Self in Sufism, Advaita Vedanta and Psychology

Tamara Al-Om
In this paper, I attempt to investigate the irrefutable similarities found between the underlying
foundations of many of the world religions, specifically their ontology. In fact, it seems
implausible to neglect to also reveal the resemblance these religions have with a significant
number of psychologists’ theories. Due to the vastness of this subject, I have paid particular
attention to two specific world religions, Hinduism and Islam and again due to the complexity
and diversity of each of these religions, I have chosen to examine only one school of thought
from each religion, Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism and Sufism in Islam. There are such significant
similarities in their ontology that I feel further investigation is fundamental.

The idea that all religions are essentially the same and the debates that surround that idea are
briefly discussed, followed by the significant role India and Hinduism have played in the
development and spreading of this ideology as well as its role in the nourishment of so many
revolutionary philosophies.

In order to get an understanding into the specificity of the subject matter, an outline of both
Advaita Vedanta and Sufism are given along with Jung’s concept of the ‘collective unconscious’
that seem to dovetail with Advaita’s and Sufism’s ontology.

I feel it was also important to mention the different levels of reality/knowledge that exist
according to these schools of thought.

A large part of this work is focused on the similarities found to exist in both religious schools of
thought as well as in one of the most of profound psychological theories on the idea of
the Self and its relationship to the Ultimate, God, Being.

A comparative analysis into the processes and stages an individual goes through in order to
achieve enlightenment or self-actualisation is delineated along with the manifestations that an
‘enlightened’ person possesses.

The world is seeing an unremitting increase in global communications among political and
economic philosophies, physical sciences, social sciences and inevitably among religion. This
has therefore forced the different religions of the world to come together, which has lead to a rise
in the overwhelming sentiment that favours increased communication and understanding, if not
unity, of the religions of the world. “They must develop a spirit of comprehension which will
break down prejudice and misunderstanding and bind them together as a varied expression of a
single truth”[1].

The problem that has arisen thus far from the meeting of religions is that such contact has, for the
most part, represented conflicts rather than dialogues. This, according to Hume is due to the fact
that ”in matters of religion, whatever is different is contrary.”[2]That is, whatever grounds an
individual has for believing in a particular religion, must be the same grounds for disbelieving in
another.
Conversely, there has been a plethora of philosophers, scholars and theorists who believe that
the essence of all religions is indistinguishable, that the fundamental principles running through
all of them are one and the same. They acknowledge the fact that there are differences, however,
these are things that are personal, nonessential and will gradually fall away.[3]

John H. Hick distinguishes between three kinds of differences among religions. First, the
Differences in the Modes of Experiencing the Divine Reality, as Personal or Impersonal – which
he sees as unproblematic given that the personal and impersonal modes of encountering reality
could be ”understood as complementary rather than incompatible”[4], in that people of the same
or different religions have been found to experience God in different ways. Second,
Philosophical and Theological Differences – which are also relatively easy to overcome, as the
consequences of globalization, critical scholarship and science will call for religions to overcome
or at least moderate their historical specificities. Third, Differences in the Key or Revelatory
Experiences that Unify a Stream of Religious Experience or Thought – it is this difference that
Hick sees as comprising of the largest difficulty in religious agreement, since each religion has
its own holy founder or scripture.

Ralf W. Trine solves this third difference with his answer to someone who cannot grasp the great
truth of the unity and oneness of all religions, “A Christian for example asks ‘But was not Christ
inspired?’ Yes, but he was not the only one inspired. Another who is a Buddhist asks, ‘Was not
Buddha inspired?’ Yes, but he was not the only one inspired”[5]With regards to the Holy
Scriptures, he explains that all these inspired writings all come from the same source, God. The
name that is given to ‘God’ is unimportant, be it Allah, Brahman, Being or the Unlimited,
for ”priests and poets will with words make into many the hidden reality which is but one”.[6]

This notion of the oneness of all religions has been greatly influenced by India, its thinkers and
the acceptance of its ’religion’. Culture is an extremely complex phenomenon that is constantly
evolving, for no society can remain static for any length of time. The old moulds of society
merge with the new attitudes which irrefutably will change the character of that civilization.

In India there has been a continuity of cultural change brought about by both internal factors
such as the development of Buddhist and Hindu schools of thought such as Advaita Vedanta and
external factors such as the Iranian contact and the Muslim rule. Yet rather than these factors
changing the basic principles of Indian culture, it has kept close to its roots while at the same
time, allowing new seeds to settle and flourish. It seems that ”whatever was received from
abroad was assimilated by India to her own genius. Where it failed to do so completely – as in
the case of Islam – its failure was only partial, as there was rapprochement in a number of
cultural features, and, in some, complete fusion”[7].

No country and no religion has ever adopted this level of understanding and appreciation of other
faiths so persistently and consistently as India and Hinduism. India was not a nation of one
people but of many peoples with an array of languages, religions and communities. Yet despite
this fact, they still tended to possess similar attitudes and outlooks.

There were and still are two main religions professed by the people of India, Hinduism and
Islam. In both it is possible to distinguish between two religious tendencies, one of which is more
traditionalist and orthodox, where the emphasis is put on established doctrine and ritual, this
according to Maslow is the legalistic and organisational side of religion[8]. For the second type
the focus is turned inward, the focus was put on the spirit of religion, the withdrawal from
objective reality and the unification with the Divine. It is this second approach to religion that is
of particular interest.

It is this tolerance and acceptance of the Indian culture that has enabled Sufism to develop in the
way that it has, for although it did not originate in India, it is in India that Sufism was allowed to
survive and proliferate. Sufism or tasawwuf, as it is called in Arabic has been under debate
regarding its origins and how this school of inner knowledge was established. Although Sufism
is open to all humanity, it was born out of Islam[9] and there are records of it going as far back
as to the lifetime of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), fifteen centuries ago.

When the news of Islam spread, many people traveled great distances to hear the teachings of the
Prophet because of their inner yearning to learn the reality of religion.

These individuals met on the platform (Suffe) of a mosque in Medina where they would discuss
the ways to inner knowledge, the truths of revelation and the meanings of the Quran. This group
of followers later became known as Ahle Suffe, the People of the Platform, one of the most
influential groups in the history of spiritual civilization. They later returned to their nations as
diverse and widely separated as Persia, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, North Africa and India in
order to keep the Sufi tradition alive. Through this dispersion different orders and schools of
Sufism have emerged, the four major ones being The Chishti Order, The Qadiri Order, The
Suhrawardi Order and The Naqshbandi Order, yet all legitimate Sufi schools trace their roots
back to the original groups of the Prophet’s spiritual disciples[10].

Seyyed Hossein Nasr, one of the leading scholars of Islam, contends that Sufism is simply the
name for the inner or esoteric dimension of Islam. The Sufi teachings are based on individual
understanding and experience, not just on knowledge of texts and rote learning. The central
concept in Sufism is love, which they believe is a projection of God on the universe[11].

Their practices are based on knowledge of the true self, which then frees them from the self
centered personality characteristics that blind them from Reality, ”freedom from the self”, this
process is called Fana[12]. The preoccupation people have with owning and controlling is in par
with their inability to connect to God and see the true reality that is within themselves.

“What appears to be truth is a worldly distortion of objective truth” – Hakim Sanai one of the
classic authors on Sufism.

Sufism is akin to Advaita Vedanta. Their belief lies in the non dual Absolute and that the
Truth (Haqiqa) lies at the heart of all things and yet is beyond all determination and limitation.
The Sufis feel that it is an illusion to see human beings as different or separate from nature and
the universe. God said, ”My earth and my heavens contain me not, but the heart of my faithful
servant contains me.”[13] They view the world as a reflection of God. A Sufi discovers that
the ”lover and beloved come from love.”[14]

Many Sufi poets compare consciousness to a cup and unconsciousness to the ocean, individually
we are like the cup but all of us together with nature are the ocean, unconscious reality, or God.
If we have the ability to lose the limitation of the cup by freeing the self we can be reunited with
the ocean of being, which would enable us to lose the anxieties of separation, loneliness and
isolation and gain the permanency of the everlasting ocean[15].

The philosophy of Advaita Vedanta is not easy to explain briefly and I do not presume to be
able to explain what takes whole volumes for accomplished experts, but rather to just give an
outline of the key features of the most popular Vedantic school of thought. The term Advaita
means ‘Non-Dual’ which refers to the tradition’s absolute monism and the Upanishads are the
Vedanta, the ‘end of the Veda’. Two specific passages from the Chandogya Upanishad provides
a valuable insight into the foundation of the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta:

In the beginning, this world was just Being [i.e. Brahman] – one only, without a second …. And
it thought to itself ‘Let me become many; let me multiply myself.

(Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1-3)

By means of just one lump of clay, everything made of clay can be known: any modifications are
merely verbal distinctions, names; the reality is just clay.

(Chandogya Upanishad 6.1.4)[16]

The most famous Advaita thinker and one of the most famous Indian philosophers of all time is
Sankaracarya or Sankara, who is believed to have lived in the 8th century CE. After leaving home
in seek of a guru, which he found by the Narmada river, he moved on to Varanasi where he
taught, debated and gathered disciples. He then went on a pilgrimage to the source of the
Ganges, in Badrinath where he stayed for four years and completed his major works. These
include a commentary on Badarayana’s Brahma Sutra, the Brhadaranyaka and Taittiriya
Upanisads and his non commentarial work the Upadesa-Sahasri – the ‘Thousand
Teachings’[17]. He also established a monastic order, the Dasanamis, with four centres at
Srngeri, Dwarka, Badrinath and Puri. He died in the Himalayas aged thirty two.

There were three main texts that Sankara believed should be taught in unison and what are now
known as the ‘Triple Foundation of Revealed Truth’, the Brahma Sutra, the Bhagavad Gita and
the Upanisads themselves.

One of the most important underlying notions in all Vedantic schools of thought is that man is
suffering – that they have been caught in a never ending cycle of births and rebirths, known
as Samsara. The ultimate quest of man is therefore to seek a way out of this bondage and attain
liberation, Moksha. It is knowledge (Jnana) of the true nature of self (Atman) and the
absolute (Brahman) and the loss of spiritual ignorance (Avidya) and illusions (Maya)[18], that
will enable Moksha to be attainable. An individual who has reached this realisation, not just from
scholastic knowledge but through his/her own experience, is known as a Jivanmukta and will not
return to the cycle of rebirths.

The unity between the true self and universal reality is indicated by the Sanskrit language
phrase tat tvam asi – you are that, i.e. you are that highest reality, Brahman.
According to Advaita Vedanta Brahman has no attributes, yet is pure being, consciousness or
absolute intelligence and bliss (Sat – cit – ananda) which rather than taken as attributes are
simply its essential nature.

‘In Truth these living creatures were born of Bliss, it is through Bliss that, having come into
existence, they are kept alive, it is to Bliss that they will all return’ [19]

Here, I would like to acquaint the reader with a concept introduced by Carl Jung that corresponds
very closely with the ideas that have just been presented about Advaita Vedanta and Sufism.
Jung saw the human psyche as made up of layers, first is the Conscious Mind, the ego; composed
of conscious perceptions, memories, thoughts and feelings. Secondly comes the Personal
Unconscious which is made up of suppressed and forgotten memories. Finally, is his concept of
the Collective Unconscious, which is universal, there is nothing that can be added to it from
experience, it predates the individual. It is these deep structures of the psyche that Jung called the
Archetypes, which were the conceptual matrixes or patterns behind all our religious and
mythological concepts.

Although he initially introduced the concept as psycho-biological, after contact and research in
the East, he preferred to see the collective unconscious in a more Platonic sense of preexistent
spiritual entities. In the Platonic tradition, the archetype constituted of total spiritual reality, the
perfect spiritual reality that created the imperfect physical reality.

Jung describes these archetypes as “primordial images, which, because of their universality and
immense antiquity, possess a cosmic and supra-human character.”[20] After extensive research
into whether these archetypes could be attributed to racial inheritance or genetics, he found
that “these images have nothing to do with so called blood or racial inheritance, nor are they
personally acquired by the individual. They belong to mankind in general, and therefore are of a
collective nature”[21]

It appears that for Jung, although he refused to accept the relevance of an Absolute, he does
continuously refer to God, in many forms, the self, the spirit, the collective unconscious, the God
within. ”The beginnings of our whole psychic life seem to be inextricably rooted in it, and all our
highest and ultimate purposes seem to be striving towards it.”[22]

It is the overdeveloped conscious mind of modern man that has led to the development of a false
sense of self and a false sense of mastery over and freedom from nature, man ”suffers from being
cut off from his instinctive roots in the collective unconscious.”[23]

From the theories underlying Advaita Vedanta, Sufism and Jung’s layers of the psyche an
implication of different realities or different types of knowledge arises, and in all three, ideas of
this have been given.

The use of the term Maya to represent the illusory or unreal reality, for Sankara created
problems. For to think in those terms lead to the Buddhist concept that the appearance of
plurality has no conventional reality, giving this life little importance. The conventional
world/reality is of great importance to Sankara, as it is at this level of reality that the Veda
reveals the eternal truth and it is from this level that a person can seek to gain liberating insight.
He therefore proposed that there are in fact ‘two levels of reality’, the Absolute and the
Conventional. Conventional reality is that which is experienced due to the ignorance, Avidya, of
the true nature of absolute reality. It is the ”Superimposition of the self on what is not the self,
and what is not the self on the self, is the natural propensity of ignorant consciousness.”[24] It is
the overcoming of this ignorance and the gaining of knowledge of the identity of the true
essential self, Atman, and its inseparability from the ultimate, Brahman, that enables someone to
reach the second level of reality, the Absolute reality. Once the superimposition is understood for
what it is, the individual is no more an individual, the universe is no longer the universe, all is
Brahman [25].

This idea of different levels of reality corresponds very closely with the three forms of
knowledge described by Ibn Al Arabi one of the great Sufis of the Middle Ages whose work has
deeply penetrated Eastern and Western thought. The first two forms of knowledge are
intellectual and emotional, knowledge of information and the collection of facts and the
knowledge of states, which includes emotional feelings and strange states of being in which
something supreme is experienced but no benefit has been gained from the experience. The final
form is knowledge of Reality, where what is right, real and true is perceived, beyond the
boundaries of thought and sense. It seems that through the intellectual and emotional level of
knowing it becomes possible for someone to reach the level of truly knowing reality. This
signifies the importance of this reality as with Advaita Vedanta, for it is our knowledge of this
reality and our actions in it that will determine if we are to ever attain real knowledge.

Jung’s analysis of perception can be compared to Advaita Vedanta’s two levels of reality and
Sufism’s three forms of knowledge. He found that there are two levels of perception, the first is
at the conscious level, perceptions of ordinary experience which are the result of the stimuli that
stream into us from the outside world. The second is intuition, perception of the unconscious and
is attributable to the basic function of the psyche. It is the “unconscious inner perception of the
inherent potentialities of things.”[26] For Jung consciousness is restricted, we are only able to
take in a very small number of simultaneous perceptions. This then can be linked back to the idea
in Advaita Vedanta that what we perceive as reality is not reality, which fits with what Jung says
about our perceptions of things in general, that what we think we perceive all around us, is in fact
not all there is. So is it just a malfunction on the part of humans? Is the truth right there for us to
see yet we lack the understanding or the knowledge of how to really use our sense perceptions?

Everyone has, according to Al Ghazali, one of the most significant Sufis of all time, the ability to
experience God and attain direct knowledge from God. This view of the universality of true self
knowledge is mirrored in the Vivekacudamani (The Crest Jewel of Discrimination), although it
does as with Sufism, stress the incapability most people have of being able to successfully
complete the stages required for this process. Both of these processes and realisations correspond
very closely with the psychological theory of Self Actualisation, which was first coined by Jung,
although Abraham Maslow later offered a more in depth description of a self actualised person
and has come to be associated to a greater extent with this theory. This too everyone has the
possibility of attaining yet the processes are hard and few are likely to ever achieve this state.

‘There is no such thing as absolute freedom. We are in bondage to the material world, to
genetics and to the laws of nature… Alternatively we may be in bondage to Spirit, the one true
power. If I can become a servant of Spirit, I will be free of many laws; I will be answerable to
only one thing, and there is freedom in that.’[27] Yet how is this achievable? In Advaita Vedanta
and Sufism there are processes that an individual must go through in order to ever reach the
truth, enlightenment, freedom from the self, real freedom. In order to do this, the first step is to
be able to identify the false self, the ego which blinds and corrupts.

“He who knows himself knows his Lord”. Saying of Prophet Mohamed PBUH[28]

In the path of Sufism a Salik (traveler) must go through seven stages of nafs (self) in order to
reach the essential self, the self that is merged with the divine. According to Fadiman & Frager
the lowest level of self is the commanding self, which is the selfish and evil self. The regretful
self is able to at times discriminate between right and wrong and resist temptations. These first
two are more or less under control of the false self. The inspired self is interested in spiritual
knowledge and is compassionate. This is the highest stage that conventional religion can attain.
The contented self is the beginning of the loss of ego and attachments, which is followed by the
pleased self that has accepted good and bad as things from God and submits to reality. The sixth
stage is the self pleasing to God, which is in total submission to God; they have reached the
‘inner marriage of self and soul’. The final stage is the pure self, the soul of perfection where
there is no self left, it is the complete human being, it is the divine.

The Vivekacudamani (The Crest Jewel of Discrimination) identifies four stages that an individual
must go through in order to reach the truth. The first stage is an essential identity crisis. They are
likely to feel lost and confused about who they are and what their purpose in life is. The world
seems to be evil and to only bring torment to their lives. They are looking for a solution and are
open to any escapes offered to them. This is likely to be followed by the realization of their false
self, for it the ignorance of the truth that affects every aspect of our lives and how we experience
the world around us. It is the ability to discriminate, essentially to distinguish between what is
self and everything that is not. It is the impermanency of things that enables the person to
distinguish between self and non self, as the fundamental self is simple, free and unchanging.
The third stage of this path is how a person can discover self and become integrated and whole.
It is the realization that your own self is the same as the self of the universe, non-dualism.
Finally, once these stages have been completed and practiced the individual is able to celebrate
the achievement of true self -awareness and live life accordingly without illusions.

According to Maslow, in order for an individual to be self actualized they have to be able to fully
satisfy certain basic human needs, which he has called the Hierarchy of Needs. These basic
needs include, biological and physiological needs such as food, air, shelter, sex, sleep etc. Safety
needs that include things like protection, stability and limits. The need for belonging and love
from friends, family and colleagues is also an essential requirement to satisfy a human being.
Finally the esteem needs, such as the feeling of achievement, status, responsibility and a good
reputation in their community. It is with the total fulfillment of these needs that a person will be
totally satisfied in their life, and eventually have the ability to be self actualized.

The spiritual journey is essentially the same for every seeker of truth from the point of view of
the stages of the self, however from the point of view of manifestation, this process is unique for
each person[29].

Some of the most evident and collective manifestations of loss of self in Sufism are likely to
include things such as internal silence, in which the Sufi is alert and conscious and is free from
dualistic thinking. The relation between nature and the body seem to disappear and invisible
rhythms are created between them. They feel an annihilation of self centred personality
characteristics and an overwhelming feeling of love and emotion. The experience of the Light of
Reality is the ultimate goal of most mystics, including Sufis. This light is all around us, yet we
are blind to it due to our illusions and self conceit. A Sufi tends to experience a loss of self
awareness due to intense feelings of joy (shauq) and ecstasy (wajd) in seeing and being in the
unitary essence of existence, existential communion with God known in Arabic as wahdat al
wujud.

The ultimate goal of the Sufi’s journey is Mushahada, Vision of Reality and they get their belief
in the possibility of this from a saying of Prophet Mohamed (PBUH), “Worship God in such a
way that you see Him, if you cannot do so be aware that he sees you.”[30]

Unlike traditional teaching of the idea of enlightenment where it may be learned and
conceptualised, in Advaita Vedanta, it is a freedom which already existed, our focus on the
division between ‘I’ and ‘Thou’ simply blinded us from it. When a person is free of the dualistic
thinking they are likely to possess certain characteristics and live life in a specific manner. ”They
become wise and free; the world becomes a realm of freedom, and he can live anew, fully
alive.”[31]

They posses an inner calm and remain that way even under the most hostile conditions. They do
not desire wealth and social position, yet are very highly respected in the community. They fail
to see things in a dualistic way, and feel a real connection or unity between themselves, other
people and nature. They see clearly the nature of the mind and the extent of its conditioning.
They are accepting of others and their faults and do not tend to judge and blame. They are desire
less. They live in constant bliss with the knowledge that they have seen truth. ”The knower of
self wears no outer mark and is unattached to external things, rests on this body without
identification; he experiences sense objects just as they come, as others wish, like a child…[32]“

The unique characteristics of a Self Actualized person that Maslow[33] (1954) identified
are significantly similar to an enlightened individual in either Advaita Vedanta or Sufism. They
are more than likely to have a more accurate perception of reality and are more able to reason,
think logically and see the Truth. They have a greater extent of self acceptance as well as an
acceptance of others and the world around them. Their thoughts are less troubled by convention
and are individuals that are motivated by continual growth. Their thoughts are turned outward,
and their mission in life is to devote themselves to the duty of others. The self actualized person
owns their own behaviour, is able to accept personal misfortunes all the while remaining
objective. They have a tendency to be detached and can be alone without being lonely, while at
the same time having profound intimate relationships as they are capable of greater love than
others see possible.

They don’t hold stereotypical ideas of life and people, and appreciate and learn from them
regardless of class, race, culture or colour. Awareness of their own imperfections and impatience
with themselves as a result of this is an intrinsic value of a Self Actualized person. They live life
for the present moment and are focused on the journey rather than the destination and therefore
are able to retain their childlike qualities yet at the same time remain very wise. Their focus
changes from a need for material comforts to a yearning for spiritual growth which interestingly
leads them to a feeling of inner freedom and peak experiences.

“Feelings of limitless horizons opening up to the vision, the feeling of being simultaneously
more powerful and also more helpless than one ever was before, the feeling of ecstasy and
wonder and awe, the loss of placement in time and space with, finally, the conviction that
something extremely important and valuable had happened, so that the subject was to some
extent transformed and strengthened even in his daily life by such experiences.[34]”

The similarities that are so evident between the processes and characteristics of an enlightened,
self actualized person discussed in Sufism, Advaita Vedanta and certain psychological theories
can not simply be a coincidence. They seem to be qualities that today most people take as being
enviable and admirable qualities, that all of us would want to possess. Unlike most of society
they do not desire for material belongings and power, in fact they seem to posses a sense of
freedom because of their detachment to these things. This non dualistic way of thinking creates a
feeling of unity with the world that gives them a certain respect for all existence and this is made
evident in the way that they treat all people, creatures and nature.

After the analysis and comparison of these three different yet perfectly in tune ideologies, it
seems inevitable to ask the question of whether this striving for the truth and the experiences of
the truth are in fact religious or simply psychological, human impulses. However, does it even
matter? These underlying similarities in ontology are found not only among the religions
discussed but also among a number of other religions, such as Christianity and Buddhism as well
as a number of the major philosophies and yet from the examination of only these three
seemingly different ideologies, the fact that only one true essence is found, must suggest that
there must be some truth in it, regardless of whether it is taken from a psychological or religious
perspective. The different religions may have been created by society and the psychological
theories by people, yet can a universal phenomenon such as this simply be attributed to society
as well?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Angha, N. Practical Sufism and Philosophical Sufism. Accessed on 3rd September

2005. http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Sufism/practical_sufism.htm

Behari, B. (1982). Sufis, Mystics and Yogis of India. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, India.

Chand, T. Indian (1979) Thought and the Sufis – in – The World of the Sufi. The Octagon Press
Ltd. UK.

Clooney, F. X. (2001). Hindu Wisdom for all God’s Children. Orbis Books, USA.

Coward, H. (1985). Jung and Eastern Thought. State University of New York Press, USA.

Fadiman, J & Frager, R. (1999). Essential Sufism. HarpeCollins Publishers Inc. New York,
USA.

Flood, G. (1996). An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge University Press, UK.

Godlas, A. A. (1996). What is Tasawwuf? Accessed on 3rd September 2005.

http://www.australiansuficentre.org/article_tasawwuf.htm

Hamilton, S. (2001). Indian Philosophy, A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press,
USA.

Helminski, K. E. (1992). Living Presence. Penguin Putman Inc., USA.

Hick, J. H. (1983). The Philosophy of Religion 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, USA.

Hilmi, A. (1999). Awakened Dreams. Shambala Publications, USA.

Lipner, J. (2002). Hindus – Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. Routledge, USA.

Maslow, A. H. (1970) Religions, Values and Peak Experiences. Accessed on 31st August
2005. http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:-
hjPVliArngJ:www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/maslow.htm+maslow+self+actualization+and+hi
ndu+self+realization&hl=en

Pettifor, E. (1996). Beyond Dichotomies: Health and Values in Maslow’s Holistic Dynamic
Theory. Accessed on 13th September
2005. http://pandc.ca/?cat=abraham_maslow&page=beyond_dichotomies

Radhakrishnan, S. (1940). Eastern Religions and Western Thought 2nd ed. Oxford University
Press, UK.

Raphael. (1990). Self and Non-Self. Kegan Paul International, UK.

Rushbrook Williams, L.F. (1974). Sufi Studies: East and West. Tonbridge Printers Ltd., UK.

Shafii, M. (1985). Freedom from the Self. Human Sciences Press Inc., USA.

Shah, I. (1980). The Way of the Sufi. The Octagon Press Ltd., UK.

Sharma, A. (1995). The Philosophy of Religion and Advaita Vedanta. Pennsylvania State
University Press, USA.

Trine, R.W. (1933). In Tune with the Infinite. The Religious Book Club, UK.

Vidyasankar, S. (2005) Advaita Vedanta. Accessed on 31st August 2005. http://www.advaita-

vedanta.org/avhp/

Hindu Religion and Philosophy. Accessed on 31st August 2005.

http://www.gatewayforindia.com/hinduism.htm
[1] Radhakrishnan, S. (1940). Eastern Religions and Western Thought 2nd ed. Oxford University
Press, UK. pg. 306.[2] Hick, J. H. (1983). The Philosophy of Religion 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs,
Prentice Hall, USA. Pg. 109.

[3] Sharma, A. (1995). The Philosophy of Religion and Advaita Vedanta. Pennsylvania State
University Press, USA.

[4] Hick, J. H. (1983). The Philosophy of Religion 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, USA.
pg. 116

[5] Trine, R.W. (1933). In Tune with the Infinite. The Religious Book Club, UK. pg. 204.

[6] Rig Veda. x. 114.

[7] Chand, T. Indian (1979) Thought and the Sufis – in – The World of the Sufi. The Octagon
Press Ltd. UK. pg. 89.

[8] Pettifor, E. (1996). Beyond Dichotomies: Health and Values in Maslow’s Holistic Dynamic
Theory.

[9] Although it is not part of the mainstream religion of Islam and never has been.

[10] Angha, N. Practical Sufism and Philosophical Sufism.

[11] Godlas, A. A. (1996). What is Tasawwuf?

[12] Shafii, M. (1985). Freedom from the Self. Human Sciences Press Inc., USA. pg. 144.

[13] Fatemi, N. S. A Message and Method of Love, Harmony and Brotherhood – in – Rushbrook
Williams, L.F. (1974). Sufi Studies: East and West. Tonbridge Printers Ltd., UK. pg. 61.

[14] Arasteh, A. R. Psychology of the Sufi way to Individuation – in – Rushbrook Williams, L.F.
(1974). Sufi Studies: East and West. Tonbridge Printers Ltd., UK. pg. 109.

[15] Shaffi, M. (1985). Freedom from the Self. Human Sciences Press Inc., USA. pg. 37.

[16] Chandogya Upanishad. Taken from Hamilton, S. (2001). Indian Philosophy, A Very Short
Introduction. Oxford University Press, USA. pg. 125.

[17] Flood, G. (1996). An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge University Press, UK. pg. 240.

[18] Which is not ‘illusion’ in the Western sense of the word, but a word that means that which
flows, changes every moment, which appears and disappears. Raphael. (1990). Self and Non-
Self. Kegan Paul International, UK. pg. 5

[19] Taittiriya Upanisad (III,VI, 1). Taken from Raphael. (1990). Self and Non-Self. Kegan Paul
International, UK. pg. 9.
[20] Coward, H. (1985). Jung and Eastern Thought. State University of New York Press, USA.
pg. 15.

[21] Ibid. pg. 39.

[22] Ibid. pg. 181.

[23] Ibid. pg. 15.

[24] Flood, G. (1996). An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge University Press, UK. pg. 241.

[25] Hindu Religion and Philosophy

[26] Coward, H. (1985). Jung and Eastern Thought. State University of New York Press, USA.
pg. 71.

[27] Helminski, K. E. (1992). Living Presence. Penguin Putman Inc., USA. pg. 134.

[28] Ibid. pg. 57.

[29] Hilmi, A. (1999) Awakened Dreams. Shambala Publications, USA.

[30] Shafii, M. (1985). Freedom from the Self. Human Sciences Press Inc., USA. pg. 156.

[31] Clooney, F. X. (2001). Hindu Wisdom for all God’s Children. Orbis Books, USA. pg. 29.

[32] Ibid. pg. 28. (vv. 528, 536-39)

[33] Maslow, A. H. (1970) Religions, Values and Peak Experiences.

[34] Ibid.

https://tamaraalom.wordpress.com/self-in-sufism-advaita-vedanta-and-psychology/