This “poverty” (in Arabic al-faqr) leads, according to Islamic esotericism, to al-fanaa, that is, to the extinction of the “EGO”; (footnote: This “extinction” is not without analogy, even as to the literal meaning of the term which is used for it, with the Nirvana of the Hindu doctrine; beyond al-fanaa there is fanaa’ al-fanaa’ the extinction of the extinction, which corresponds similarly to Pariniroana.) and, by this “extinction” the “divine station” is reached (al-maaqam al-ilaahii), which is the central point where all the distinctions inherent in the more outward points of view are surpassed and where all the oppositions have disappeared and are resolved in a perfect equilibrium. “In the primordial state, these oppositions did not exist. They all spring from the diversification of the beings (inherent in manifestation and, like it, contingent), and from their contacts caused Faqirs of Refai Tariqat Kataragama by the Universal gyration (that is by the, rotation of the “cosmic wheel” around its axis). They cease then and there to affect the being that has reduced its distinct EGO and its particular movement to almost nothing” (Choang-Tseu). Studies in Comparative Religion Winter Issue (1973) AL-FAQR (‘SPIRITUAL POVERTY’)
In place of the terms “Self ” and “EGO,” we may also use those of ” Personality” and “individuality,” with one reservation, however, for the “Self,” as we shall explain later on, may denote something over and above the Personality. The Theosophists, who seem to have taken a delight in confusing their terminology, interpret the Personality and the individuality in a sense which is the exact opposite of that in which they should rightly be understood; it is the first which they identify with the “EGO,” and the second with the “Self.” Previously, on the contrary, even in the West, whenever any distinction has been made between these two terms, the Personality has always been regarded as superior to the individuality and that is why we say that this is their normal relationship, which there is every reason to retain. Scholastic philosophy, in particular, has not overlooked this distinction, but it does not seem to have grasped its full metaphysical significance, nor to have extracted the most profound consequences which follow from it ; this is moreover what often occurs, even on occasions where Scholasticism shows the most remarkable similarity with certain portions of the Oriental doctrines. In any case, the Personality, metaphysically speaking, has nothing in common with what modern philosophers so often call the “human person,” which is, in fact, nothing but the individuality pure and simple ; besides, it is this alone and not the Personality which can strictly be called human. In a general way, it appears that Westerners, even when they attempt to carry their views further than those of the majority, mistake for the Personality what is actually but the superior part of the individuality, or a simple extension of it (NA: M. Léon Daudet in certain of his works (L’Hérédo and Le Monde des Images) has distinguished in the human being between what he calls “self” (soi) and “EGO” (moi); but both of these, as he conceives them, are for us equally included in the individuality and fall entirely within the scope of psychology which, whatever he may have supposed, is quite incapable of extending its sway so far as to include the Personality; however, the fact of having tried to establish such a distinction indicates a kind of presentiment which deserves to be pointed out as remarkable in an author who had no pretensions to be called a metaphysician.): in these circumstances everything which is of the purely metaphysical order necessarily remains outside their comprehension. Man and His Becoming according to the Vedanta FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SELF” AND THE “EGO”
IN order thoroughly to understand the teaching of the Vedânta as it pertains to the human being, it is essential to define from the start, as clearly as possible, the fundamental distinction between the “Self,” which is the very principle of the being, and the individual “EGO.” It is hardly necessary to explain that the use of the term “Self ” does not imply on our part any identity of view with certain schools who may have used this word, but who, under an Oriental terminology, generally misunderstood, have never set forth any but purely Western views, highly fantastic at that ; we are alluding here not only to Theosophism, but also to certain pseudo-Oriental schools which have entirely distorted the Vedânta under the pretext of adapting it to the Western mentality. The misuse which may have been made of a word does not, in our opinion, provide adequate grounds for declining to employ it, except where it is possible to replace it by another word equally well suited to express the same meaning, which is not the case in this instance; besides, too great a strictness on this score would undoubtedly leave very few terms indeed at one’s disposal, especially as there exist hardly any which at one time or another have not been misapplied by some philosopher. The only words which we intend to reject are those invented deliberately to express views which have nothing in common with what we are expounding: such, for example, are the denominations of the different kinds of philosophical systems; such, also, are the terms which belong specifically to the vocabulary of the occultists and other “neo-spiritualists”; as for terms which the last-named have merely borrowed from earlier doctrines which they habitually and shamelessly plagiarize without understanding anything about them, we obviously need have no scruples about employing such words, while at the same time restoring the meaning which normally belongs to them. Man and His Becoming according to the Vedanta FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SELF” AND THE “EGO”
