 129. 39 Endnotes to the Introduction 101 Rūmī, quoted in William C. Chittick, “Man’s Effort and God’s Grace,” in The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1983), p. 161. 102 Rūmī, quoted in A.J. Arberry, Discourses of Rumi (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004), p. 183. 103 Śrī Ānandamayī Mā, “Matri Upadeshamrita,” Ānanda Vārtā, Vol. 38, No. 3 (July 1991), p. 232; From the perspective of non-duality it has been affirmed: “Grace is always there.” (Ramana Maharshi, “From Theory to Practice,” in The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi in His Own Words, ed. Arthur Osborne [New York: Samuel Weiser, 1978], p. 76); See also Marco Pallis, “Is There Room for ‘Grace’ in Buddhism?” in A Buddhist Spectrum: Contributions to Buddhist-Christian Dialogue (Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom, 2003), pp. 65-88. 104 Rūmī, quoted in A.J. Arberry, Discourses of Rumi (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004), p. 219. 105 Carl R. Rogers, “‘This is Me’,” in On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961), p. 17. 106 Rūmī, quoted in William C. Chittick, “Separation and Union,” in The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1983), p. 245. 107 Frithjof Schuon, “The Psychological Imposture,” in Survey of Metaphysics and Esoterism, trans. Gustavo Polit (Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom Books, 1986), pp. 196-197. 108 Rūmī, quoted in William C. Chittick, “Spirit, Heart, and Intellect,” in The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1983), p. 34. 109 Rūmī, quoted in William C. Chittick, “Knowledge and Method,” in The Sufi Doctrine of Rumi: Illustrated Edition (Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom, 2005), p. 92. 110 Rūmī, quoted in William C. Chittick, “Man,” in The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1983), p. 70.