About Idries Shahs' book "The Way of the Sufi"
ernobe
The book attempts at a history of Sufi philosophy viewed as a movement
independent of the mainstream of Islamic society. Hence it brings
together a wide range of spiritual ideas intended to provide modern Sufis
with the credentials of an authoritative tradition.
An unfortunate outcome of this approach is that the spiritual basis of
being a Sufi is undermined: Sufi is the name of a person, not a
philosophic or psychedelic experience, and therefore whatever value the
Sufi possesses in terms of Sufism or otherwise is dependent on his own
words and actions, not on citing those of others.
However, as in other collections by Mr. Shah, the purpose of the book is
overtly and covertly psychological rather than traditional spirituality.
We may therefore expect it to have a greater audience in the East, where
common sense western psychology is bound to make inroads in the name of
science.
Despite the Sufis' emphasis on discipleship and genealogies, they seem
little concerned with organizing as an independent religion, which seems
odd to me, but maybe I'm just too ignorant of the social and cultural
milieu in which Sufis must operate. To us in the West the closest
resemblance to sufism, at least to the Shah way, is existentialism!
What will happen the day the Shah followers need to clarify the
difference between Shah personifiers and Sufi philosophers? Is there such
a thing as Shah thoughts? There does seem to be an interest in
identifying books as Shah, rather Shah material, but apparently these are
not intended to direct you to a Shah in particular, nor, philosophically,
anywhere else but to the true and real Shah.
Since Shah followers are quite reticent when it comes to sharing their
teaching, I've had no other recourse but to post some of my confused ideas
on the issue, hoping to spark up some honest consultation on the matter.
If this is not what this group intends to accomplish, hopefully someone
will inform me?
Obo Vajrin
their
teaching, >>
This has not been my experience here at alt.sufi or at Yahoo Caravansarai or
the now defunct Yahoo Mushkil Gusha. Perhaps you are just not reading (or
willing to comprehend) what folks (those who you precieve as readers of IS) are
saying.
<< The book attempts at a history of Sufi philosophy >>
Octagon lists this book under the category of "Sufi Studies and Middle Eastern
Literature" not as a history.
<< To us in the West the closest
resemblance to sufism, at least to the Shah way, is existentialism! >>
WHAT???? You must be joking. You can not be this ignorant, can you? Sorry,
if this offends you, it is meant to hopefully shock you out of
misunderstanding.
Existentialism: a literary-philosophic cult of nihilism and pessimism,
popularized in France after WW 11, chiefly by Jean-Paul Sarte: it holds that
each man exists as an individual in a purposeless universe, and that he must
oppose his hostile environment through the exercise of his free will.
Some of Shah's main themes have been to fight the prevailing pessimism and
nihilism of contempory life, to show the necessity of harmonizing with
something greater than one's self, and to work WITH the environement (the
material AT HAND) that you find yourself.
It is possible that some may see IS as a literary cult, but I've found the
books to be a way to approach life, not as an end in themselves.
Take Care, obo
Meryem
Obo Vajrin wrote:
> WHAT???? You must be joking. You can not be this ignorant, can you? Sorry,
> if this offends you, it is meant to hopefully shock you out of
> misunderstanding.
>
> Existentialism: a literary-philosophic cult of nihilism and pessimism,
> popularized in France after WW 11, chiefly by Jean-Paul Sarte: it holds that
> each man exists as an individual in a purposeless universe, and that he must
> oppose his hostile environment through the exercise of his free will.
Funny, I found Ernobe's point acceptable. Perhaps because in high school, Sr.
Marcelline taught existentialism on a continuum that culminated in (as I recall) a
kind of mystical "Christian existentialism": Sartre, Heideggar, Kierkegard, Gabriel
Marcel, Teilhard de Chardin. I don't remember the details, but I do remember that
the ideas conditioned and positioned my quest.
Meryem
Dara
> The book attempts at a history of Sufi philosophy viewed as a movement
> independent of the mainstream of Islamic society.
This is a very complex issue. There are intervals of time in Islamic
History when the Sufis were outcast. There are intervals of time when
they were scholars, rules of Muslim states.
This is the problem with over-generalizations, which have little
historical basis either way.
My recommendation is to be very careful dealing with such statements.
It is not matter of truth & falsehood but a matter of being careful.
> Hence it brings
> together a wide range of spiritual ideas intended to provide modern Sufis
> with the credentials of an authoritative tradition.
I think this is an excellent idea.
> An unfortunate outcome of this approach is that the spiritual basis of
> being a Sufi is undermined: Sufi is the name of a person, not a
> philosophic or psychedelic experience, and therefore whatever value the
> Sufi possesses in terms of Sufism or otherwise is dependent on his own
> words and actions, not on citing those of others.
I do not know how you came to this understanding. We can not ignore
the volumous corpus of Sufi terminologies e.g. Qoshairi & Kashani and
many others.
You can say these things, but they are irrelevant to Sufism.
> However, as in other collections by Mr. Shah, the purpose of the book is
> overtly and covertly psychological rather than traditional spirituality.
> We may therefore expect it to have a greater audience in the East, where
> common sense western psychology is bound to make inroads in the name of
> science.
I do not think anyone knows the purposes of Mr. Shah on anything,
specially the so called Shah-readers or followers. From my listening
to the people, what Shah meant has nothing to do with how his readers
interpret his writings.
I cut & paste this man's writing which is posted by so called Shah
readers, crack the spelling and shuffle the words a bit and
repost...they barf at exactly the same writings!!!!! Trust me try it
with one of their posts.
So LETS NOT TAKE THEM TOO SERIOUSLY. Love to chat with them and that
is the end of it.
> Despite the Sufis' emphasis on discipleship and genealogies, they seem
> little concerned with organizing as an independent religion, which seems
> odd to me, but maybe I'm just too ignorant of the social and cultural
> milieu in which Sufis must operate. To us in the West the closest
> resemblance to sufism, at least to the Shah way, is existentialism!
This is like saying: Sufism x 42 = London/2. :)
But if I get the little of bit of your meaning, Sufis as we know them
in books did not seek any new religion and they considered themselves
as Muslims and practised Islam faithfully. NOT the Islam of today in
Mid East...
There are many many many sects of religion around Iran & Afghanistan
that claimed themselves to be new religions. Some even said they are
Sufis. But those are too far off the left field to be considered as
Sufis by anyone past or present.
> What will happen the day the Shah followers need to clarify the
> difference between Shah personifiers and Sufi philosophers? Is there such
> a thing as Shah thoughts? There does seem to be an interest in
> identifying books as Shah, rather Shah material, but apparently these are
> not intended to direct you to a Shah in particular, nor, philosophically,
> anywhere else but to the true and real Shah.
I think people read too much into his writings. I admire what he did
but what I HEAR from his current readers are NOT what I READ in his
books.
> Since Shah followers are quite reticent when it comes to sharing their
> teaching, I've had no other recourse but to post some of my confused ideas
> on the issue, hoping to spark up some honest consultation on the matter.
> If this is not what this group intends to accomplish, hopefully someone
> will inform me?
You are not confused, problem is Sufism has a peculiar ART of
understanding (Ma'refat). You can not use the Western, nor the current
Mid East methodologies of learning to get the essence of these
writings.
Enrobe (speaking to my Self as well) I think the issue is to THINK
DIFFERENT and READ before LEARNING and LEARN before DOING and DO
before PREACHING. There is a lot missing from the Sufi education in
the West INSHALLAH those will appear soon and we can continue with
some of your question. For now, BASICS is even hard for me
-DARA
Meryem
Dara wrote:
> You are not confused, problem is Sufism has a peculiar ART of
> understanding (Ma'refat). You can not use the Western, nor the current
> Mid East methodologies of learning to get the essence of these
> writings.
As a westerner approaching sufism, for me this is the single most difficult challenge to have
recognized (with profound shock) and to have accepted. Trying, praying, to master inshallah.
Meryem
ernobe
> From Ernobe<< Since Shah followers are quite reticent when it comes to sharing
> their
> teaching, >>
>
> This has not been my experience here at alt.sufi or at Yahoo Caravansarai or
> the now defunct Yahoo Mushkil Gusha. Perhaps you are just not reading (or
> willing to comprehend) what folks (those who you precieve as readers of IS) are
> saying.
There is an occasional quote from the books to illustrate a point being
made in those groups, and there is no explanation of what the context is,
other than its immediate relevance to the discussion. Do they imagine
that by being perceived as readers of the books they've proved that they
have read or understood any one? Is this your prescription for
"harmonizing with something greater than oneself"? To "work WITH the
environment"? Unless the context of references are understood, similar
references to the same thing become unrelated to one another, leading to
a dissociation of things that normally do go together, and to an
existentialist approach to life.
--
PS. I've checked this post for spelling errors.
Unchecked material can be found here:
http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/ernobe
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
> independent of the mainstream of Islamic society.
There is "sufism" and there is "pseudo-sufism". Shah's effort, as you
describe it, is a distortion.
I do not mean by that to impugn the sincerity of the spiritual quest
undertaken by the followers of pseudo-sufism. However, it is most
unfortunate that some people use the label "sufism" for "new age" and
esoteric or gnostic practices that are not an expression of orthodox
Islam.
Sufism is the esoteric (inner) component of Islam. The exoteric (outer)
component is shari'ah (in the broad sense of the Law).
The outer component is primarily a matter of the mind ('akl); it is
obedience to the Divine Commands and acceptance of the credal foundation
(Allah, his angels, his books, his prophets and his judgment).
Sufism (the inner component) is a matter of the "heart" (nafs, the
inner, spiritual self); it is a striving to seek God's face, to draw as
near to God as a human being can, to extinguish self and to find being
in the the perfect being of God, to be aware that God is everywhere and
while we do not see him, he sees us.
Shaykh Ahmad Zorruq of Morocco defines sufism:
"The science by means of which you can put right the 'heart' and make it
exclusive to Allah, using your knowledge of the way of Islam,
particularly jurisprudence and its related knowledges, to improve your
actions and keep within the bounds of the Islamic Law in order for
wisdom to become apparent."
The goal of the sufi is to put on the armour of outer truth so that he
can wage the inner war against spiritual impurity and prepare to stand
before God.
"Everything shall perish except Allah's face. To him is judgement and to
him shall you all return." (Qur'an 28:88)
--
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
Jim Buck
>Shah followers are quite reticent when it comes to sharing their
> teaching,
If we could share it with you we would.
Regards
Jim Buck
nasruddin
nasruddin
>On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:30:53 +0000, Obo Vajrin wrote:
>
>> From Ernobe<< Since Shah followers are quite reticent when it comes to sharing
>> their
>> teaching, >>
>>
>> This has not been my experience here at alt.sufi or at Yahoo Caravansarai or
>> the now defunct Yahoo Mushkil Gusha. Perhaps you are just not reading (or
>> willing to comprehend) what folks (those who you precieve as readers of IS) are
>> saying.
>
>There is an occasional quote from the books to illustrate a point being
>made in those groups, and there is no explanation of what the context is,
>other than its immediate relevance to the discussion. Do they imagine
>that by being perceived as readers of the books they've proved that they
>have read or understood any one? Is this your prescription for
>"harmonizing with something greater than oneself"? To "work WITH the
>environment"? Unless the context of references are understood, similar
>references to the same thing become unrelated to one another, leading to
>a dissociation of things that normally do go together, and to an
>existentialist approach to life.
>
Ernobe,
It is fair to say that you have hit the nail on the head when
referring to perception. Unfortunatley I feel that further discussion
of this concept lies outside the scope of this group, that, at least,
should be obvious.
nasruddin
>ernobe <ern...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.05.15....@yahoo.com>...
>> The book attempts at a history of Sufi philosophy viewed as a movement
>> independent of the mainstream of Islamic society.
>
>This is a very complex issue. There are intervals of time in Islamic
>History when the Sufis were outcast. There are intervals of time when
>they were scholars, rules of Muslim states.
The point in question, had you read 'The Way Of The Sufi', is that
Sufism existed before Islam. You do not have to take Shah's word on
this. There are many historical references to support this notion
(many from leading Islamic authorities not based in the West.)
>
>This is the problem with over-generalizations, which have little
>historical basis either way.
>
>My recommendation is to be very careful dealing with such statements.
>It is not matter of truth & falsehood but a matter of being careful.
I suppose the same would hold true when you refer to all Europeans and
all Americans and how they see you. What did you say - "Europeans and
Americans are disgusted with folk from mid east AND THAT
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM OR SUFIM."
>
>> An unfortunate outcome of this approach is that the spiritual basis of
>> being a Sufi is undermined: Sufi is the name of a person, not a
>> philosophic or psychedelic experience, and therefore whatever value the
>> Sufi possesses in terms of Sufism or otherwise is dependent on his own
>> words and actions, not on citing those of others.
>
>I do not know how you came to this understanding. We can not ignore
>the volumous corpus of Sufi terminologies e.g. Qoshairi & Kashani and
>many others.
Why not?
>
>I do not think anyone knows the purposes of Mr. Shah on anything,
>specially the so called Shah-readers or followers. From my listening
>to the people, what Shah meant has nothing to do with how his readers
>interpret his writings.
If no one knows what Shah meant, then how do you know this?
>
>I cut & paste this man's writing which is posted by so called Shah
>readers, crack the spelling and shuffle the words a bit and
>repost...they barf at exactly the same writings!!!!! Trust me try it
>with one of their posts.
Idries Shah noted this along time ago, within the book 'The Commanding
Self'.
>
>So LETS NOT TAKE THEM TOO SERIOUSLY. Love to chat with them and that
>is the end of it.
Do you really feel that this is an adequate response to the perceived
problem?
>
>> Despite the Sufis' emphasis on discipleship and genealogies, they seem
>> little concerned with organizing as an independent religion, which seems
>> odd to me, but maybe I'm just too ignorant of the social and cultural
>> milieu in which Sufis must operate. To us in the West the closest
>> resemblance to sufism, at least to the Shah way, is existentialism!
>
>This is like saying: Sufism x 42 = London/2. :)
The Sufis are organised, this is well documented. As for the question
of religion, well that's a different question.
>
>But if I get the little of bit of your meaning, Sufis as we know them
>in books did not seek any new religion and they considered themselves
>as Muslims and practised Islam faithfully. NOT the Islam of today in
>Mid East...
Sufis exist within all religions. Take Rumi as an example of this.
>
>There are many many many sects of religion around Iran & Afghanistan
>that claimed themselves to be new religions. Some even said they are
>Sufis. But those are too far off the left field to be considered as
>Sufis by anyone past or present.
There are many Sufis in newsgroups with the same problem.
>
>
>> What will happen the day the Shah followers need to clarify the
>> difference between Shah personifiers and Sufi philosophers? Is there such
>> a thing as Shah thoughts? There does seem to be an interest in
>> identifying books as Shah, rather Shah material, but apparently these are
>> not intended to direct you to a Shah in particular, nor, philosophically,
>> anywhere else but to the true and real Shah.
>
>I think people read too much into his writings. I admire what he did
>but what I HEAR from his current readers are NOT what I READ in his
>books.
You often say that you have not read his books, and now you imply that
you have READ his books, which is it?
You READ much into your interactions with your limited sample of so
called Shah followers. And you flatter yourself in concluding that one
of Shah's REAL students would want to enter into any discussion with
you.
You say you admire what he did, but you also say that you have never
read one of his books, which is it?
>
>
>> Since Shah followers are quite reticent when it comes to sharing their
>> teaching, I've had no other recourse but to post some of my confused ideas
>> on the issue, hoping to spark up some honest consultation on the matter.
>> If this is not what this group intends to accomplish, hopefully someone
>> will inform me?
Again, like Dara, you make several assumptions about the limited
sample of so called Shah followers in alt.sufi.
By now there must be millions of people who have read, to varying
levels, the works of Idries Shah, and yet the same handful of regulars
are to be found in alt.sufi. I often wonder where all the others are.
>
>You are not confused, problem is Sufism has a peculiar ART of
>understanding (Ma'refat). You can not use the Western, nor the current
>Mid East methodologies of learning to get the essence of these
>writings.
Now you've opened up a can of wriggling worms. Which Western and Mid
East methodologies are you referring to?
>
>Enrobe (speaking to my Self as well) I think the issue is to THINK
>DIFFERENT and READ before LEARNING and LEARN before DOING and DO
>before PREACHING. There is a lot missing from the Sufi education in
>the West INSHALLAH those will appear soon and we can continue with
>some of your question. For now, BASICS is even hard for me
>
>-DARA
There is NOTHING missing from Sufi education in the West and there
never has been.
How do you think different?
How do you learn before doing?
nasruddin
<kev...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>ernobe <ern...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:<pan.2004.05.15....@yahoo.com>...
>> The book [by Idris Shah] attempts at a history of Sufi philosophy viewed as a movement
>> independent of the mainstream of Islamic society.
>
>There is "sufism" and there is "pseudo-sufism". Shah's effort, as you
>describe it, is a distortion.
>
>I do not mean by that to impugn the sincerity of the spiritual quest
>undertaken by the followers of pseudo-sufism. However, it is most
>unfortunate that some people use the label "sufism" for "new age" and
>esoteric or gnostic practices that are not an expression of orthodox
>Islam.
>
There would appear to be many 'pseudo-sufis' around. How do seperate
the wheat from the chaff? How do we find REAL Sufis?
Martin Edwards
wrote:
>
>The point in question, had you read 'The Way Of The Sufi', is that
>Sufism existed before Islam. You do not have to take Shah's word on
>this. There are many historical references to support this notion
>(many from leading Islamic authorities not based in the West.)
>
This may be unexpected, but you are quite right. Substantially it is
the Upanishadic philosophy from India, but given a heavy monotheistic
overlay.
******Martin Edwards.******
Come on! Nobody's going to ride that lousy freeway
when they can take the Red Car for a nickel.
Eddy Valiant.
www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955/
Jim Buck
nasruddin wrote:
> There would appear to be many 'pseudo-sufis' around. How do seperate
> the wheat from the chaff? How do we find REAL Sufis?
If it was a question of REAL artists, we might adopt as a criteria:
REAL artists don't paint by numbers*
*(not unless they are going to paint a
moustache on the masterpiece)
Regards
Jim Buck
nasruddin
Good grief that was unexpected.
Alas, I fear that you will find that that which you call a
monotheistic overlay is in fact an *underlay* (I do not refer to
Speedy Gonzalez or the Roadrunner, here) in the Upanishads.
nasruddin
Ignoring questions is one thing, but come on Jim!
Eric Twose
Dara wrote:
> I do not think anyone knows the purposes of Mr. Shah on anything,
> specially the so called Shah-readers or followers.
As you have not read ANY of Shah's books, you are simply not qualified to
arrive at this conclusion. If you read his books, then some of his
intentions -- and the intentions behind many posts at alt.sufi --- will
become glaringly obvious.
> From my listening to the people, what Shah meant has nothing to do
> with how his readers interpret his writings.
As you have not read ANY of Shah's books, you are simply not qualified to
arrive at this conclusion. If you read his books, then some of his
intentions -- and the intentions behind many posts at alt.sufi --- will
become glaringly obvious.
> I think people read too much into his writings. I admire what he did
> but what I HEAR from his current readers are NOT what I READ in his
> books.
As you have not read ANY of Shah's books, you are simply not qualified to
arrive at this conclusion. If you read his books, then some of his
intentions -- and the intentions behind many posts at alt.sufi --- will
become glaringly obvious.
> Enrobe (speaking to my Self as well) I think the issue is to THINK
> DIFFERENT and READ before LEARNING and LEARN before DOING and DO
> before PREACHING. There is a lot missing from the Sufi education in
> the West INSHALLAH those will appear soon and we can continue with
> some of your question. For now, BASICS is even hard for me.
Yes, Dara (also speaking for myself), what you need to do is to think
differently.
If you intend to argue over Shah and what his followers have to say,
especially when they refer to what Shah has written, then you also need to
read Shah's books and learn before doing what you are doing, and learn
instead of (not before) preaching from a position of ignorance and
heedlessness.
You admit to being arrogant in one of your posts, even stating that you have
to be arrogant and extreme as "good guys come last".
There is nothing that can be done to help you until you are willing to admit
that your arrogance is not a necessary virtue which endears you to us, but a
rather unsavoury vice that holds you in its jaws.
With Good Wishes,
Eric.
Eric Twose
Ernobe wrote:
> > << Since Shah followers are quite reticent when it comes to
> > sharing their teaching, >>
Obo wrote:
> > This has not been my experience here at alt.sufi or at Yahoo
Caravansarai or
> > the now defunct Yahoo Mushkil Gusha. Perhaps you are just not reading
(or
> > willing to comprehend) what folks (those who you precieve as readers of
IS) are
> > saying.
Can't see it, because it's often presented in an indirect or scattered
manner, or WON'T see it?
Ernobe wrote:
> There is an occasional quote from the books to illustrate a point being
> made in those groups, and there is no explanation of what the context is,
> other than its immediate relevance to the discussion. Do they imagine
> that by being perceived as readers of the books they've proved that they
> have read or understood any one? Is this your prescription for
> "harmonizing with something greater than oneself"? To "work WITH the
> environment"? Unless the context of references are understood, similar
> references to the same thing become unrelated to one another, leading to
> a dissociation of things that normally do go together, and to an
> existentialist approach to life.
If ever there was a case of "there are none so deaf as those who don't want
to hear" or of "what you want to see is what you get", it is in groups such
as alt.sufi, yahoo!caravansarai and yahoo!mushkilgusha.
The learning experiences are right here now and their relevance IS
immediate, if you want to find them. The work is nowhere other than in the
here and now.
As for context: if your mind is open, then it's often pretty obvious. If
your mind is closed or distracted by secondary issues such as proving your
expertise in semantics, or by trying to put down Shah and his followers'
"gleanings of Shah's gleanings", or you don't want to be helped, like Dara,
because you feel you're the one who's here to help others who are misguided
and ignorant, then you simply won't see the context and the relevance and
how it applies to you --- which may be glaringly obvious to others here. We
all have our quirks, our vices and our blind-spots.
It really depends on your agenda: on whether you're really prepared to make
a fair-minded effort to read and inwardly digest what is posted here;
whether your studies are merely superficial or concerned only with secondary
issues; or whether you're really putting your HEART AND SOUL into the work.
As I was told myself: "I don't need to tell you that half-hearted study does
nobody any good."
With Good Wishes,
Eric.
Janice
er...@anchor92.freeserve.co.uk says...
>There is nothing that can be done to help you until you are willing to admit
>that your arrogance is not a necessary virtue which endears you to us, but a
>rather unsavoury vice that holds you in its jaws.
So the vice is a vise? :-)
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
nasruddin <nasr...@alif.org> wrote:
> Sufis exist within all religions. Take Rumi as an example of this.
This declaration is an excellent example of the terminological problem
that I mentioned in my first message.
What exists in all humanity, in all places and at all times (to a
greater or lesser degree of consciousness) is the desire to find God.
The word "Sufism" however, strictly defined, refers to the specific
expression of that spiritual quest within Islam. What Rumi says is that
outside the specific and necessarily Muslim domain of "Sufism" there are
people who to various degrees so indeed seek God (not the "meaning" of
the universe, not personal "perfection, not vague "personal growth
through spiritual or "mystical" exercices or "discovery" of self). The
goal of Sufism is the annihilation of self and the discovery (unveiling)
of God.
The Islamic specificity of Sufism does not negate the existence of a
"sufic universality". After all, God created us so that we might know
him and he put in us a spark, an interior spiritual flame, that urges us
to seek him. Thus, there are righteous people in every religion and in
every time, but that does not mean that the relgion they follow (or the
absence of religion in their lives) is pleasing to God.
While Rumi certainly recognizes "Sufic universality", he also clearly
understands that the main highway that leads to God is the path of Islam.
Rumi says:
===========================================
At every moment, from every side, resounds love's call: We are going to
Paradise; who desires to come with us?
We have already been in Paradise; we have already been friends of the
angels, and we will go back, because Paradise is our home.
We are higher than the heavens, more noble than the angels; why should
we not go beyond them? Our objective is the Supreme Majesty.
What has a precious pearl to do with the world of dust?
Why have you come down here? Re-pack your baggage. What is this place?
The possibility of success is with us; it is up to us to sacrifice
ourselves.
The leader of our caravan is Mustapha*, who is the glory of this world.
...
The bountiful treasure has arrived, the shining sea has been made
manifest, the dawn of blessing has come. The dawn? No. the light of
Allah. (Rumi, Mystical Odes)
==========================================
*Mustapha is one of the names of the Prophet Muhammad (God's grace and
peace be on him).
While some may make some progress on a back road and by various means of
transportation, those who take the main road and follow the revelation
given to Muhammad are those on whom the fullness of God's light may
shine.
Rumi recognizes the diversity of roads and the fact that some are better
(or more efficient) routes than others.
Rumi says:
==================================
There are many avenues of research, but the research is always the same.
Do you not see that the roads that lead to Mecca are many, one from
Byantium, another from Syria, others by land or by sea? Consequently the
distance to be travelled is different for each route, but where all the
roads meet, controvery, debate and differences cease because our hearts
are then united... This heartfelf joy is not belief or unbelief but
love. (Rumi, Fihi ma fihi)
===================================
Of all the roads that lead toward God, the only one that can rightly be
called "Sufism" is the main highway of Islamic higher consciousness and
the only people who can rightly call themselves "Sufis" are those who
travel that road in the caravan led by the Prophet Muhammad (God's grace
and peace be on him).
The appropriation of the words Sufi and Sufism by those who do not
acknowledge the Unity of God and the Prophethood of Muhammad simply
leads to confusion. Mary Baker Eddy called her approach to religion
"Christian Science" but that was a misappropriation of the word
Christian because she and her followers are not Christians in the
strict, received sense of the word. I to not mean to suggest that there
is no value or truth in her approach, only that appropriating a word
already defined in a specific way muddies the waters and confuses the
issues.
God has put in all humanity a spark of his essence that draws us toward
him. God has proclaimed that there is one and only one religion that is
entirely pleasing to him and that is Islam or submission to his will in
accordance with his revelation by his angels, books and prophets.
God's appointed way--Islam--has two components, shari'ah (the outer law)
and sufism (the inner law).
Peter
Remove desire from your thinking and you will have understanding(Idries
Shah).
Regards,
Peter
Obo Vajrin
From: Abdelkarim Benoit Evans << The Islamic specificity of Sufism does not
negate the existence of a
"sufic universality". >>
Any more than Sufic Universality negates the existence of Islamic specificity.
But I understand the point you strive for, why I admit to knowing almost
nothing about Islamic Sufism.
Every religion admits to the uniqueness of itself,(My Specialness) a necessary
dynamic for it's own survival. But time (always) marches on, new circumstances
of old Truth manifest in the changing afairs of man. I don't see the visible
parts of Islam doing well with the march of time. Happens to everybody. The
Universal Sufism will manifest Itself in the mythologies of the 21st century, I
have no doubt. IMHO
Share the Care, obo
GV
> > together a wide range of spiritual ideas intended to provide modern Sufis
> > with the credentials of an authoritative tradition.
>
> I think this is an excellent idea.
Sufis, modern or otherwise, do not need credentials. Other people
may feel that they do or that they need to "prove" their
"authoritative tradition".
To some people, that may be like the anecdote IS gives about being
able to balance an egg on one's nose.
> I do not know how you came to this understanding. We can not ignore
> the volumous corpus of Sufi terminologies e.g. Qoshairi & Kashani and
> many others.
There are sufis who were/are illiterate or didn't live near libraries
and who can ignore these things quite well.
There are also plenty of academic-orientalists who seem to be
comfortable clinging to books while ignoring the necessity of sufic
experience to reach the requisite understanding.
>
>
> I do not think anyone knows the purposes of Mr. Shah on anything,
> specially the so called Shah-readers or followers. From my listening
> to the people, what Shah meant has nothing to do with how his readers
> interpret his writings.
"Knowing the purposes of" and interpretation aren't the end goals of
sufi study.
>
> You are not confused, problem is Sufism has a peculiar ART of
> understanding (Ma'refat). You can not use the Western, nor the current
> Mid East methodologies of learning to get the essence of these
> writings.
It is not an ART. Understanding comes from specific experiences
within the sufic domain. Which resides within the person under
certain circumstances, not at some place or organization.
The way is alive and well in the West, perhaps more so than in its
former strongholds in the "east". And it may be harder to actualize
in seekers from the latter since they often are saddled with feelings
of entitlement or "already knowing."
As for what you mean by "current Western & MidEast methodologies", I
suspect you have only fantasies.
>
> Enrobe (speaking to my Self as well) I think the issue is to THINK
> DIFFERENT and READ before LEARNING and LEARN before DOING and DO
> before PREACHING. There is a lot missing from the Sufi education in
> the West INSHALLAH those will appear soon and we can continue with
> some of your question. For now, BASICS is even hard for me
>
Perhaps you should ask yourself what do you really know? Very
little it seems. The texts you study and the reality that they allude
to need to be actualized within yourself. And the adept or source who
may be able to help teach you may be a "lowly Westerner".
Regards,
nasruddin
<kev...@videotron.ca> wrote:
Thankyou very much for the following information.
nasruddin
<er...@anchor92.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
You're wasting your time Eric.
Sufi fifth - Allah knows best.
boundless idiot
He didn't. He answered by example.
"When forms of reference expand,
Awareness contracts."
"When awareness expands,
Forms of reference contract."
-- G. Spencer Brown
painting by number is an example of a "form of reference".
Paint by number, or paint by awareness. How do you tell which artist
does which, and which is a real artist?
Obo Vajrin
<< Sufi fifth - Allah knows best. >>
ROTFLOL Many thanks resident behind the door numbered 386.
I always liked the story about the man who goes to the local carpenter to have
a cradle build for his yet unborn child. The carpenter tells him to come back
in one weeks time for the finished cradle, "God willing". After a week the man
returns to the carpenter for his cradle. "It is not finished, come back in a
week, God willing." This goes on for months. The wife gives birth. The infant
becomes a child. Still the carpenter wants "another week, God willing".
Finnally the man is expecting his first grandchild and would like to present
his son a fine cradle for the expected child. Going once more to the carpenter
he asks. "I know it will take 'another week, God willing', but how long would
it take if we left God out of the matter."
Take Care, obo
boundless idiot
Unfortunately, Obo, from what I understand the sufis say sufism will
disappear from this earth.
Obo Vajrin
disappear from this earth.
>>
Would you care to say more about this?
Take Care, obo
nasruddin
idiot) wrote:
>nasruddin <nasr...@alif.org> wrote in message news:<rmoea010c1jjbn31n...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sun, 16 May 2004 09:59:26 +0100, "Jim Buck"
>> <jf....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >nasruddin wrote:
>> >
>> >> There would appear to be many 'pseudo-sufis' around. How do seperate
>> >> the wheat from the chaff? How do we find REAL Sufis?
>> >
>> >
>> >If it was a question of REAL artists, we might adopt as a criteria:
>> >
>> >REAL artists don't paint by numbers*
>> >
>> >*(not unless they are going to paint a
>> >moustache on the masterpiece)
>> >
>> >Regards
>> >
>> >Jim Buck
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Ignoring questions is one thing, but come on Jim!
>
>
>He didn't. He answered by example.
>
One must assume that you are Jim Buck.
Dara
Qualified? you are joking right? So the rest of people as long as they
are not from mid east or some similar shit hole you need to bomb
non-stop, QUALIFY! For someone of your background I am so shocked to
read these words from.
It is simple: I tell you what is in my mind, as you tell me what is in
your mind. There is no moderator or sense of guidance what to say and
not to say. Racial slurs, calling people names and belittling their
religious beliefs IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH for western born folk.
But for the rest of the fleas and cock roaches, just obey anbd follow
you and they should shut up.
I do not think so brother.
Point I made was clear. Either you agree or you do not agree. But now
I am again a flea between the jaws of some baboon that needs to be
crushed because I disagreed with a couple of published books? which I
did not say anything but pointint out the roots of their research for
the folk who reads them and the follies of their readers?
Lets say two brothers disagreed on this one.
--DARA
nasruddin
Obo,
I am very hairy and know that you hate me.
nasruddin
MANY SWEEP THEIR DIRT UNDER THE FLYING CARPET.
Many more sweep their actions under Allah.
Allah knows best.
nasruddin
>Salaam Eric
>
>Qualified? you are joking right? So the rest of people as long as they
>are not from mid east or some similar shit hole you need to bomb
>non-stop, QUALIFY! For someone of your background I am so shocked to
>read these words from.
I saw Allah in my dream and asked the Royal Highness how to reach It,
The Majesty responded: Forsake your Self and come”.
>
>It is simple: I tell you what is in my mind, as you tell me what is in
>your mind. There is no moderator or sense of guidance what to say and
>not to say. Racial slurs, calling people names and belittling their
>religious beliefs IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH for western born folk.
Divine Loving (love from Beloved) is not based upon any desire or
benefit (like pleasure), how could it be? Since the Certainty of Its
Holy Omnipotence and Sanctified Needlessness leaves it out of the
domain of needful loving. Vice-a-versa the lover prefers to be
annihilated within the Beloved rather than being accused of seeking
gain from It (Lover finds nothing more worthy other than the Beloved
in this love affair).
>
>But for the rest of the fleas and cock roaches, just obey anbd follow
>you and they should shut up.
>
>I do not think so brother.
Envied are those
Emptiness of reason their life
Wallow in ignorance with bliss
Not a word to read or write
Like derelicts towards the desert they run
Midst the mountains
Wallow in pastures
Grazing deer untied
>
>Point I made was clear. Either you agree or you do not agree. But now
>I am again a flea between the jaws of some baboon that needs to be
>crushed because I disagreed with a couple of published books? which I
>did not say anything but pointint out the roots of their research for
>the folk who reads them and the follies of their readers?
>
>Lets say two brothers disagreed on this one.
>--DARA
And there are those
Who put up mosque
By way of mischief aND infeidelity
To disunuite the believers
And in preperation for one
Who warred aganst Allah
aND HIS mESSENGER AForetime
THEY WILL INDEED SWEAR THAT THEIR INTENTION IS NOTHING BUT GOOD
bUT aLLAH Doth decalre
That they are certainly liars
= 9- 107
Janice
>Dara wrote:
>> From my listening to the people, what Shah meant has nothing to do
>> with how his readers interpret his writings.
>
>As you have not read ANY of Shah's books, you are simply not qualified to
>arrive at this conclusion.
Even if Dara hasn't read any of Shah's books, his opinion of them isn't
necessarily totally uninformed. Surely he's at least read excerpts from
them that people have posted here, along with commentaries on them, and
can draw some conclusions (whether correct or not is another matter)
therefrom??
Dara
> necessarily totally uninformed. Surely he's at least read excerpts from
> them that people have posted here, along with commentaries on them, and
> can draw some conclusions (whether correct or not is another matter)
> therefrom??
Salaam Janice
I appreciate your comment. Indeed so as you said. I am not ignorant
and clueless. Also I do not know it all. At the same time my
conclusions could be as correct or as false as any other person,
including IS himself. Nobody is infallible.
My ONLY point was IS read the same ancient manuscripts that I am
reading. This does not make him less and does not make me more. It is
a fact and he did so.
Except mine is online and you can respond to. His is not, copyrighted
and you can not respond to.
Mine you can read & license for FREE and find the faults and edit, in
3 languages, his you can not do so.
Mine belongs to you, his belongs to a well guarded corporation.
Thanx for clarity
--DARA
Eric Twose
> > Even if Dara hasn't read any of Shah's books, his opinion of them isn't
> > necessarily totally uninformed. Surely he's at least read excerpts from
> > them that people have posted here, along with commentaries on them, and
> > can draw some conclusions (whether correct or not is another matter)
> > therefrom??
On 17th May, Dara wrote:
> Salaam Janice
>
> I appreciate your comment. Indeed so as you said. I am not ignorant
> and clueless. Also I do not know it all. At the same time my
> conclusions could be as correct or as false as any other person,
> including IS himself. Nobody is infallible.
>
> My ONLY point was IS read the same ancient manuscripts that I am
> reading. This does not make him less and does not make me more. It is
> a fact and he did so.
>
> Except mine is online and you can respond to. His is not, copyrighted
> and you can not respond to.
>
> Mine you can read & license for FREE and find the faults and edit, in
> 3 languages, his you can not do so.
>
> Mine belongs to you, his belongs to a well guarded corporation.
>
> Thanx for clarity
Dear Dara,
Also for the sake of clarity, and to refresh your memory,
this is what you actually wrote just two days ago in reply
to Ernobe :-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I do not think anyone knows the purposes of Mr. Shah on anything,
specially the so called Shah-readers or followers. From my listening
to the people, what Shah meant has nothing to do with how his readers
interpret his writings.
I cut & paste this man's writing which is posted by so called Shah
readers, crack the spelling and shuffle the words a bit and
repost...they barf at exactly the same writings!!!!! Trust me try it
with one of their posts.
So LETS NOT TAKE THEM TOO SERIOUSLY. Love to chat with them and that
is the end of it.
I think people read too much into his writings. I admire what he did
but what I HEAR from his current readers are NOT what I READ in his
books.
Enrobe (speaking to my Self as well) I think the issue is to THINK
DIFFERENT and READ before LEARNING and LEARN before DOING and DO
before PREACHING. There is a lot missing from the Sufi education in
the West INSHALLAH those will appear soon and we can continue with
some of your question. For now, BASICS is even hard for me
-DARA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eric Twose
> My ONLY point was IS read the same ancient manuscripts that I am
> reading. This does not make him less and does not make me more. It is
> a fact and he did so.
>
> Except mine is online and you can respond to. His is not, copyrighted
> and you can not respond to.
>
> Mine you can read & license for FREE and find the faults and edit, in
> 3 languages, his you can not do so.
>
> Mine belongs to you, his belongs to a well guarded corporation.
>
> Thanx for clarity
>
> --DARA
Dear Dara,
You lay great store in the fact that you are working with source materials
and that though sometimes Shah uses the same source materials, he does not
provide complete references to chapter, verse and precise manuscript. OK:
What you are doing is fine and dandy.
I think that whatever materials we are looking at -- be they your sources'
or Shah's or those of whomsoever -- one of the primary criteria is not "who
first wrote such-and-such, when and where, and what are his authoratative
Sufi credentials?" but, given that the Sufi Way is experiential: "is it
relevant?" and "how does this material measure up, in the light of
first-hand
experience?" And the answer to that according to he Sufis is:
"he who tastes, knows."
Best Wishes,
Eric.
Thotful560
.
>ufism (the inner component) is a matter of the "heart" (nafs, the
>inner, spiritual self); it is a striving to seek God's face, to draw as
>near to God as a human being can, to extinguish self and to find being
>in the the perfect being of God, to be aware that God is everywhere
"Wheresoever you turn, there is the face of Allah....."
For me as a muslim, the whole of the matter is recognition/perception..to see
God in every created being, in every form, in infinite manifestation...even the
ignoble, the extreme, the ungodlike.
For me, to deny any part of the infinite is to abandon and ignore the truth of
Reality.
challenging, to say the least,
Wasalaam,
teresa
boundless idiot
Probably not. I talk too much. Goodbye.
boundless idiot
I am too hairy. and a good day to you and a good bye.
Jim Buck
> Ignoring questions is one thing, but come on Jim!
Let's move a little closer to home then. How do we find REAL poets?
My answer is that there are 3 requirements; these are, in ascending order of
importance:
1) aspiration 2) inspiration 3) creation
This is an excerpt from a REAL poem, by a REAL poet:
A narrow-boat slips on a soft canal;
engines tumble in the dark,
frictionless,
past honeyed parts.
Regards
Jim Buck
nasruddin
<JayAVo...@netscape.net> wrote:
>In article <c87nvq$m2j$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>er...@anchor92.freeserve.co.uk says...
>
>>Dara wrote:
>
>>> From my listening to the people, what Shah meant has nothing to do
>>> with how his readers interpret his writings.
>>
>>As you have not read ANY of Shah's books, you are simply not qualified to
>>arrive at this conclusion.
>
>Even if Dara hasn't read any of Shah's books, his opinion of them isn't
>necessarily totally uninformed.
In Sufi circles the emphasis is on Adab. If you wished to be critical
of another's work, you would be obliged to read at least one complete
book of that persons corpus.
To give an example from any other field would be easy. Imagine, if you
will, finding a book on Newton's fluxional calculus and trying to
apply it to a variety of mathematical problems. You would not get very
far, and would soon start searching for an alternative, which you
would find in the form of Leibnitz's differential notation. We need
not concern ourselves too much with details in this case, suffice to
say that the application of the differential to the numerous
principles laid down in the Pricipica (Newton's OWN watershed) finally
demonstrated the superiority of the differential to fluxional
calculus.
Fundamentally, there are many similarities between the two (i.e.
fluxion and differential), but it is in application that the
superiority of one over the other is established.
Likewise in matters of Sufi texts (be it Classical or Contemporary),
their limits (excuse the pun) and application, a similar phenomenon is
noted.
>Surely he's at least read excerpts from
>them that people have posted here, along with commentaries on them, and
>can draw some conclusions (whether correct or not is another matter)
>therefrom??
Janice, this point had already been covered in this newsgroup. His
opinion is based on a snippet of text, the majority of which is used
out of context. Would you allow a surgeon to operate on your brain if
all he knew about neurosurgery had been gleaned from alt.neurosurgery?
For many, the subject is that serious and can be that dangerous.
He has also been quite hostile towards the Shah camp.
Dara refuses to answer numerous questions relating to his activities
here on alt.sufi. Many have tried to engage him, or communicate with
him, but this has not been possible. One voice in particular, a
moderate voice, has actually blocked all Dara's posts. Alarm bells
should be ringing. Of course the flames cannot be doused, but this
must be a two way street.
nasruddin
>> Even if Dara hasn't read any of Shah's books, his opinion of them isn't
>> necessarily totally uninformed. Surely he's at least read excerpts from
>> them that people have posted here, along with commentaries on them, and
>> can draw some conclusions (whether correct or not is another matter)
>> therefrom??
>
>Salaam Janice
>
>I appreciate your comment. Indeed so as you said. I am not ignorant
>and clueless. Also I do not know it all. At the same time my
>conclusions could be as correct or as false as any other person,
>including IS himself. Nobody is infallible.
>
>My ONLY point was IS read the same ancient manuscripts that I am
>reading. This does not make him less and does not make me more. It is
>a fact and he did so.
This was not your only point.
>
>Except mine is online and you can respond to. His is not, copyrighted
>and you can not respond to.
You can respond to Idries Shah's material, but first you must ensure
that you can ask a question that has not already been answered within
his corpus.
>
>Mine you can read & license for FREE and find the faults and edit, in
>3 languages, his you can not do so.
You write in your translator's notes - "Sufi poets wrote in most
cryptic metaphorical fashion and they took pride in their encryption
to show their sincerity and skills. Therefore in order to get the
CONCEPT out to English readers some additional verses has to be added
to explicate the meanings. I have placed this in (...), which means
this was not a part of the original Farsi poetry but I have to add it
to get the concepts out! Sorry, you may consider these additional
poetry as translator’s "improvisation" similar to a jazz performer’s
own additional notes to convey his impressions. Future translators or
non-Farsi speakers may take the solid parts of my work and then
improvise their own."
But Jabir writes - "I herby declare that in this Summa I have not
taught our science systematically, but have spread it out here and
there in various chapters; for if I had presented it coherently and in
logical order, the evil minded, who might have misused it, would be
able to learn it just as easily as the people of good will..."
The use of a 'secret language' is repeated by other Sufi Masters. No
amount of improvisation will unlock such a language.
>
>Mine belongs to you, his belongs to a well guarded corporation.
The need for a 'corporation' has already been explained to you. Why do
you say that it is well guarded? You have some strange notions about
something you have yet to investigate.
Dara, where did you obtain the original manuscripts you used. I see no
reference to their source on your web site.
nasruddin
wrote:
>
>Dara refuses to answer numerous questions relating to his activities
>here on alt.sufi. Many have tried to engage him, or communicate with
>him, but this has not been possible. One voice in particular, a
>moderate voice, has actually blocked all Dara's posts. Alarm bells
>should be ringing. Of course the flames cannot be doused, but this
>must be a two way street.
TYPO -
For the ones with eyes that should read -
>Dara refuses to answer numerous questions relating to his activities
>here on alt.sufi. Many have tried to engage him, or communicate with
>him, but this has not been possible. One voice in particular, a
>moderate voice, has actually blocked all Dara's posts. Alarm bells
>should be ringing. Of course the flames CAN be doused, but this
Eric Twose
Ernobe wrote:
<< Since Shah followers are quite reticent when it comes to sharing
their teaching, >>
Obo wrote:
<< This has not been my experience here at alt.sufi or at Yahoo
Caravansarai or the now defunct Yahoo Mushkil Gusha. Perhaps
you are just not reading (or willing to comprehend) what folks
(those who you precieve as readers of IS) are saying.>>
Ernobe wrote:
<< There is an occasional quote from the books to illustrate a
point being made in those groups, and there is no explanation
of what the context is, other than its immediate relevance to the
discussion. Do they imagine that by being perceived as readers
of the books they've proved that they have read or understood
any one? Is this your prescription for "harmonizing with something
greater than oneself"? To "work WITH the environment"?
Unless the context of references are understood, similar
references to the same thing become unrelated to one another,
leading to a dissociation of things that normally do go together,
and to an existentialist approach to life.>>
Dear Ernobe,
In the interests of making the context more apparent to you, I would refer
you to the thread "Quoting Shah In an Out of Context".
I would be grateful if you would help provide as many *specific* examples as
possible of what you deem to be Shah being quoted out of context or with
insufficient context, so that those making the quotes can take
responsibility for their errors or successfully answer the charges.
Best Wishes,
Eric.
Eric Twose
<< An unfortunate outcome of this [Shah's] approach is that
the spiritual basis of being a Sufi is undermined. >>
Dear Ernobe,
Where is your concrete evidence to support such an assertion?
A well-argued response with specific illustrations drawn
from the works of Shah and others would be appreciated.
Many thanks,
Eric.
Obo Vajrin
My answer is that there are 3 requirements; these are, in ascending order of
importance:
1) aspiration 2) inspiration 3) creation
This is an excerpt from a REAL poem, by a REAL poet:
A narrow-boat slips on a soft canal;
engines tumble in the dark,
frictionless,
past honeyed parts.
Regards
Jim Buck
>>
"Poetry is life in a concentrated form." Y. Yevtushenko
Also, El Gusto (johnny bee good), I hope you have been well (concentrating
life;-)
My best to all, obo
Obo Vajrin
reading. This does not make him less and does not make me more. It is
a fact and he did so. >>
I can play the exact same manuscript of an ancient piece of music by Bach as
Glen Gould would play. What the audience would actually hear would be worlds
apart. Truely! Think about it.
Dara, I know that you have changed your opinions of me (since I started to post
in a "anti-religious modality) and currently ignore anything I have to say. So
be it.
So perhaps this is poor Adab, to continue to say things in your direction (or
just me and my ego mirroring your/manifesting my own, arrogance) however, I am
now getting the impression that the "hostility" towards your translations and
personal ideas are actually a reaction towards your "macho manerisms" which you
may be culturally blind to. You might want to look into this if you truely are
interested in your work finding any worth (exposure) out side of other Muslims
who can respond to some of the poetry emotionaly. Also, you may be Harvard
educated, but imho, you still seem to be approaching learning as a schoolboy in
the Maddrass systemn.
I'm still being far too judgemental (as stubborn to growth and change perhaps
as you, eh?) so will try to make this my last post pointed to you personally
(without reply) or in responce to something you say (I will need some help from
God on this one).
Take Care, obo
nasruddin
>Also, you may be Harvard
>educated, but imho, you still seem to be approaching learning as a schoolboy in
>the Maddrass systemn.
>
>I'm still being far too judgemental (as stubborn to growth and change perhaps
>as you, eh?) so will try to make this my last post pointed to you personally
>(without reply) or in responce to something you say (I will need some help from
>God on this one).
>
>Take Care, obo
AT LAST HARVARD the infidel is acknowledged, the SOURCE of so much
SUFI material. I wonder how much it COSTS Harvard Lib to maintain such
material. I imagine that the running costs of 90 plus libraries will
require some hefty financial backing. I should also imagine that there
is one hell of a 'corporate' infrastructure lurking around somewhere
there, at Harvard that is.
Do they place copyright restrictions on the material they release?
Perhaps I will write to them and find out. Watch this space.
>Dara wrote
>Ummmmm I went through hell with Harvard lib to get me/FEDEX a copy of
>the Qoshairi's Farsi manuscript to translate
Poor Harvard, the unsung hero, running on nothing but fresh air.
Janice
nasr...@alif.org says...
>In Sufi circles the emphasis is on Adab. If you wished to be critical
>of another's work, you would be obliged to read at least one complete
>book of that persons corpus.
OK, if that's the convention.
>His
>opinion is based on a snippet of text, the majority of which is used
>out of context. Would you allow a surgeon to operate on your brain if
>all he knew about neurosurgery had been gleaned from alt.neurosurgery?
>For many, the subject is that serious and can be that dangerous.
I would make a distinction between opining and operating. That is, I
might listen to such a person's opinion as to what could be wrong with my
brain, but I would not take his opinion to be definitive or want him
performing the surgery. Similarly, I'd be willing to hear Dara's view of
Shah's material, but I wouldn't take his opinion on the subject to be
definitive or consider him qualified to perform an in-depth critical
analysis (surgery) of it when he hasn't really read it.
But then maybe I've missed the point, as usual.
>Dara refuses to answer numerous questions relating to his activities
>here on alt.sufi. Many have tried to engage him, or communicate with
>him, but this has not been possible. One voice in particular, a
>moderate voice, has actually blocked all Dara's posts. Alarm bells
>should be ringing. Of course the flames cannot be doused, but this
>must be a two way street.
I had gotten the impression that certain folks here don't like Dara's
attitude, and assumed that was the reason for the post-blocking. And of
course it's not unusual for people to take offense when someone they
highly regard is criticized. If there's more to it than that, I will
stay out of it.
Fried Jack Morgan
You call that hostile? You should have been around some years ago when
at least one apparently Middle Eastern wahabi type unleashed some
outright invective, bordering on obscene (and I think it was in a
personal message to me on the topic, but that was a long time ago)
against Idries Shah, and if I remember correctly, at least one
acknowledged that not only had he not read any Idries Shah, but that he
would never read any Idries Shah out of fear for his immortal soul, or
something to that effect.
>
> Dara refuses to answer numerous questions relating to his activities
> here on alt.sufi. Many have tried to engage him, or communicate with
> him, but this has not been possible. One voice in particular, a
> moderate voice, has actually blocked all Dara's posts. Alarm bells
> should be ringing. Of course the flames cannot be doused, but this
> must be a two way street.
>
Dara has many times stated, just not lately, that he is attempting to
make Middle Eastern sufi texts freely available in English for the
Western world and to establish a Western terminology for the Middle
Eastern sufi terminology. Many of these texts are apparently not
available in English and a number of them are apparently translated for
the first time into English. He has also stated that he is here in
alt.sufi so that people may comment and discuss the translations at his
website.
He has repeatedly asked since he first came here for input and
discussion for what he has been doing, and gotten precious little of it,
at least publically, except for questioning of his motives, sincerity,
and so on.
He takes no pay for his efforts, he supports himself and website
completely by himself.
For someone who posts in a sufi discussion list under the nom de guerre
of "nasruddin", you are remarkably lacking in the insight and qualities
of that esteemed sage and saint, PBUH; your poetry not withstanding.
As some Nasruddin stories concern cultural differences in speaking and
behavior, I would have at least expected you to have some awareness that
some of the things from Dara that irritate you are due entirely to a
person being transplanted from one culture to a completely different
one, and have nothing at all to do with what bothers you about him.
And indeed, Idries Shah wrote more than once about the necessity of
taking into account cultural differences, something that you have failed
to do here. As Dara is not a student of Idries Shah, nor a supporter,
it is not up to him to make you aware of this, but if you are a
supporter or student or follower of Idries Shah, it is YOUR
responsibility to do as Idries Shah instructed, is it not?
Or are you, as one person in another list many years ago described
himself, an armchair sufi?
Scott aka fried jack morgan
BTW, I believe that Dara posted that he had read one or two of Idries
Shah's books, thus fulfilling the adab that you wrote at the start of
your post. And he did so prior to your post.
Fried Jack Morgan
People block posts for many different reasons. Has Jim Buck confided
with you the reason he block's Dara's posts in his news reader?
Jim Buck
> I had gotten the impression that certain folks here don't like Dara's
> attitude, and assumed that was the reason for the post-blocking. And of
> course it's not unusual for people to take offense when someone they
> highly regard is criticized. If there's more to it than that, I will
> stay out of it.
I have no problem with Dara nor his attitude. I blocked his address purely
for poetic reasons. He styles himself the "eyeless lion". I chose to
encounter such a beast through the foliage of other's postings.
Regards
Jim Buck
Eric Twose
<< There would appear to be many 'pseudo-sufis' around.
How do seperate the wheat from the chaff?
How do we find REAL Sufis? >>
Jim wrote:
<< If it was a question of REAL artists, we might adopt
as a criteria: REAL artists don't paint by numbers >>
"Boundless Idiot" explained:
<< Jim answered by example.
"When forms of reference expand,
Awareness contracts."
"When awareness expands,
Forms of reference contract."
-- G. Spencer Brown
Painting by number is an example of a "form of reference".
Paint by number, or paint by awareness.
How do you tell which artist
does which, and which is a real artist? >>
Dear Jim and "Boundless Idiot",
Thank you so much for this excellent -- and inspired -- analogy!
Yes, on reflection, I must admit that quite a lot of the time
I find myself merely "painting by numbers".
Perhaps part of the secret of this deception is to make sure you
have a very large repertoire of numbers to work with (and Shah's
30-or-so works provide an almost limitless supply); and to keep
them all in one's head until they're individually required, rather
than committing them to canvas prior to the stage of painting?
With Good Wishes,
Eric.
Jim Buck
> Shah's 30-or-so works provide an almost limitless supply);
Never forget that Idries Shah borrowed from you, also, Eric.
Regards
Jim Buck
Janice
says...
>I have no problem with Dara nor his attitude. I blocked his address purely
>for poetic reasons. He styles himself the "eyeless lion". I chose to
>encounter such a beast through the foliage of other's postings.
Nothing alarming about that, then. :-)
Fried Jack Morgan
If your goal is to paint by numbers, that is a most excellent way to
proceed. Zen masters, however, gave up the concept of number before
they painted.
You fill yourself up with Idries Shah's words, you have no room for the
truth he presented.
Janice
nasr...@alif.org says...
>>OK, if that's the convention.
>
>Would it not seem like common sense, common curtesy, perhaps. Judging
>the work of another in any field based on snippets of information
>seems fraught with danger.
Jumping to conclusions on the basis of minimal information is indeed
incautious. Still, this can be mitigated somewhat by the type of
judgement one makes. One could for instance not form a strong opinion
right away, but rather arrive at a tentative opinion, keeping in mind
that one may have insufficient information. "This idea doesn't seem
right to me, based on other things that I think I do know pretty well,
but since I admittedly don't know enough about the specifics in this case
I'll reserve final judgement for now." Wouldn't it be nice to see more
of that kind of opining?
>>I would make a distinction between opining and operating.
>
>I thought opinions were operations, intrusions at least. Perhaps a bit
>too subtle for some.
They do impact our minds, 'tis true. Even opinions that we have rejected
can unexpectedly surface under certain circumstances.
>>Similarly, I'd be willing to hear Dara's view of
>>Shah's material, but I wouldn't take his opinion on the subject to be
>>definitive or consider him qualified to perform an in-depth critical
>>analysis (surgery) of it when he hasn't really read it.
>
>The question is - has he read it?
I wonder if it would really make much difference in the way people react
to Dara's opining if it turns out that he has read some of it? After
all, Jay not only read all of it, but studied it intensely for many
years, yet some people still reacted strongly against his differing
opinions and the way he expressed them. Didn't Shah himself say
something to the effect that when someone rushes to the defense of
another, it may not be so much because the second person needs defending,
as the first person has a need to defend?
Fried Jack Morgan
> No, he has not confided the reason with me. But he has announced hs
> action to everyone of us.
>
Your posts and manner are quite reminiscent of another instigator well
known throughout history.
Fried Jack Morgan
Idries Shah also wrote that if someone sees a plant in need of water and
does not give it water when they have the capability of doing so, that
they have committed a wrong.
Janice
friedja...@netscape.net says...
>> Didn't Shah himself say
>> something to the effect that when someone rushes to the defense of
>> another, it may not be so much because the second person needs defending,
>> as the first person has a need to defend?
>
>Idries Shah also wrote that if someone sees a plant in need of water and
>does not give it water when they have the capability of doing so, that
>they have committed a wrong.
What a guy. He has a quote for every contingency. :-)
Jim Buck
> You fill yourself up with Idries Shah's words, you have no room for the
> truth he presented.
That's tv-movie confrontation talk.
To the untutored, Idries Shah's books are a mis-en-abyme(*)
Once beyond that, they contain material__ to say the very least__not in
great abundance on the planet.
Regards
Jim Buck
(*) http://www.altx.com/ebr/reviews/rev10/r10har.htm
nasruddin
<JayAVo...@netscape.net> wrote:
>In article <vn2ma09ibtol6t7ep...@4ax.com>,
>nasr...@alif.org says...
>>On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:42:52 -0400, Janice
>><JayAVo...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>>OK, if that's the convention.
>>
>>Would it not seem like common sense, common curtesy, perhaps. Judging
>>the work of another in any field based on snippets of information
>>seems fraught with danger.
>
>Jumping to conclusions on the basis of minimal information is indeed
>incautious. Still, this can be mitigated somewhat by the type of
>judgement one makes. One could for instance not form a strong opinion
>right away, but rather arrive at a tentative opinion, keeping in mind
>that one may have insufficient information. "This idea doesn't seem
>right to me, based on other things that I think I do know pretty well,
>but since I admittedly don't know enough about the specifics in this case
>I'll reserve final judgement for now." Wouldn't it be nice to see more
>of that kind of opining?
Or perhaps we could look up something like - Information and
Experience in Learning How To Learn. I'm sure Jay will help you with
that one.
>
>>>I would make a distinction between opining and operating.
>>
>>I thought opinions were operations, intrusions at least. Perhaps a bit
>>too subtle for some.
>
>They do impact our minds, 'tis true. Even opinions that we have rejected
>can unexpectedly surface under certain circumstances.
>
>>>Similarly, I'd be willing to hear Dara's view of
>>>Shah's material, but I wouldn't take his opinion on the subject to be
>>>definitive or consider him qualified to perform an in-depth critical
>>>analysis (surgery) of it when he hasn't really read it.
>>
>>The question is - has he read it?
>
>I wonder if it would really make much difference in the way people react
>to Dara's opining if it turns out that he has read some of it? After
>all, Jay not only read all of it, but studied it intensely for many
>years, yet some people still reacted strongly against his differing
>opinions and the way he expressed them.
NOw, now, let's not drag Jay into this. For example, one would have to
ask what you mean by 'studied it intensely'.
Personally, I would welcome Dara's critique, be it positive or
negative or neutral, had he read some of the books.
>Didn't Shah himself say
>something to the effect that when someone rushes to the defense of
>another, it may not be so much because the second person needs defending,
>as the first person has a need to defend?
It matches a few paraphrases, but not all cakes are round. Or, like my
Sufi master used to say, concentrate on the donut, not the hole;-)
nasruddin
I'm really glad you smiled there.
Eric Twose
>
> > You fill yourself up with Idries Shah's words, you have no room for the
> > truth he presented.
I've just eaten, but I still feel empty right now.
As Janice jested elsewhere, Shah has something to say for every
contingency.
In my own experience, Scott -- for what it's worth -- the words don't
fill up the conscious works at all, but seem get filed away somewhere
and they pop up all over the place, as if out of nowhere, like blooming
roses, often replete with the title of the book they're in and which
part of the page they're to be found. Maybe that's just me, though?
I can sometimes remember the gist of odd sentences I read
maybe twenty five years ago in other books.
> That's tv-movie confrontation talk.
>
> To the untutored, Idries Shah's books are a mis-en-abyme(*)
>
> Once beyond that, they contain material__ to say the very least__not in
> great abundance on the planet.
>
> Regards
>
> Jim Buck
> (*) http://www.altx.com/ebr/reviews/rev10/r10har.htm
I couldn't quite get a handle on the phrase "mis-en-abyme", Jim.
Is it some kind of abyss or internal mirror?
Best Wishes,
Eric.
Jim Buck
> I couldn't quite get a handle on the phrase "mis-en-abyme", Jim.
> Is it some kind of abyss or internal mirror?
Imagine being pregnant forever.
Regards
Jim Buck
Fried Jack Morgan
I apologize. I was not aware that trying to make the distinction
between words and meaning, after Eric posted about keeping most or all
of Idries Shah's written works in one's head, was tv-movie confrontation
talk.
nasruddin
<friedja...@netscape.net> wrote:
>nasruddin wrote:
>
>You call that hostile?
Considering the nature of the vehicle, yes.
>> Dara refuses to answer numerous questions relating to his activities
>> here on alt.sufi. Many have tried to engage him, or communicate with
>> him, but this has not been possible. One voice in particular, a
>> moderate voice, has actually blocked all Dara's posts. Alarm bells
>> should be ringing. Of course the flames cannot be doused, but this
>> must be a two way street.
>>
>
>Dara has many times stated, just not lately, that he is attempting to
>make Middle Eastern sufi texts freely available in English for the
>Western world and to establish a Western terminology for the Middle
>Eastern sufi terminology. Many of these texts are apparently not
>available in English and a number of them are apparently translated for
>the first time into English. He has also stated that he is here in
>alt.sufi so that people may comment and discuss the translations at his
>website.
Ok, let's get back to that then.
>
>He has repeatedly asked since he first came here for input and
>discussion for what he has been doing, and gotten precious little of it,
>at least publically, except for questioning of his motives, sincerity,
>and so on.
I'm not too sure about that SLP. From where I'm kneeling, everytime
someone tries to engage him on the nature of his poetry, he ignores
them. Well, not quite true, he ignores anything that seems to threaten
his understanding of the poetry. I'm as keen as Dara is to understand
some of his material and how it might aid the Western mindset.
>
>He takes no pay for his efforts, he supports himself and website
>completely by himself.
I'm not going to get dragged into a mud slinging match here, sorry. I
do admire what he doing and his sincerity in doing it.
>As some Nasruddin stories concern cultural differences in speaking and
>behavior, I would have at least expected you to have some awareness that
>some of the things from Dara that irritate you are due entirely to a
>person being transplanted from one culture to a completely different
>one, and have nothing at all to do with what bothers you about him.
Stop trying to find excuses SLP, sometimes there aren't any. Let Dara
explain himself if he feels the need to do so. I'm sure that an
Harvard educated man (if that is true about Harvard) is well versed in
our primitive Western ways of communicating.
>
>And indeed, Idries Shah wrote more than once about the necessity of
>taking into account cultural differences, something that you have failed
>to do here.
Which came first, the chicken of the egg? If I turned up at alt.buddha
and claimed that Buddha was a short fat hairy guy, some might wonder
where I was coming from.
>As Dara is not a student of Idries Shah, nor a supporter,
>it is not up to him to make you aware of this, but if you are a
>supporter or student or follower of Idries Shah, it is YOUR
>responsibility to do as Idries Shah instructed, is it not?
I have never received an instruction from Idries Shah.
Look SLP, we need to be clear on where Dara is coming from. Is there
anything wrong with this? I would say that to date he has been quite
rude towards the Shah camp, and implied many things about Octagon,
ISQH and the rest. For many, this in itself is not a problem, but
there are other issues relating to his undermining of Shah's material.
This may or may not be a problem, but because Dara refuses to discuss
why he feels the way he does, we cannot establish the plausibility of
his analysis one way or the other.
>
>Or are you, as one person in another list many years ago described
>himself, an armchair sufi?
No, I'm kneeling.
>
>Scott aka fried jack morgan
>
>BTW, I believe that Dara posted that he had read one or two of Idries
>Shah's books, thus fulfilling the adab that you wrote at the start of
>your post. And he did so prior to your post.
Must have missed that one. Could you please show me where it is?
Ciao,
Mirror, mirror in cyberspace,
forgive my mutterings, they're my disgrace.
Mirror, mirror what should I say,
should I go or should I stay?
Mirror, mirror what should I do,
for you are I, and I am you.
Jim Buck
Fried Jack Morgan wrote:
> I apologize. I was not aware that trying to make the distinction
> between words and meaning, after Eric posted about keeping most or all
> of Idries Shah's written works in one's head, was tv-movie confrontation
> talk.
Words to avoid because of their excessive theoretical freight: "signifier,"
"symbolic," "text," "textual," and then "being," and then finally all words,
and this would still not suffice, for since words cannot be constituted as a
totality, the infinity that traverses them could never be captured by a
substracting operation; it is irreducible by reduction.
Maurice Blanchot
Jim Buck
> Imagine being pregnant forever.
Why stay pregnant forever...when you can give birth to yourself?
Regards
Jim Buck
nasruddin
It is piling filth over filth.
Jim Buck
nasruddin wrote:
> Mirror, mirror in cyberspace,
> forgive my mutterings, they're my disgrace.
>
> Mirror, mirror what should I say,
> should I go or should I stay?
>
> Mirror, mirror what should I do,
> for you are I, and I am you.
Well, well_a proper poem!
Regards
Jim Buck
Eric Twose
Thanks, Jim. I'll give myself another push.
Best Wishes,
Eric.
Steve
nasr...@alif.org says...
>
> Which came first, the chicken of the egg? If I turned up at alt.buddha
> and claimed that Buddha was a short fat hairy guy, some might wonder
> where I was coming from.
Most likely they would tell you where to go.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G53246858
;-)
--
Peace,
Steve
Being present is so much, because everything here apparently needs us,
this fleeting world, which in some strange way keeps calling to us.
Us, the most fleeting of all.
--Rainer Maria Rilke
Eric Twose
<< What a guy. He has a quote for every contingency. :-) >>
Absolutely!
Not sure where I end and Shah begins or vercy visa,
nor as yet whether it's a boon or a bane or a bairn.
Best Wishes,
Eric.
Jeffrey P. George
news:250na0lo9tr2ll44t...@4ax.com...
>
> It matches a few paraphrases, but not all cakes are round. Or, like my
> Sufi master used to say, concentrate on the donut, not the hole;-)
Mmm donuts...
Fried Jack Morgan
Did it ever occur to you that the ways that this has been done with Dara
is appropriate for a Westerner and not for a Middle Easterner? Did you
ever try to do it in the appropriate fashion for someone of his culture?
My own experiences with Dara has been that any communication problems
are just as much my fault as anyone's, and that many of his responses to
me are the result of my failure to get my message across in a way that
he understands. Too often I have found that certain topics result in
him misunderstanding me, and I am at a loss as to how to get around it
without having to learn his native tongue.
>
>
>>He takes no pay for his efforts, he supports himself and website
>>completely by himself.
>
>
> I'm not going to get dragged into a mud slinging match here, sorry. I
> do admire what he doing and his sincerity in doing it.
>
>
>>As some Nasruddin stories concern cultural differences in speaking and
>>behavior, I would have at least expected you to have some awareness that
>>some of the things from Dara that irritate you are due entirely to a
>>person being transplanted from one culture to a completely different
>>one, and have nothing at all to do with what bothers you about him.
>
>
> Stop trying to find excuses SLP, sometimes there aren't any. Let Dara
> explain himself if he feels the need to do so. I'm sure that an
> Harvard educated man (if that is true about Harvard) is well versed in
> our primitive Western ways of communicating.
Whose finding excuse? Among my relatives I have had to negotiate
between different cultural and religious backgrounds (including
Armenians, for what that is worth). As a former correctional officer, I
dealt with people from Hispanic cultures, Native American cultures,
Middle Eastern cultures, South American cultures, and so on. Muslim,
Christian and Christian fundamentalist, Native American, Satanist, and
so on. And part of the job was to make certain everyone got along well
enough not to kill each other and the officers. And we had to have
training in how to deal with the cultural and religious differences.
After one has been in these multicultural environments for a while, it
starts becoming rather obvious when another person can't or won't take
into account cultural differences in dealing with a person from another
culture, especially when you have to stop officer back from committing
the cross-cultural blunder of assuming that person from another culture
will react like he does. These kind of goofs get people killed.
Including right inside the good old USA, as well as in other Western
countries.
In Dara's case it is quite apparent that he is not from a Western
culture, and it is also quite apparent that he has not fully assimilated
nor been fully assimilated into Western culture. Cultural differences
need to be taken into account. It is part of the sufi dictum of time,
place and PEOPLE.
>
>
>>And indeed, Idries Shah wrote more than once about the necessity of
>>taking into account cultural differences, something that you have failed
>>to do here.
>
>
> Which came first, the chicken of the egg? If I turned up at alt.buddha
> and claimed that Buddha was a short fat hairy guy, some might wonder
> where I was coming from.
>
>
>>As Dara is not a student of Idries Shah, nor a supporter,
>>it is not up to him to make you aware of this, but if you are a
>>supporter or student or follower of Idries Shah, it is YOUR
>>responsibility to do as Idries Shah instructed, is it not?
>
>
> I have never received an instruction from Idries Shah.
You do not have to have received an instruction from Idries Shah to
consider yourself a follower of his.
Many people consider themselves a student or follower or supporter of
this sheikh or that sheikh. Few ever ask the sheikhs or sheikhas whom
they consider their real students.
>
> Look SLP, we need to be clear on where Dara is coming from. Is there
> anything wrong with this? I would say that to date he has been quite
> rude towards the Shah camp, and implied many things about Octagon,
> ISQH and the rest. For many, this in itself is not a problem, but
> there are other issues relating to his undermining of Shah's material.
> This may or may not be a problem, but because Dara refuses to discuss
> why he feels the way he does, we cannot establish the plausibility of
> his analysis one way or the other.
Idries Shah's works are preparatory works. He himself says so in many
places. Do you think all Idries Shah's stories and comments about
ignorant people needing basic PREPARATORY instruction in this and that
were for some other culture than the West? Why then would he say that
this stuff is being brought to the West? Look at it like this, if the
West were ready for sufism, why would it need books about learning how
to learn and knowing how to know? If the West were ready for sufism, it
would already have learned how to learn and know how to know, and Idries
Shah would have written books about learning and knowing instead of
books that were preparation for learning and knowing.
This is a little difficult for some people to allow.
>
>
>>Or are you, as one person in another list many years ago described
>>himself, an armchair sufi?
>
>
> No, I'm kneeling.
Ah, seiza.
>
>
>>Scott aka fried jack morgan
>>
>>BTW, I believe that Dara posted that he had read one or two of Idries
>>Shah's books, thus fulfilling the adab that you wrote at the start of
>>your post. And he did so prior to your post.
>
>
> Must have missed that one. Could you please show me where it is?
Still searching through all the posts. I thought it was one in response
to Eric about two weeks ago, and that is a lot of posts to search
through. If I am wrong about this statement I will let you know.
>
> Ciao,
>
>
> Mirror, mirror in cyberspace,
> forgive my mutterings, they're my disgrace.
>
> Mirror, mirror what should I say,
> should I go or should I stay?
>
> Mirror, mirror what should I do,
> for you are I, and I am you.
>
If you are me, you are in worse shape than you realize.
A whois on "alif.org" comes back to Arab American Fund of Georgia. I am
wondering if perhaps part of the problem here is that Dara is not an
Arab? I remember Idries Shah writing about the Arab's pride, and I seem
to remember Dara once making a comment about Arabs, but I do not recall
any details.
Janice
er...@anchor92.freeserve.co.uk says...
Sounds like you have Idries Shah inside your head, with points and
counterpoints from that multitudinous array of quotations popping up at
every turn, much like Jay. It drives him kind of crazy sometimes. :-)
And now, ladies and gentlemen, for more of the big band stylings of the
Midi Orchestra ...
Fried Jack Morgan
<<snip>>
>
>
> It matches a few paraphrases, but not all cakes are round. Or, like my
> Sufi master used to say, concentrate on the donut, not the hole;-)
>
Interesting, as the sufi teacher is like the hole that allows the donut
to exist.
Martin Edwards
>
>I wonder if it would really make much difference in the way people react
>to Dara's opining if it turns out that he has read some of it? After
>all, Jay not only read all of it, but studied it intensely for many
>years, yet some people still reacted strongly against his differing
>opinions and the way he expressed them. Didn't Shah himself say
>something to the effect that when someone rushes to the defense of
>another, it may not be so much because the second person needs defending,
>as the first person has a need to defend?
This is going to sound vain, but Hell here goes anyway. What has put
a lot of people off is a function of his imperfect command of English.
His English is not bad, but you have all heard, say, well educated
French people suddenly use a word with slightly the wrong nuance.
French is a highly nuanced language like English, but this is not so
of all languages. The simpler a language's vocabulary, the more
likely speakers are to make howlers in English. I can filter out the
noise and appreciate his sincerity.
******Martin Edwards.******
Come on! Nobody's going to ride that lousy freeway
when they can take the Red Car for a nickel.
Eddy Valiant.
www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955/
Martin Edwards
Go on, play it for me............
Martin Edwards
He's a cop.
Martin Edwards
>For someone who posts in a sufi discussion list under the nom de guerre
>of "nasruddin", you are remarkably lacking in the insight and qualities
>of that esteemed sage and saint, PBUH; your poetry not withstanding.
>
You're right, his poetry is very notwithstanding.
Janice
nasr...@alif.org says...
>>Jumping to conclusions on the basis of minimal information is indeed
>>incautious. Still, this can be mitigated somewhat by the type of
>>judgement one makes. One could for instance not form a strong opinion
>>right away, but rather arrive at a tentative opinion, keeping in mind
>>that one may have insufficient information. "This idea doesn't seem
>>right to me, based on other things that I think I do know pretty well,
>>but since I admittedly don't know enough about the specifics in this case
>>I'll reserve final judgement for now." Wouldn't it be nice to see more
>>of that kind of opining?
>
>Or perhaps we could look up something like - Information and
>Experience in Learning How To Learn. I'm sure Jay will help you with
>that one.
There's still a copy of that book in the house, so I'll try to find the
passage.
>>I wonder if it would really make much difference in the way people react
>>to Dara's opining if it turns out that he has read some of it? After
>>all, Jay not only read all of it, but studied it intensely for many
>>years, yet some people still reacted strongly against his differing
>>opinions and the way he expressed them.
>
>NOw, now, let's not drag Jay into this. For example, one would have to
>ask what you mean by 'studied it intensely'.
Jay is already in it, because his experiences here inform my own thoughts
and actions when I am here.
By studying it intensely, I mean that he read it, re-read it,
periodically bought new copies of it to read, read other related or
recommended materials as apparently endorsed by ISHK, and wrote many
papers about it as instructed by the Society for Sufi Studies. He also
participated in various ventures on behalf of ISHK, such as representing
them to booksellers. Sufi studies could be said to have been the core of
his life for twenty years.
I am aware that the duration and intensity of his studies has no
necessary correlation with his ability to absorb the materials, as this
has already been discussed.
>Personally, I would welcome Dara's critique, be it positive or
>negative or neutral, had he read some of the books.
I myself read several of them back in the early 1990s, but I have no
critique to make, as I recall far too little about them now to say much
of anything about them that I'd consider worthwhile.
Jim Buck
> Idries Shah's works are preparatory works. He himself says so in many
> places. Do you think all Idries Shah's stories and comments about
> ignorant people needing basic PREPARATORY instruction in this and that
> were for some other culture than the West? Why then would he say that
> this stuff is being brought to the West? Look at it like this, if the
> West were ready for sufism, why would it need books about learning how
> to learn and knowing how to know? If the West were ready for sufism, it
> would already have learned how to learn and know how to know, and Idries
> Shah would have written books about learning and knowing instead of
> books that were preparation for learning and knowing.
>
> This is a little difficult for some people to allow.
Doris Lessing appears to have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick
then:
"That is what learning is. You suddenly understand something you've
understood all your life, but in a new way." - Doris Lessing
Jim Buck
> Your posts and manner are quite reminiscent of another instigator well
> known throughout history.
Ah, ah! I know who you mean:
http://www.fantomas-lives.com/
Regards
Jim Buck
Eric Twose
> >>BTW, I believe that Dara posted that he had read one or two of Idries
> >>Shah's books, thus fulfilling the adab that you wrote at the start of
> >>your post. And he did so prior to your post.
> >
> >
> > Must have missed that one. Could you please show me where it is?
Fried Jack Morgan wrote:
> Still searching through all the posts. I thought it was one in response
> to Eric about two weeks ago, and that is a lot of posts to search
> through. If I am wrong about this statement I will let you know.
Dear Nasruddin and Scott,
If he did say he'd read some Shah, I think it was probably a little porky
pie.
Hypothetically, reading at least one complete work by an author might
satisfy the requirements of Adab and allow the reader to comment on the work
. . . .
However, for practical purposes and in the particular case of Shah, I would
say that a fammiliarity with no one book would suffice, since the materials
comprising the curriculum are spread out across the whole corpus of books.
Every new book brings a whole new wave of fresh revelations and
counterpoints and yet more changes in one's outlook and posture.
From the list, in order to get a sufficient taste of Shah and have a serious
debate about his work, I'd say (from my own, personal, subjective experience
only), at a minimum a reader would have to digest:
The Sufis (and maybe The Way of the Sufi)
Learning How to Learn (and maybe Seeker After Truth or A Perfumed Scorpion)
Thinkers of the East and/or Tales of the Dervishes
(Maybe Caravan of Dreams or The Magic Monastery)
The first and/or second of the four works on Nasrudin
The Commanding Self
(Maybe Knowing How to Know)
Best Wishes,
Eric.
Eric Twose
Janice
says...
>>And now, ladies and gentlemen, for more of the big band stylings of the
>>Midi Orchestra ...
>>
>>http://snipurl.com/6j52
>
>Go on, play it for me............
This one's for you, Martin:
No particular reason; I just like it. :-)
Janice
says...
>This is going to sound vain, but Hell here goes anyway. What has put
>a lot of people off is a function of his imperfect command of English.
>His English is not bad, but you have all heard, say, well educated
>French people suddenly use a word with slightly the wrong nuance.
>French is a highly nuanced language like English, but this is not so
>of all languages. The simpler a language's vocabulary, the more
>likely speakers are to make howlers in English. I can filter out the
>noise and appreciate his sincerity.
I like his sense of humor. :-)
Obo Vajrin
The Sufis (and maybe The Way of the Sufi)
Learning How to Learn (and maybe Seeker After Truth or A Perfumed Scorpion)
Thinkers of the East and/or Tales of the Dervishes
(Maybe Caravan of Dreams or The Magic Monastery)
The first and/or second of the four works on Nasrudin
The Commanding Self
(Maybe Knowing How to Know)
>>
Interesting (desert Island Shah list).
Different folks have different needs (obviously), we all lack "stuff" to
ballance our lives. The teaching should make available material to catalize
that "stuff".
Myself, I imagine a rather elegant understanding of the corpus could be
gathered from a life time of reading:
"The Book of the Book"
"They could not imagine a book which could DO something, only a book which SAID
something."
Share the Care, obo
Fried Jack Morgan
No, she has it right. Most people have no clue just how much they
really understand. Nor do they have any clue just how much they fight
against this understanding they have within them. With some you can
find this out by putting them in a light trance state and asking the
right questions, and with a few you can start the process to a certain
degree this way. You have to move the "person" to the side, to get
themselves out of their own way, so to speak, in order for this to
begin. It still takes time and effort on their part, but not in the way
people think that it does.
People think that the "learning" in "learning how to learn" is the same
as the "learn" in "learning how to learn", only just more so, when in
reality they refer to two completely different levels and ways of
learning that do not necessarily have much in common with each other,
except that one cannot occur until the first has "cleaned house", so to
speak. The same is true of "knowing how to know".
Steve
"Fried Jack Morgan" <friedja...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:PCNqc.153$0_.4...@news.uswest.net...
> A whois on "alif.org" comes back to Arab American Fund of Georgia. I
am
> wondering if perhaps part of the problem here is that Dara is not an
> Arab? I remember Idries Shah writing about the Arab's pride, and I
seem
> to remember Dara once making a comment about Arabs, but I do not recall
> any details.
>
My impression is that Dara is Persian and that his attitude towards
Arabs, Sufism and the flowering of Islamic culture is very similar to the
Persian dentist from whom I rent my clinic space. Dara's just a little
more upfront about it. But that would be partly to do with the context in
which he finds himself.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.676 / Virus Database: 438 - Release Date: 5/4/04
Meryem
Hello, Eric
This note turned out to be quite different than when I started writing
it. Not everything is addressed to you. No offense intended, just my
usual observations and fundamental question.
Eric Twose wrote:
> .... And by that time, the Sufis have you: hook, line and sinker ....
Not quite. Shah is not the end of the road for everyone who crosses his
threshold, not even for all westerners, no matter how many of his books
one might "digest" with sincerity, persistence, and intelligence. His
work, or part of it - not quite digested - is the end of the beginning
for some, maybe many. Jim Buck suggested (as I understood it) that once
you get passed the myriad interacting internal structures of the material
(and presumably exercises), you get to the reality of Shah's teaching.
Getting there may be a very exhilerating and ultimately satisfying
achievement. Certainly it must be an expansion on one's own learned
intellectual habits, and quite comfortably secular for people who prefer
to innure themselves to the implications of being human among billions of
humans whom they don't like (for various reasons that seem to amount to
their not having been "raised up" in their values and mores beyond the
simplicity of faith, which for most people, defines and fulfills life,
Azo's and Obo's childhood experiences notwithstanding).
There's something wrong if alt.sufi is all we have to go by as evidence
of results achieved from studying Shah in the personal development
dimension. (I know Shah's trust is doing work in the world.)
The prejudice on this list among SOME supporters of Shah is appalling
coming from "sufis", especially among a few (or less) who have
established themselves as list elders. I am not referring to irritation
and frustration with me or other faith-driven individuals who are
staking a claim as interested parties (to sufism) to participate in an
open list called "alt.sufi" and asking challenging questions. The
prejudice I see against Islam and Muslims is informed from very limited
sources and experiences. This prejudice is not intelligent, any more than
would it would be for me if I commented on Shah's teachings (which I have
not), not having "digested" his material (although I read all those
books, some more than once). The prejudice is based on hearsay, media,
and some kind of collective cultural / societal belief system that
certain people cannot get passed - even after up to nearly 40 years of
"digesting" Shah. Sufis should be above and beyond rage and hatred and
pompousness. Shouldn't they? What sincere good-hearted person can be
satisfied with a system that, based on the evidence of this list, fosters
and accommodates hatred and elitism toward the great swathes of the human
race? Islam/Muslims is the subject and target today. What are these
prejuduced "sufis" going to do when the economic impact of India and
China make more inroads to the western lifestyle, and subsequent
political / military power shifts threaten western security? These
countries have managed somehow to avoid the internal destruction brought
on by western interference, unlike Africa, the Middle East, and South
America. I would suspect, based on the personal discomfort of certain
list members with non-homogenized people, that Muslims who want to be
content with the provision of Allah are going to become less the bad
guys, maybe left in peace, and that the emerging races of the Far East
who will come into their own, under full-bore capitalism, will become the
new enemy. These inevitable dynamics that pit human against human should
be transparent to sufis. Shouldn't they? People of tasawwuf have
persisted with love through centuries of this human stuff - Muslim sufis,
traversing cultural and temporal boundaries to protect and pass to
succeeding generations the secret of the individual's place in creation
and his relationship with his Creator. Shah brought some of it to the
West. But can you get to the station of being fully human with Shah and
only Shah? I think you will tell me [probably] (Obo already has, in a
way) that understanding one's place in creation is not what you were
looking for in Shah's system, and it is not what he was aiming for in his
teaching. So, what do you do: follow his system and die? In middle age,
is there no crack in your certainty that everything is in Shah's system,
and only in Shah's system?
Look, I realize I changed the subject. I am on my soap box responding to
the complacency I inferred from your (Eric's) particular post. I am not
saying that all (or even most or many) Shah supporters are prejudiced or
intellectually limited and dishonest, or that the system does not provide
value for the human race (and maybe even the individual) once the
initiate is fully trained. Maybe you all know who is who in the IS
hierarchy (so to speak - not literal, please) on this list, and you
understand the Shah language and paradigms. Perhaps you are speaking in a
secret code to each other and there is a mind meld going on among the
group that outsiders are not privy to, and the world is getting better
(?) for Shah having developed a system for westerners. If there are
secrets that you are not allowed to speak, projects not quite completed,
and hidden Shah sufis influencing world events for the better (?) or even
preparing the next phase in human development (?), that's all between you
and your sheykh I guess. Not my business. Inshallah, the soup will be
ready soon so we can all appreciate the effort. But for now, FROM HERE,
the view of IS sufis is not a pretty picture, and I cannot see why anyone
would want to be "had, hook, line and sinker".
I don't want to write anymore. This whole experience has been a
mis-en-adyme.
Allaha emanet olunuz,
Meryem
Fried Jack Morgan
<<snip>>
>
> Must have missed that one. Could you please show me where it is?
My careless reading. I wrote to Dara, and he told me that he had read
sections of "The Way of the Sufi" and "The Exploits of the Incomparable
Mulla Nasrudin", plus excerpts of Idries Shah from other sources.
I apologize for the misleading assumption and careless reading on my part.
Fried Jack Morgan
So how is that different from your standard New Yorker? Assuming that
you have met a number of people from New York. Or for that matter, from
what I have heard from Americans that have visited Israel, how is that
different from many Israelis?
Steve
> > My impression is that Dara is Persian and that his attitude towards
> > Arabs, Sufism and the flowering of Islamic culture is very similar to
the
> > Persian dentist from whom I rent my clinic space. Dara's just a
little
> > more upfront about it. But that would be partly to do with the
context in
> > which he finds himself.
> >
> >
>
> you have met a number of people from New York. Or for that matter,
from
> what I have heard from Americans that have visited Israel, how is that
> different from many Israelis?
I haven't met anyone from those two groups in the flesh so I'd be hard
pressed to give a response. Well, I suppose I might have but not realised
it. What's the normal attitude in New York or Israel from your
perspective?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.676 / Virus Database: 438 - Release Date: 5/3/04
GV
> Jim Buck wrote:
> > Fried Jack Morgan wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Idries Shah's works are preparatory works. He himself says so in many
> >>places. Do you think all Idries Shah's stories and comments about
> >>ignorant people needing basic PREPARATORY instruction in this and that
> >>were for some other culture than the West? Why then would he say that
> >>this stuff is being brought to the West? Look at it like this, if the
> >>West were ready for sufism, why would it need books about learning how
> >>to learn and knowing how to know? If the West were ready for sufism, it
> >>would already have learned how to learn and know how to know, and Idries
> >>Shah would have written books about learning and knowing instead of
> >>books that were preparation for learning and knowing.
A few thoughts here. Shah's works are generally informative or
preparatory to many readers. However, they also function as something
else for others, or to some readers "later on." (See, for example,
Graves's intro to "The Sufis" as to who the intended audience is
supposed to be. "Natural sufis" it says somewhere in there.) The books
function on whatever level the reader is.
As for anyone being "ready for sufism", generally that is not the
case with the average person in any culture. We're all fairly
uniformly "diminished." Of course, there are people born with extended
abilities which others would find very alien. (Flashing on Peter's
post on another thread.) But these people are probably a small
segment of the population, esp. those who haven't had their endowments
stifled over the years.
Up until recent times, Sufism (and perhaps any other subjects)
previously were disseminated on a small scale. Developments in the
West (media-- radio, TV, movies, then the web) created very different
conditions there just in terms of distribution of information for some
years. In turn, these have changed/are changing the rest of the world
(even faster) which some see as being "westernized", many with alarm
due to the speed of this. (See A.Toffler)
The sufi projection always adapts to current conditions. 50 years
ago, Gurdjieff's books were barely printed and very sparsely
distributed. 25 years ago it wasn't so easy to find anyone who'd read
anything on sufism or Shah, depending on one's location. I wouldn't
have been able to imagine in 1985 that I could connect at any hour to
people around the globe about any of the subjects on this list. It is
the status quo now, but I'm still awed. How many people in urban life
today could manage through schedules, traffic and such to even attend
some more traditional weekly "sufi circle"?
However, to return to the idea of the West "learning", it sounds
like certain "other conditions" had to be established in the West
before full mobilization of a new phase of the Work could take hold.
I can only surmise that this involved technicalities on some other
level. To wit, the mention in some books of certain objects being
"unconsecrated" or Central Asian powerhouses being shifted in response
to "new projections in the West." Almost like a grid was being
re-designed. The Sufi community may have always been "the original
world wide web" as someone once put it. But perhaps the overall
possibility for people to learn or be brought onto the wavelength has
been increased. Like digital phone service or superWiFi?
> >
> >
>
> No, she (Lessing) has it right. Most people have no clue just how much they
> really understand. Nor do they have any clue just how much they fight
> against this understanding they have within them.
I agree. People do not realize how close they were as children, for
instance, when they perhaps took fairy tales literally, to a certain
kind of understanding.
>You have to move the "person" to the side, to get
> themselves out of their own way, so to speak, in order for this to
> begin. It still takes time and effort on their part, but not in the way
> people think that it does.
Perhaps the commanding self. It only has to be subdued to a certain
point to allow something else to operate.
>
> People think that the "learning" in "learning how to learn" is the same
> as the "learn" in "learning how to learn", only just more so, when in
> reality they refer to two completely different levels and ways of
> learning that do not necessarily have much in common with each other,
> except that one cannot occur until the first has "cleaned house", so to
> speak. The same is true of "knowing how to know".
Agreed and well put.
Regards,
g.
Jim Buck
>Jim Buck suggested (as I understood it) that once
> you get passed the myriad interacting internal structures of the material
> (and presumably exercises), you get to the reality of Shah's teaching.
> Getting there may be a very exhilerating and ultimately satisfying
> achievement. Certainly it must be an expansion on one's own learned
> intellectual habits,
That would be like Theseus pulling Ariadne into the Labyrinth__rather than
using her thread to find the way out.
> The prejudice on this list among SOME supporters of Shah is appalling
> coming from "sufis", especially among a few (or less) who have
> established themselves as list elders. I am not referring to irritation
> and frustration with me or other faith-driven individuals who are
> staking a claim as interested parties (to sufism) to participate in an
> open list called "alt.sufi" and asking challenging questions. The
> prejudice I see against Islam and Muslims is informed from very limited
> sources and experiences.
I went to a stag party last Saturday. A good friend of mine (a jew) is
remarrying (his first wife ran off with another woman). After excellent
beer at the Hillsborough Hotel, we finished up at the Kashmir on Spital
Hill: Basharaf the owner togged up like an iman; modern art on the wall;
elgar on the muzak; and excellent food.
Regards
Jim Buck