←IndexThe Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam

Lecture 7: Is Religion Possible?

Section 10 of 11

Purification of experience — science and religion as parallel

Section summary

In brief

Iqbal advances the lecture's constructive synthesis: the religious and scientific processes are structurally parallel — both aim at the most real through the progressive purification of experience, with science purifying outer experience (from Hume's critique of force to Einstein's elimination of it) and the Sufi purifying inner experience by the same logic. The ego's ultimate aim, he concludes, is not to see something but to be something — to find evidence of its reality not in the Cartesian 'I think' but in the Kantian 'I can,' and to make and re-make the world by continuous creative action.

Section 9 diagnosed Nietzsche as a failed mystic — a man who possessed a genuine 'imperative' vision of the Divine in man but who, lacking the traditional framework of Sufi spiritual discipline, could not translate his vision into a sustainable technique of inner transformation. Section 10 now moves from diagnosis to synthesis, advancing the lecture's most constructive argument: that the religious and scientific processes are structurally parallel, both aiming at 'the most real' through the progressive purification of experience, and that the religious process — far from being the enemy of scientific objectivity — represents a deeper form of the same commitment to objectivity that drives science.

The section advances through four major movements. First, Iqbal establishes the parallelism: science and religion are 'descriptions of the same world,' differing only in that science adopts an exclusive standpoint (isolating aspects of reality for analysis) while religion adopts an inclusive one (integrating the ego's competing tendencies into a 'synthetic transfiguration' of experience). Both aim at purification — the elimination of subjective distortions in order to reach what is objectively real. Second, Iqbal illustrates the scientific side of this purification through the Hume-to-Einstein progression: Hume's critique of causation as the first attempt to purify science of subjective concepts (force), and Einstein's general relativity as the completion of that purification. Third, he parallels this with the Sufi practitioner's purification: the systematic elimination of 'all subjective elements, psychological or physiological, in the content of his experience' — including the prohibition of music in worship and the requirement of congregational prayer to counteract solitary contemplation's antisocial effects.

Fourth, and most crucially, Iqbal delivers the section's philosophical climax: the final experience is not intellectual but vital; its aim is not 'to see something, but to be something'; its evidence lies not in the Cartesian 'I think' but in the Kantian 'I can.' The ego discovers its ultimate reality not through contemplation but through creative action — 'the world is not something to be merely seen or known through concepts, but something to be made and re-made by continuous action.' This is the Reconstruction's answer to the question 'Is religion possible?': religion is possible because the ego can, through disciplined purification of experience, reach a state in which it discovers its own creative power as evidence of its contact with the creative source of all reality.

Original text

The truth is that the religious and the scientific processes, though involving different methods, are identical in their final aim. Both aim at reaching the most real. In fact, religion, for reasons which I have mentioned before, is far more anxious to reach the ultimately real than science.²¹ And to both the way to pure objectivity lies through what may be called the purification of experience. In order to understand this we must make a distinction between experience as a natural fact, significant of the normally observable behaviour of Reality, and experience as significant of the inner nature of Reality. As a natural fact it is explained in the light of its antecedents, psychological and physiological; as significant of the inner nature of Reality we shall have to apply criteria of a different kind to clarify its meaning.

In the domain of science we try to understand its meaning in reference to the external behaviour of Reality; in the domain of religion we take it as representative of some kind of Reality and try to discover its meanings in reference mainly to the inner nature of that Reality. The scientific and the religious processes are in a sense parallel to each other. Both are really descriptions of the same world with this difference only that in the scientific process the ego's standpoint is necessarily exclusive, whereas in the religious process the ego integrates its competing tendencies and develops a single inclusive attitude resulting in a kind of synthetic transfiguration of his experiences. A careful study of the nature and purpose of these really complementary processes shows that both of them are directed to the purification of experience in their respective spheres. An illustration will make my meaning clear: Hume's criticism of our notion of cause must be considered as a chapter in the history of science rather than that of philosophy. True to the spirit of scientific empiricism we are not entitled to work with any concepts of a subjective nature. The point of Hume's criticism is to emancipate empirical science from the concept of force which, as he urges, has no foundation in sense-experience. This was the first attempt of the modern mind to purify the scientific process. Einstein's mathematical view of the universe completes the process of purification started by Hume, and, true to the spirit of Hume's criticism, dispenses with the concept of force altogether.²²

The passage I have quoted from the great Indian saint shows that the practical student of religious psychology has a similar purification in view. His sense of objectivity is as keen as that of the scientist in his own sphere of objectivity. He passes from experience to experience, not as a mere spectator, but as a critical sifter of experience, who by the rules of a peculiar technique, suited to his sphere of inquiry, endeavours to eliminate all subjective elements, psychological or physiological, in the content of his experience with a view finally to reach what is absolutely objective. This final experience is the revelation of a new life-process — original, essential, spontaneous. The eternal secret of the ego is that the moment he reaches this final revelation he recognizes it as the ultimate root of his being without the slightest hesitation. Yet in the experience itself there is no mystery. Nor is there anything emotional in it. Indeed with a view to secure a wholly non-emotional experience the technique of Islamic Sufism at least takes good care to forbid the use of music in worship, and to emphasize the necessity of daily congregational prayers in order to counteract the possible anti-social effects of solitary contemplation.

Thus the experience reached is a perfectly natural experience and possesses a biological significance of the highest importance to the ego. It is the human ego rising higher than mere reflection, and mending its transiency by appropriating the eternal. The only danger to which the ego is exposed in this Divine quest is the possible relaxation of his activity caused by his enjoyment of and absorption in the experiences that precede the final experience. The history of Eastern Sufism shows that this is a real danger. This was the whole point of the reform movement initiated by the great Indian saint from whose writings I have already quoted a passage. And the reason is obvious. The ultimate aim of the ego is not to see something, but to be something. It is in the ego's effort to be something that he discovers his final opportunity to sharpen his objectivity and acquire a more fundamental 'I am' which finds evidence of its reality not in the Cartesian 'I think' but in the Kantian 'I can.' The end of the ego's quest is not emancipation from the limitations of individuality; it is, on the other hand, a more precise definition of it. The final act is not an intellectual act, but a vital act which deepens the whole being of the ego, and sharpens his will with the creative assurance that the world is not something to be merely seen or known through concepts, but something to be made and re-made by continuous action. It is a moment of supreme bliss and also a moment of the greatest trial for the ego:

← Previous

9. Nietzsche as failed mystic

11. The three witnesses (Jāvīd Nāmah)

Original text