Untiredwithloving.org is back online
Dara
--DARA
Eric Twose
>
> --DARA
Hi Dara,
I sent this as a private e-mail, then decided to give up downloading my
e-mails whilst in Scarborough, though I can synchronize the newsgroup, so
apologies for repeating this here:
Thanks for the Shabistari. I've read the Octagon edition based on the Agha
Khan version. It would make ann interesting scientific experiment to compare
the two side by side.
One thing, perhaps you could explain. You use the technical term "noesis" a
few times. Is this the same as the word frequently used in the West:
"gnosis"?
noesis no苟┬is,
noun the activity of the intellect; purely intellectual apprehension or
perception (philosophy).
[Greek noesis, from noeein to perceive or think]
gnosis no┬is,
noun knowledge, especially spiritual:
[Greek gnosis knowledge, adjective gnostikos, from gignoskein to know]
This ties in with the three kinds of knowledge, which you're most likely
aware of:
It's said that there are three kinds of knowledge. The first is intellectual
information, ideas, opinions and regurgitating 'facts' about (say) an
orange; the second is emotional experience, like the feel or aroma of an
orange; the last - actually eating, digesting and assimilating the fruit. He
who tastes, knows.
Put another way, the first is like the idea of being a blacksmith; the
second that of observing a blacksmith in action; the third - that of
actually practising the art of blacksmithing. This is the stage of
Attainment and infallible in-tuition where one can perceive what is right,
what is true, beyond the boundaries of thought and sense.
Best Wishes,
Eric.
Dara
My Dad is expiring in the hospital and I have no internet access... I
will respond in ASAP.
The questions are very very good and I like this form of dicussions.
--DARA
Eric Twose
I forgot to mention that "infallible intuition" as Shah has described it, is
another way of saying Certitude or "doubtless certainty" as you put it.
Best Wishes,
Eric.
Eric Twose
Dear Dara,
My good wishes and prayers to your father, you and your family.
Eric.
Dara
I will chech the Shah's term and we can add his/others' terms to Sufi
Solfege, since the effort must reflect the English reader's a priori
understanding.
Talk to you in a bit INSHALLAH
--DARA
Dara
> Thanks for the Shabistari. I've read the Octagon edition based on the Agha
> Khan version. It would make ann interesting scientific experiment to compare
> the two side by side.
You are not talking about the Golshan that is another book. The one I
am translating is the TRAINING manual for Golshan. He wrote one book
as the poems for artistic pupose and the other as the
training/teaching material.
>
> One thing, perhaps you could explain. You use the technical term "noesis" a
> few times. Is this the same as the word frequently used in the West:
> "gnosis"?
>
> noesis no苟┬is,
> noun the activity of the intellect; purely intellectual apprehension or
> perception (philosophy).
> [Greek noesis, from noeein to perceive or think]
>
> gnosis no┬is,
> noun knowledge, especially spiritual:
> [Greek gnosis knowledge, adjective gnostikos, from gignoskein to know]
I use the obsecure words like Noesis when it comes to Divine terms.
Because Cognition is overly used for humans and machines in many
fields, but Noesis is a word I have rarely seen used (I am in US
so....)
Ma'refat is a SPECIALIZED, PERSONALIZZED form of knowledge per
individual person. In Arabic the word 'Aref (specialized sholar)
discresns itself from 'Alem (general scholar).
So I stole the idea from Martin. Looking for LATIN ROOTS of rarely
used words to apply for Ma'reft and so forth.
For 'Aref I stole from Italian adaptation Cognoscenti in order to make
a VALID but yet rarely used words to describe Sufi terms.
Now it could very well be that these are not good uses, you as the
primary readers can help me to choose better words. It should be as
was in both Arabic & Farsi Sufism, A COMMUNITY PROCESS for their
language.
>
> This ties in with the three kinds of knowledge, which you're most likely
> aware of:
>
> It's said that there are three kinds of knowledge. The first is intellectual
> information, ideas, opinions and regurgitating 'facts' about (say) an
> orange; the second is emotional experience, like the feel or aroma of an
> orange; the last - actually eating, digesting and assimilating the fruit. He
> who tastes, knows.
You are really bright. I came across such definitions however much
much more detailed for different kinds of KNOWLEDGE. Problem is my
dictionaries are not powerful enough I have to order larger
dictionaries of both Farsi & Arabic translate the many terms used. For
example for Nafs (Psyche) there are 4 types, included in a chapter of
Daffodil of Lovers shortly INSHALLAH.
But you touched upon a great point here. We MUST & MUST again focus on
a good vocabulary to tie-in English+Western Philosohpy+Farsi+Arabic.
If we are not serious about this up front effort, much ambguity will
be produced subject to infinite personal interpretations. When I read
the Farsi text I am amazed at the precision of the expression!!!!
Colloqial Farsi sucks with ambiguities since we no longer teach in
Iran the meaning of certain words. Most people in Iran do not use the
term Nafs to them it means ME.
Eric these are good topics I love to continue talking about.
--DARA
Dara
>
> I sent this as a private e-mail, then decided to give up downloading my
> e-mails whilst in Scarborough, though I can synchronize the newsgroup, so
> apologies for repeating this here:
I reside in Scarborough Ontario :)
> noesis no苟┬is,
> noun the activity of the intellect; purely intellectual apprehension or
> perception (philosophy).
> [Greek noesis, from noeein to perceive or think]
>
> gnosis no┬is,
> noun knowledge, especially spiritual:
> [Greek gnosis knowledge, adjective gnostikos, from gignoskein to know]
Eric I use:
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/
for my definitions because the words are mapped to ancient English
text and both the French and Latin versions are provided.
If you come across useful words I can see where they fit and use them.
Problem for me is tha fact that I am pushing the boundaries of English
literature around this place ;)
--DARA
Eric Twose
news:62f348c3.04041...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Thanks for the Shabistari. I've read the Octagon edition based on the
Agha
> > Khan version. It would make ann interesting scientific experiment to
compare
> > the two side by side.
>
> You are not talking about the Golshan that is another book. The one I
> am translating is the TRAINING manual for Golshan. He wrote one book
> as the poems for artistic pupose and the other as the
> training/teaching material.
Hi Dara,
Sorry for my confusion. I was talking about "The Secret Garden". I assumed
incorrectly that "Golshan" might be translated as "Secret Garden."
Best Wishes,
Eric.
Dara
> Sorry for my confusion. I was talking about "The Secret Garden". I assumed
> incorrectly that "Golshan" might be translated as "Secret Garden."
>
Peace Eric
THe name is GOLSHAN RAAZ with GOLSHAN=flower garden & Raaz=Secret. I
believe correct translation is THE GARDEN OF SECRETS but I could be
wrong.
Nonetheless, according to my manuscript by Dr. Ashrafzadeh Haqqol
Yagin is the idealogical explanation of the Golshan or vice-a-versa
Golshan is the poetic explanation of the latter.
His other books are:
Sa'adaat Nameh of the Book of Bliss
Maraa Atol Mahaqqeqin Looking Glass of Researchers
Izhaar Golshan, Blooming Gardens
Jaam Jahan Namaa, Goblet of the Universe
Resalih Aahadiat, The Divine Oneness Manifest
Sharhe wa Tafsir Asmaa-Ollah, The explanation & exgesis of the Divine
Names
--DARA
Fried Jack Morgan
Wouldn't goblet be another way to say horn or trumpet shape as in what
Teresa posted from ibn-Arabi and the shape of the universe?
Eric Twose
> I came across such definitions however much
> much more detailed for different kinds of KNOWLEDGE. Problem is my
> dictionaries are not powerful enough I have to order larger
> dictionaries of both Farsi & Arabic translate the many terms used. For
> example for Nafs (Psyche) there are 4 types, included in a chapter of
> Daffodil of Lovers shortly INSHALLAH.
Hi Dara,
This is what Shah has to say in one of the annotations
at the back of "The Sufis", regarding the Nafs:
<<
Seven Men
------ ----
Sufi development requires the Seeker to pass through seven stages of
preparation, before the individuality is ready for its full function. These
stages, sometimes called "men", are degrees in the transmutation of the
consciousness, the technical term for which is *nafs*, breath. Briefly, the
stages of development, each making possible a further enrichment of the
being under the guidance of a practiced teacher, are:
1. Nafs-i-ammara (the depraved, commanding nafs)
2. Nafs-i-lawwama (the accusing nafs, [conscience])
3. Nafs-i-mulhama (the inspired nafs)
4. Nafs-i-mutmainna (the serene nafs)
5. Nafs-i-radiyya (the fulfilled nafs)
6. Nafs-i-mardiyya (the fulfilling nafs)
7. Nafs-i-safiyya wa kamila (the purified and complete nafs).
The nafs is considered to pass through processes which are termed "death and
rebirth" [see annotation Death and Rebirth]. The first process, the White
Death marks the initiation of the disciple, when he starts to reconstruct
the automatic and emotional nafs, so that it will in turn provide an
instrument for proceeding to the activation of the conscience, the second
nafs. The adjectives "serene, fulfilling" and so on, refer to the effect
upon the individual, as well as upon the group and society in general,
functions most marked at each stage.
Significant phenomena of the seven stages observed during Sufi exercises
include these:
1. The individual out of personal control, believes himself to be a coherent
personality, starts to learn that he, like all undeveloped individuals, has
a multiple and changing personality.
2. The dawn of self-awareness and "accusation", in which automatic thoughts
are seen for what they are.
3. The beginning of real mental integration, when the mind is becoming
capable of operating on a higher level than was its previous futile custom.
4. Serene balance, equilibrium of the personality.
5. Power of fulfillment, new ranges of experience not susceptible to
description beyond approximate analogy.
6. A new activity and function, including extra dimensions of the
individuality.
7. Completion of the task of reconstruction, possibility of teaching others,
capacity for objective understanding.
>>
Best Wishes,
Eric.
Dara
> Wouldn't goblet be another way to say horn or trumpet shape as in what
> Teresa posted from ibn-Arabi and the shape of the universe?
Could be. The word is Jaam-a Jam, it is supposed to be a container
with liquid within which if you looked you would see the secrets of
universe. I am not sure about the exact details of its shape and etc.
INSHALLAH find out because Sufis used it all over the place
--DARA
Dara
> Wouldn't goblet be another way to say horn or trumpet shape as in what
> Teresa posted from ibn-Arabi and the shape of the universe?
I did some checking for Jaam-a Jahan Namaa or Jaam-a Jam is a large
piece of crystal like the crystal ball of the magicians in the west.
Most proabably they took the concept from mid east since the magicians
used to wear torben to look into it.
Jaam by itself is a wine goblet either made from Bronze or crystal.
--DARA
Fried Jack Morgan
Dear Eric,
My understanding is that "nafs" (or naf or however) is sometimes
translated as soul, and then it is said that the human being has two
souls, its animal soul or animal naf, and its human one.
This awareness of the animal aspect of the human being is avoided in the
West outside of certain scientific circles, yet it can be critical for
understanding certain sufi writings. As well as oneself and humanity in
general.
Most people in the West have no clue about animals anymore because they
are not raised in contact with them any more. What they usually think
of as pertaining to animal behavior with respect to human beings is
quite ignorant.
Fried Jack Morgan
I believe the Light Verse of the Quran as translated by some refers to a
crystal. Others use the word "glass" when translating it.
Martin Edwards
Freud's ideas on the id seem to be related.
******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/
Dara
Do you have a reference in his work? I like to read about this link thanx
--DARA
Dara
> My understanding is that "nafs" (or naf or however) is sometimes
> translated as soul, and then it is said that the human being has two
> souls, its animal soul or animal naf, and its human one.
Excellent a nice way of thinking.
All over the Sufi manuscripts I found a word called QALIB which means
Matrix or Mold. Somehow the Divine Attributes are poured into these
SPECIALIZED & PERSONALIZED molds to form out heart, souls, nafs, mind
and Serr (Divine Observatory).
I just found an allegory for Qalib in Forty Sessions INSHALLAH add
shortly.
--DARA
Dara
> 2. Nafs-i-lawwama (the accusing nafs, [conscience])
> 3. Nafs-i-mulhama (the inspired nafs)
> 4. Nafs-i-mutmainna (the serene nafs)
> 5. Nafs-i-radiyya (the fulfilled nafs)
> 6. Nafs-i-mardiyya (the fulfilling nafs)
> 7. Nafs-i-safiyya wa kamila (the purified and complete nafs).
Salaam Eric:
Lets see where these came from :)
1. Ammara:
"Nor do I absolve my own self (of blame): the (human) soul (Nafs) is
certainly prone (Ammara) to evil, unless my Lord do bestow His Mercy:
but surely my Lord is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful." Koran [12:53].
(this was said by Prophet Joseph Peace Be Upon Him after he was found
not guilty of rape charges).
2. Lawwama:
And I do call to witness the self-reproaching (lawwama) spirit(Nafs) :
(Eschew Evil). Koran ([75:2]).
3. Mulhama (?)
4. Mutmaninna:
(To the righteous soul will be said:) "O (thou) soul (Nafs), in
(complete) rest and satisfaction (Mutmainna)! (Koran [89:27])
4. Radiyya & Mardiyaa:
"Come back thou to thy Lord,- well pleased (thyself)(Radiyaa), and
well-pleasing (Mardiyaa) unto Him! Koran[89:28].
5. Safiyaa & Kamila (?)
I am sure the other definitions I could not find in Koran are given in
Hadith or Narrations of the Prophet. I hope this serves as an example
that many of IS writings are extracts from FOSSILS except he did not
include the references.
More on Nafs and 'Aql (Intellect & Sentience) soon INSHALLAH
-DARA
Dara
> >
> > --DARA
>
> I believe the Light Verse of the Quran as translated by some refers to a
> crystal. Others use the word "glass" when translating it.
The Koranic [24:35]:
Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His
Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp
enclosed in Glass (ZOJAAJ)
ZOJAAJ is arabic for crystal or glass i.e. PELLUCID allowing the light
passing through yet serving as a barrier as well i.e. we can not
traverse the light back to the source.
JAAM which is either the crystal goblet or crystal ball is a persian
word perhaps a concept from the pagan literature of ancient Persia
prior to the advent of Islam. It is used in Sufi poesm as to see the
reality through the crystal ball or foretell the future. I do not know
how these two are linked together.
Scott: a friend of mine a Bostonian government official convereted to
Islam by simply reading the Ligh verse above. He understood that
whomever versed it was Divine and not some Arab of 7th century in a
tent.
--DARA
Eric Twose
news:62f348c3.04042...@posting.google.com...
> > 1. Nafs-i-ammara (the depraved, commanding nafs)
> > 2. Nafs-i-lawwama (the accusing nafs, [conscience])
> > 3. Nafs-i-mulhama (the inspired nafs)
> > 4. Nafs-i-mutmainna (the serene nafs)
> > 5. Nafs-i-radiyya (the fulfilled nafs)
> > 6. Nafs-i-mardiyya (the fulfilling nafs)
> > 7. Nafs-i-safiyya wa kamila (the purified and complete nafs).
>
> Salaam Eric:
>
> Lets see where these came from :)
>
> 1. Ammara:
> "Nor do I absolve my own self (of blame): the (human) soul (Nafs) is
> certainly prone (Ammara) to evil, unless my Lord do bestow His Mercy:
> but surely my Lord is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful." Koran [12:53].
> (this was said by Prophet Joseph Peace Be Upon Him after he was found
> not guilty of rape charges).
>
> 2. Lawwama:
> And I do call to witness the self-reproaching (lawwama) spirit(Nafs) :
> (Eschew Evil). Koran ([75:2]).
>
> 3. Mulhama (?)
Dear Dara,
http://suficenter.org/Teachings/thenafsanditsstations.html
suggests [91:7-8] but haven't yet been able to trace
who formulated the system of the seven nafs.
Best Wishes,
Eric.
GV
>
> I am sure the other definitions I could not find in Koran are given in
> Hadith or Narrations of the Prophet. I hope this serves as an example
> that many of IS writings are extracts from FOSSILS except he did not
> include the references.
>
Koran. And that Islam is/was the last terrestrial projection of "the
perennial faith."
As for references, there are enough. For academics, of course,
there are never enough.
GV
Eric Twose
> > I am sure the other definitions I could not find in Koran are given in
> > Hadith or Narrations of the Prophet. I hope this serves as an example
> > that many of IS writings are extracts from FOSSILS except he did not
> > include the references.
GV replied:
> But not to forget that the Way and its phases existed before the
> Koran. And that Islam is/was the last terrestrial projection of "the
> perennial faith."
> As for references, there are enough. For academics, of course,
> there are never enough.
>
> GV
Hi GV and Dara,
It's all a bit dry and academic, of course, but here are some references to
back up your statement
that Shah provides sufficient references for his purposes and sufficient for
the needs of his students:
[1] "All religion, as theologians -- and their opponents -- understand the
word, is something other than what it is assumed to be.
Religion is a vehicle. Its expressions, rituals, moral and other teachings
are designed to cause certain elevating effects, at a certain time, upon
certain communities [right time, right place, right people: zaman, makan,
ikhwan].
Because of the difficulty of maintaining the [prior] science of man,
religion was [later] instituted as a means of approaching truth. The means
became, for the shallow, the end, and the vehicle became the idol.
Only the man [or woman] of wisdom, not the man of faith or intellect, can
cause the vehicle to move again."
--- Alauddin Attar, in "Group Recitals", Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi,
pub: Penguin, p261.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[2] "Question 2: Is Sufism the interior meaning of Islam, or does it have
wider application?
Answer: Sufism is the knowledge whereby man can realize himself and attain
permanency. Sufis can teach in any vehicle, whatever its name. Religious
vehicles have throughout history taken various names."
--- "Deeper Understanding", Rais Tchaqmaqzade, a contemporary Bokharan Sufi,
in The Way of the Sufi, pub: Penguin, p312.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[3] "Sufism is taught, not by tedious methods of 'A to Z' textbooks or
teachings, but by the interplay of the minds of the teacher and the taught.
Eventually, when the relationship is well enough established, the Sufi
continues on his own, and becomes a 'Perfected Person'."
--- Insan-i-Kamil, in "Letters and Lectures", Idries Shah, The Way of the
Sufi, pub: Penguin, p295.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[4] "Sufism is not preached, and is even taught in some cases by example and
guidance which may be unknown to the learner's ordinary faculties."
--- Zalim Abdurrahman, in "Letters and Lectures", Idries Shah, The Way of
the Sufi, Penguin, p295.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[5] "What I have learned as a Sufi is something that man cannot credit
because of what he has already been taught. The easiest thing to grasp in
Sufism is one of the most difficult for the ordinary thinker. It is that:
All religious presentations are varieties of one truth, more or less
distorted. This truth manifests itself in various peoples, who become
jealous of it, not realizing that its manifestation accords with their
needs. It cannot be passed on in the same form because of the difference in
the minds of different communities. It cannot be reinterpretated, because it
must grow afresh.
It is presented afresh only by those who can actually experience it in every
form, religious and otherwise, of man.
This experience is quite different from what people take it to be. The
person who simply thinks that this must be true as a matter of logic is not
the same as the person who experiences that it is true."
--- Khwaja Salahudin of Bokhara, in "Letters and Lectures", Idries Shah, The
Way of the Sufi, Penguin, p287.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[6] "Do not expect the way in which they bring their teaching to be wholly
within your ordinary way of understanding. A pearl may be carried in a
leather purse. The ignorant cry out: 'This square object with a flap does
not look like the necklace which has been described to me.'"
--- Arif Yahya, in "Group Recitals", Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi,
Penguin, p263.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[7] "Asked why a certain Sufi sheikh did not appear to the outward to follow
a religiously devout life, Nizamuddin Awliya said: 'Kings bury their
treasure in one of two places. The first, and obvious one, is in the
strong-room, which can be burgled, emptied and usurped. The other, more
enduring one, is in the earth, in a ruin where nobody would think of looking
for it.'"
--- "Group Recitals", Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi, Penguin, p263.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[8] "The Sufic understanding of culture is not that which is understood by
the ordinary man, who limits the meaning.
Sheikh Abu Masr Sarraj speaks of these three forms of culture:
Worldly culture, which is merely acquiring information, opinions and
learning of a conventionalized kind;
Religious culture, which is repetitious, following rules and discipline,
behaving in an ethically acceptable way;
Sufi culture, which is self-development, realizing what is relevant,
concentration and contemplation, cultivation of inner experience, following
the path of Search and Nearness."
--- "Group Recitals", Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi, Penguin, p262.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[9] "Sufism is truth without form."
--- Ibn El-Jalali, "Solitary Contemplation Themes", Idries Shah, The Way of
the Sufi, Penguin, p242.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[10] "To those who seek truth in *conventionalized* religion: [my emphasis]:
Until college and minaret have crumbled
This holy work of ours will not be done.
Until faith becomes rejection
And rejection becomes belief
There will be no true believer."
--- Abu Said, "Solitary Contemplation Themes", Idries Shah, The Way of the
Sufi, Penguin, p239.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[11] "Halls and theological colleges and learned lectures, circles and
cloisters -
What use are they when there is no knowledge and there is no eye to see?"
--- Hafiz, "Among the Masters", Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi, Penguin,
p211.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[12] "Everyone in the ordinary world is asleep. Their religion -- the
religion of the familiar world -- is emptiness, not religion at all."
--- Sanai, Hadiqa, "Among the Masters", Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi,
Penguin, p208.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[13] "When he [Hasan of Basra] was asked: 'What is Islam, and who are the
Muslims?' he answered:
'Islam is in the books, and Muslims are in the tomb.'"
--- "Among the Masters", Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi, Penguin, p178.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[14] "Throughout the dervish literature you will find us saying repeatedly
that we are not concerned with your religion or even with the lack of it.
How can this be reconciled with the fact that believers consider themselves
the elect?
"Humankind's refinement is the goal, and the inner teaching of all the
faiths aims at this. In order to accomplish it, there is always a tradition
handed down by a living chain of adepts, who select candidates to whom to
impart this knowledge.
"Among women and men of all kinds this teaching has been handed down.
Because of our dedication to the essence, we have, in the Dervish Path,
collected those people who are less concerned about externals, and thus kept
pure, in secret, our capacity to continue the succession. In the dogmatic
religions of the Jews, the Christians, the Zoroastrians, the Hindus and
literalist Islam, this precious thing has been lost.
"We return this vital principle to all these religions and this is why you
will see so many Jews, Christians and others among my followers. The Jews
say that we are the real Jews, the Christians, Christians.
"It is only when you know the Higher Factor that you will know the true
situation of the present religions and of unbelief itself. And unbelief is a
religion with its own form of belief."
--- Ahmad Yasavi, "The Naqshbandi Order", Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi,
Penguin, p171.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[15] "You may follow one stream. Realize that it leads to the Ocean. Do not
mistake the stream for the Ocean."
--- Jan-Fishan Khan, "The Naqshbandi Order", Idries Shah, The Way of the
Sufi, Penguin, p167.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[16] "Do not talk of the Four Ways or of the Seventy-two Paths, or of the
'Paths as numerous as the souls of Men'. Talk instead of the Path and the
attaining. All is subordinated to that."
--- Sirhindi, "The Naqshbandi Order", Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi,
Penguin, p166
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[17] "When you see a Sufi studying or teaching something which seems to
belong to a field other than spirituality you should know that *there* is
the spirituality of the age."
--- Zahid, "The Naqshbandi Order", Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi,
Penguin, p165.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[18] "If you still ask: 'Why did such-and-such a person teach in this or
that manner, and how does it apply to me? -- you are incapable of
understanding the answer deeply enough."
--- Kashgari, "The Naqshbandi Order", Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi,
Penguin, p165.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[19] "Stupidity is to look for something where untutored imagination expects
to find it. It is, in fact, everywhere that you can extract it."
--- Rewgari, "The Naqshbandi Order", Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi,
Penguin, p164.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[20] "I see a free man sitting on the ground.
At his lips a reed pipe, the robe is patched, the hands work-worn.
Can this be one of the Great Elect?
Yes, O my Friend, it is He!
Sheikh Saadi Baba, Sultan Arif Khan, Shah Waliullah el-Amir.
Three waves from one see. Three kings in beggar's garb.
Can they be the High Elect?
Yes, O my Friend, all is He!
All is HE, all is HE, all is HE!
Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jew and Sikh.
Brothers in a secret sense -- yet who knows it internally? . . .
O Companions of the Cave!
Why the axe, the begging-bowl?
Why the sheepskin, horn and cap?
Why the stone upon the belt?
See: when in your blood flows wine.
All is He, my Friend, is He!
Do you go to mountain-tops?
Are you sitting in a shrine?
Seek him when a Teacher comes,
Seek th ejewel within the mine!
All is He, my friends, companions, ALL is HE!
--- Urdu song, sung by followers of the 19th century Chishti saint Sayed Mir
Abdullah Shah,
"The Chishti Order", Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi, Penguin, p137.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[21] "Cross and Christians, end to end, I examined. He was not on the Cross.
I went to the Hindu temple, to the ancient pagoda. In none of them was there
any sign. To the uplands of Herat I went, and to Kandahar. I looked. He was
not on the heights or in the lowlands. Resolutely, I went to the summit of
the [fabulous] mountain of Kaf. There only was the dwelling of the
[legendary] Anqa bird. I went to the Kaaba of Mecca. He was not there. I
asked about him from Avicenna the philosopher. He was beyond the range of
Avicenna . . . I looked into my own heart. In that, his place, I saw him. He
was in no other place.
--- Jalaludin Rumi, Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi, Penguin, p113.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[22] "Stop boasting of intellect and learning; for here intellect is
hampering, and learning is stupidity."
--- Hakim Jami, Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi, Penguin, p106.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[23] "The rose has gone from the garden; what shall we do with the thorns?
The Shah is not in the city; what shall we do with his court?
The fair are cages, beauty and goodness the bird;
When the bird has flown, what shall we do with the cage?"
--- Hakim Jami, Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi, Penguin, p106.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[24] "Justice and fairness, not religion or atheism,
Are needful for the protection of the State"
--- Hakim Jami, Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi, Penguin, p106.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[25] "I saw a man prostrating himself in prayer, and exclaimed:
'You lay the burdon of your nose upon the ground on the excuse that it is a
requirement of prayer.'"
--- Hakim Jami, Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi, Penguin, p103.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[26] "If the scissors are not used daily on the beard it will not be long
before the beard is, by its luxuriant growth, pretending to be the head."
--- Hakim Jami, Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi, Penguin, p103.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[27] "I fear that you will not reach Mecca, O Nomad!
For the road you are following leads to Turkestan!"
--- Saadi of Shiraz, Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi, Penguin, p101.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[28] "However much you study, you cannot know without action.
A donkey laden with books is neither an intellectual nor a wise man.
Empty of essence, what learning has he --
Whether upon him is firewood or book?"
--- Saadi of Shiraz, Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi, Penguin, p96.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[29] "She has confused all the learned of Islam.
Everyone who has studied the psalms,
Every Jewish Rabbi,
Every Christian priest."
--- Ibn El-Arabi, Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi, Penguin, p86.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[30] Now I am called the shepherd of the desert gazelles,
Now a Christian monk,
Now a Zoroastrian.
The Beloved is Three, yet One:
Just as the three are in reality one.
--- Ibn El-Arabi, Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi, Penguin, p87.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[31] "The ordinary lover adores a secondary phenomenon.
I love the Real."
--- Ibn El-Arabi, Idries Shah, The Way of the Sufi, Penguin, p86.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Best Wishes,
Eric.
boundless idiot
Westerners.
Meaning...
It
won't
have
the
same
effect
upon
most
non-Westerners.
Like Dara.
The
projection
is adapted
to
the
specific time
place
and
people.
To put it another way, what works for you will not necessarily work
for others.
All of the above can be found in Idries Shah in one form or another.
Those who have read Idries Shah should not need to be reminded, as a
result that when Idries Shah wrote these things, hard as it may be for
many to consider, that Idries Shah himself is saying, among other
things, that his written works are not universal and were never meant
to be.
"Eric Twose" <er...@anchor92.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<c6e4ta$uu0$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
james
> Dara write:
>
> > > I am sure the other definitions I could not find in Koran are given in
> > > Hadith or Narrations of the Prophet. I hope this serves as an example
> > > that many of IS writings are extracts from FOSSILS except he did not
> > > include the references.
>
> GV replied:
>
> > But not to forget that the Way and its phases existed before the
> > Koran. And that Islam is/was the last terrestrial projection of "the
> > perennial faith."
> > As for references, there are enough. For academics, of course,
> > there are never enough.
> >
> > GV
>
> Hi GV and Dara,
>
> It's all a bit dry and academic, of course, but here are some references to
> back up your statement
> that Shah provides sufficient references for his purposes and sufficient for
> the needs of his students:
>
Dear Eric
Personally I prefer the translations of Idries Shah's works which are
available at The Islamic Network to your selection of quotations.
http://media.isnet.org/sufi/Idries/Idries.html
Regards
James
Eric Twose
news:4bc95940.04042...@posting.google.com...
Thanks James,
Idries Shah, yang nama lengkapnya Nawab-Zada Sayyid Idries Shah al-Hasyimi,
adalah Syekh Besar (Syekh al-Kabir) Sufi dan anak sulung Nawab asal Sardana,
dekat Delhi di India. Keluarganya berasal dari keluarga Kerajaan Pagham di
Hindu-Kush, yang nenek moyangnya memerintah sejak 1221. Idries Shah
dilahirkan di Simla-Himalaya dan menetap di London. Ia mengarang beberapa
buku tentang mistik-tasawuf, diantaranya Mahkota Sufi (The Sufis) dan Jalan
Sufi (The Way of the Sufi), kumpulan cerita sufi, serta karya-karya lainnya.
http://media.isnet.org/sufi/Idries/Jalan/index.html
Idries Shah
-----------
Menjadi seorang Sufi adalah menanggalkan
gagasan-gagasan tetap dan prasangka; dan
tidak berupaya menghindar dari takdirmu.
(Abu Said ibnu Abi al-Khair)
Janganlah melihat bentuk luarku,
Tapi ambillah apa yang ada dalam tanganku.
(Jalaluddin ar-Rumi)
http://media.isnet.org/sufi/Idries/Jalan/index.html
http://media.isnet.org/sufi/Idries/index.html
"Sufi secara alamiah di dunia Barat mungkin tersebar luas sebagaimana di
dunia Timur. Mereka mungkin berstatus orang awam, petani, pedagang, guru
sekolah, ibu rumah tangga, atau apa saja. 'Berada di dunia, tetapi bukan
(bagian) dari dunia,' bebas dari ambisi, keserakahan, kebanggaan
intelektual, taklid buta pada adat atau tidak takut terhadap pribadi-pribadi
yang mempunyai kedudukan lebih tinggi --itulah Sufi ideal." (Robert Graves)
Buku ini merupakan karya otoritatif pertama tentang Sufisme. karya ini
mengisi celah besar dalam dokumentasi persoalan-persoalan Timur-Barat.
Dengan mengikuti sebuah ajaran mistik dan jalan hidup yang mempunyai
pengaruh amat besar di Barat dan Timur selama 4.000 tahun, meski sebagian
besar tidak dapat diketahui, kaum Sufi percaya bahwa yang diikuti (Sufisme)
bukanlah sebuah agama, tetapi merupakan agama. Keyakinan ini termasuk
evolusi kesadaran, dimana lewat upaya kehendak, manusia dapat menghasilkan
fakultas-fakultas --fakultas telepati dan penajaman rohani merupakan
contoh-- dan oleh karena itu kaum Sufi percaya akan kesempurnaan manusia
yang tak terbatas. Bagi para pengikutnya, Sufisme merupakan tradisi rahasia
penyokong semua sistem filsafat dan agama.
http://media.isnet.org/sufi/Idries/index.html
kumpulan cerita sufi:
http://media.isnet.org/sufi/Idries/Mahkota/index.html
serta karya-karya lainnya:
http://www.sufis.org/shahworks.html
Best Wishes,
Eric.
Eric Twose
> Dear Eric
>
> Personally I prefer the translations of Idries Shah's works which are
> available at The Islamic Network to your selection of quotations.
>
>
> http://media.isnet.org/sufi/Idries/Idries.html
>
> Regards
>
> James
Sorry, the shortcut to kumpulan cerita sufi
"Kisah-kisah Sufi" oleh Idries Shah
should have been http://media.isnet.org/sufi/Idries/index.html
Best Wishes,
Eric.
Meryem Brawley
Eric Twose wrote:
> Hi GV and Dara,
>
> It's all a bit dry and academic, of course, but here are some references to
> back up your statement
> that Shah provides sufficient references for his purposes and sufficient for
> the needs of his students:
Eric,
Every quote you included here was taken out of its context - even the context
that Shah used it in - to support your [apparent] belief that religion is
primitive and that Shah taught this. I could go through his work and pull out
quotes as well - quotes that support my way of thinking. What if I went through
"The Sufis" and typed up the lines I highlighted as significant ten years ago?
What's the point of such an exercise? How does confirming one's own beliefs
through a series of quotes (or a series of tales) nurture understanding and grow
consciousness? It doesn't. Many of these quotes seem to be from sheykhs who
would have been saying what they said to their students in a particular
situation, a condition that requires access to the whole story - not just the
sound byte. I do not intend to go back to Shah's books to see why/how these
references are relevant, or if he is mis-using them to undermine religion, Islam
in particular. I accept your position that Shah provides sufficient references
for his purposes (introduction to sufism?), and that they are also sufficient
for his students. Shah's achievement is not lessened by anyone saying he did not
do enough.
Meryem
Eric Twose
Dear Meryem,
Yes, I'm aware that the references were not chosen at random.
Personally, the only difficulty I have is with fundamentalism of whichever
kind, be it religious or political. I have absolutely no problem with Shah's
brand of moderate, liberal Islam. If I refer to the growth of the beard,
then I am referring to the commanding self and to secondary trappings -- my
own included; and it should be noted that for many, many years I myself wore
a bushy beard.
Thanks to James, and to counter any bias in my first set of quotations, I
have taken the liberty of reproducing a series of passages from Shah
translated into Arabic (I think) as presented on an Islamic web-site at
their discretion and from their own Islamic perspective. I know so little
Arabic that I cannot even work out which story is which, let alone present
only those that suit my purposes or even comment on the content of the
stories as they stand.
I thought perhaps this might provide Dara and other Arabic speakers here
with Shah untainted by contact with the Western minds of would-be students
like me, and in a form they might better understand than English.
Best Wishes,
Eric.
Martin Edwards
Sorry, it's a long time since I read it.
nasruddin
idiot) wrote:
Ah, yes. My mistake. Thanks for the reminder.
A Koan -
What is the difference between
alt.sufi
and
alt.islam.sufism
?
Dara
wacked my head once or twice before about the same.
However, if you pick up any WESTERN BOOK for WESTERN READERS all
references are included, not just for academics. Look at a trashy
romance novel all the historical references as well as the bios and
names of great characters are included.
It is not a matter of form, but a matter of accurate presentation to
the readers which the WESTERN publishers boast themselves to be the
beacon of clarity and truth when it comes to books & journalism.
Personally I like that concept and merely followed it. In Iran, for
that matter, references is a joke. Example for Hafiz poems I have to
ask for a special edition to have the necessary references the rest of
the published material are lets say raw.
Is IS writings for western minds? I can not tell since I was not born
here.
Is IS writings universal? Again I can not tell since my focus is very
narrow to start with.
Am I critical of IS? Not at all, but I share with you your final
point, to claim IS or Sana-ee or Rumi or Spriderman Comics as the
definitive & final stop for Sufism is not acceptable.
--DARA
nasruddin
<er...@anchor92.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I thought perhaps this might provide Dara and other Arabic speakers here
>with Shah untainted by contact with the Western minds of would-be students
>like me, and in a form they might better understand than English.
>
That's nice of you, Eric. The Sufis was first published in 1964 and
translated into how many languages since then?
nasruddin
<mer...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>Eric,
>Every quote you included here was taken out of its context - even the context
>that Shah used it in - to support your [apparent] belief that religion is
>primitive and that Shah taught this. I could go through his work and pull out
>quotes as well - quotes that support my way of thinking. What if I went through
>"The Sufis" and typed up the lines I highlighted as significant ten years ago?
>What's the point of such an exercise? How does confirming one's own beliefs
>through a series of quotes (or a series of tales) nurture understanding and grow
>consciousness? It doesn't.
I suppose this is one of the primary differences between the East and
the West, or maybe, just between the Sufism, as portrayed by yourself
and Dara, and that which has been recently transmitted to the West. I
would say that confirming one's own beliefs in such a way would
nurture understanding and growth.
Meryem Brawley
Eric Twose wrote:
> Dear Meryem,
>
> Yes, I'm aware that the references were not chosen at random.
>
> Personally, the only difficulty I have is with fundamentalism of whichever
> kind, be it religious or political. I have absolutely no problem with Shah's
> brand of moderate, liberal Islam. If I refer to the growth of the beard,
> then I am referring to the commanding self and to secondary trappings -- my
> own included; and it should be noted that for many, many years I myself wore
> a bushy beard.
>
> Thanks to James, and to counter any bias in my first set of quotations, I
> have taken the liberty of reproducing a series of passages from Shah
> translated into Arabic (I think) as presented on an Islamic web-site at
> their discretion and from their own Islamic perspective. I know so little
> Arabic that I cannot even work out which story is which, let alone present
> only those that suit my purposes or even comment on the content of the
> stories as they stand.
>
> I thought perhaps this might provide Dara and other Arabic speakers here
> with Shah untainted by contact with the Western minds of would-be students
> like me, and in a form they might better understand than English.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Eric.
Dear Eric,
Thanks for the response. I realized after I hit the Send button on that post
that I was responding to your list of references out of context. I forgot that
you were offering examples of IS references to Dara, and I reacted to the
subject matter of the examples you selected - thinking that you were still going
after that religion thing. Anyway, it is quite obvious that Shah provides
references for many of his quotes. Whether or not they hold up to scholarly
analysis seems not to be of concern to IS students. Some of what he may be
saying, supported by ad hoc quotes, does present a potential problem for Muslims
who feel that Islam is grossly misunderstood in the West, and that Shah's books
may be a contributing factor. I mean, if the sufis cannot consider mainstream,
sufi-oriented Islam without getting angry, what can one expect from those who
are acquainted with only Saudi-influenced Islam?
Also, thanks for the explanation of your latest posts. If it is Arabic, not sure
how useful a transliteration is to Arabic readers. I thought it was one of the
Afgan languages, or even Indonesian or Malay. I was not clear on what benefit
James saw in it. If it is a translation of Shah's work, how will it contain more
definitive references than what Shah himself provided? Didn't he write in
English? Or is that you think the quotes Shah used in his work will have a
different meaning in this other language (assuming they didn't go from
Arabic/Farsi/Turkish/Afgan/Urdu to English and back out to whatever language it
is)?
Meryem
nasruddin
>Thanx. I have understood your point well I think James & Jack Fried
>wacked my head once or twice before about the same.
>
>However, if you pick up any WESTERN BOOK for WESTERN READERS all
>references are included, not just for academics. Look at a trashy
>romance novel all the historical references as well as the bios and
>names of great characters are included.
Provide an example of where Idries Shah does not provide a reference.
To refute the above claim I would only need to pick up one Western
book that doesn't include the above. Would you like to place a wager?
>Is IS writings for western minds? I can not tell since I was not born
>here.
You reply implies that you see the 'Western' mindset as different to
the 'Eastern mindset'. If this is the case, I assume that the material
you are presenting here at alt.sufi is not aimed at the 'Western
mind', since, by your own admission, you do not recognise what such a
mind is and how material might be presented to it. If that is the
case, on what grounds are you presenting your material?
>Is IS writings universal? Again I can not tell since my focus is very
>narrow to start with.
Might it be fairer to say that you cannot tell because you have not
read any of his material?
>Am I critical of IS? Not at all,
You appear to have changed your tune.
>but I share with you your final
>point, to claim IS or Sana-ee or Rumi or Spriderman Comics as the
>definitive & final stop for Sufism is not acceptable.
>
No one has claimed IS or the others as the final stop. IS himself
makes this point perfectly clear in several of his books
Idries Shah has made it abudantly clear why he is presenting the
material in the way he is, and who it is aimed at.
nasruddin
<mer...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> Whether or not they hold up to scholarly
>analysis seems not to be of concern to IS students. Some of what he may be
>saying, supported by ad hoc quotes, does present a potential problem for Muslims
>who feel that Islam is grossly misunderstood in the West, and that Shah's books
>may be a contributing factor.
Blaming Idries Shah for the way Muslim's are pecieved in the West
seems almost ridculous. Are you serious?
I would suggest that the problem lies much closer to home.
Martin Edwards
>Thanks to James, and to counter any bias in my first set of quotations, I
>have taken the liberty of reproducing a series of passages from Shah
>translated into Arabic (I think) as presented on an Islamic web-site at
>their discretion and from their own Islamic perspective. I know so little
>Arabic that I cannot even work out which story is which, let alone present
>only those that suit my purposes or even comment on the content of the
>stories as they stand.
>
>I thought perhaps this might provide Dara and other Arabic speakers here
>with Shah untainted by contact with the Western minds of would-be students
>like me, and in a form they might better understand than English.
>
>Best Wishes,
>Eric.
>
>
Eric Twose
ROTFLOL at myself.
Meryem Brawley
nasruddin wrote:
Yes, I am serious. If you, as an example, are picking up false understanding of Islam
from Shah's books, then why is the point ridiculous? You are presumably more
intelligent that a lot of people who don't read at all. There are lots of "more
intelligent" people reading his books, integrating what they understand (not
necessarily what he was teaching) into their lives, and attempting to do something to
move the evolution of humanity forward - minus religion - as their life's work.
Yikes.
If you recall, much of this discussion started with Dara pointing out how the stories
of Nasruddin Hoja were corrupted in his country (Iran) to subvert Islam. Dara
questioned Shah's use of the stories and where he sourced them from. Since the
stories of Nasruddin Hoja are so much a part of this list's Shah exponents' basket of
knowledge about sufism, Shah's sourcing and use of those stories takes on added
significance when some of those same people are using Shah to justify their abhorance
of his religion. (Sorry about the run-on sentence.) With all the discussion about
references, there is still no proof - on this list - of the existence of a 13th
century manuscript called "The Subtleties of the Incomparable Nasruddin". (I am not
doubting it exists. Someone must have looked for it in all these years of Shah
material being available.)
When Muslims look at the history of the last 200-250 years, they see an insidious
undermining of the foundation of Islam by western-influenced secular and nationalist
forces within Muslim countries, and, according to Dara, by people taking shortcuts to
explain Islam. Most westerners have learned about Islam from westerners. Much of the
material available to the average English-only speaker is offbase. It only takes a
minor shift in each iteration of a story or explanation of a concept to have it end
up as a completely different entity with a completely different meaning over time.
Shah should have been above and beyond providing false information, since he
presumably had access to authentic material. Was he scrupulous in what he taught to
westerners? If so, why did some on this list end up with such a bad perception of
Islam?
Meryem
Eric Twose
>
> ROTFLOL at myself.
""Garbled Message
--------------------
Books and methods of mass communication are used selectively by Sufi
teachers. And there are cases where the message is garbled, so that they do
not use certain versions of them at all. Some translations, for instance,
contain ludicrous errors, even when made by experts. This sort of garbling
can happen with anything, and only a human guide can put things right.
The News-Story
-----------------
The British Broadcasting Corporation, within hours of the death of King
Faisal of Saudi Arabia, put out a recording of a highly emotional account of
the assassination taken from the Saudi network. This, you would imagine,
must be something on which one could rely. But there was only one problem
about the BBC's version: it was in fact the final minute of the Czech
language commentary on the Ali-Wepner fight in Cleveland, Ohio. Reading some
'Sufi' materials, they sound the same . . .""
--- Idries Shah, Seeker After Truth.
Well, at least I shan't be accused of being a scholar.
Best Wishes,
Eric.
Peter
"Sufism" is but a name for a method
of aquiring knowledge different from the Western way of science and also
different from the way of religion as commonly known .
In this view,both approaches are deteriorations from this knowledge,though
both contain elements which are still working.
In this view "Sufism" doesn't belong to Islam or any other religion,these
are in reality offshoots in a state of decay.
What this "knowledge" has to offer is on a much deeper level than belief or
disbelief, and therefore such attitudes
are not relevant for the teaching to occur.
I suppose that for most of us here this has remained a theoretical
possibility, nobody has been part of Shah's
"school".
On the other hand,it has been said that as much as possible of the teaching
function has been packed in his books.
Well,I'm not in the position to judge,but I found all this
an interesting point of view which gives some hope in the world of
today,when one can watch that the old systems of thought are seemingly not
capable to solve the problems they have caused.
Regards,
Peter
"Sufism"
"Meryem Brawley" <mer...@frontiernet.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:408BFBA6...@frontiernet.net...
Meryem Brawley
Jim Buck,
Here's an example of the kind of disparaging comment I am reacting to:
Peter wrote:
> ... these [religion] are in reality offshoots in a state of decay.
I disagree. Religion is alive and well, providing nourishment to the soul and
guidelines for a well-lived life for people of faith.
Meryem
Meryem Brawley
nasruddin wrote:
> No one has claimed IS or the others as the final stop. IS himself
> makes this point perfectly clear in several of his books
Where did Shah say to go next?
Meryem
Eric Twose
Hi Meryem,
In my own experience, the Society for Sufi Studies, Octagon, Idries Shah's
estate, ISHK and Doris Lessing have all put out the unified message ... the
answers to all your questions are to be found in Shah's books; and to keep
reading the books; that we might be contacted in through "perfectly normal"
channels.
In the late 1980s the Society for Sufi Studies made this announcement:
"The Society will be suspending all activities for the time being. Please
note the following points
1. You will be contacted when it is time to resume studies.
2. The Society will not be able to deal with any correspondence during this
period.
3. Please DO NOT send further subscription until notified.
4. Group meetings are also suspended.
5. Please continue to revise studies which you have been working on."
One or two others that I know of have received such a memo since that time,
even after Shah's death in November 1996.
I also know of one person who was given a very long aqnd painstaking task by
the SSS which he reckons will be complete in a couple of years time; has
been given an address so that if he moves he can notify "the office" of his
change of address; and expects to be contacted in the future, as promised.
He thinks we may expect the "new phase of the work" to come piece-meal.
Best Wishes,
Eric.
Peter
First of all I would find it a matter of politeness to answer
me directly.
And I would like to add that it is not my intention to make
what you call "disparaging comments",but to highlight some crucial points
which could -or should-be discussed .
I may have misunderstood Shah,or only understood partially,and I do not
claim to know.
But if,what I have written,was indeed part of Shah's material,it would be
worth to look at it more closely.
Once men believed the earth to be the center of the universe,but this
belief didn't make this true.
In reality earth revolved around a sun at the edge of one of billions of
galaxies.
I have my problems with people who exclude error
from THEIR worldview.
What is,is,no matter what you or I may believe.
Regards,
Peter
"Meryem Brawley" <mer...@frontiernet.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:408C0DA4...@frontiernet.net...
Peter
"The religionist believes that belief is the greatest thing there is.
The Sufi asserts that belief is a substitute for knowledge:'If you know,you
do not have to believe.A fact needs no conversion mechanism.'
Hence the indoctrinator needs people who can be manipulated;the Sufi
needs only people who will give a minimum amount of attention:the same
quantity
that is needed to learn,not the amount required to absorb other people's
beliefs."
The Commanding Self,page 231
Peter
Dara
My points were clear and they do not matter to be neither true or
false they are JUST TALK, it is best for you to find a better use of
your time. And same is true for me:
Off putting another segment together INSHALLAH
--DARA
Meryem Brawley
Hello, Peter
My apologies. My response to your post was indeed directed to you, although I
neglected to greet you. The comment to Jim Buck was an aside. He had taken me
to task for complaining about, but not giving examples of, how members of this
list speak ill of religion. I really am not a person with whom you would want
to discuss Shah's material. I am not familiar enough with it. My self-appointed
role is to challenge the ideas, attributed to Shah, that sound to me like
"disparaging comments" about Islam and Muslims. I realize this may be tiresome
for you and other regular participants. There are others who hear me. And I am
learning some things myself.
Peace,
Meryem
Meryem Brawley
Hello, Eric
Thank you very much for your straightforward and thorough response to my
question. May you be justly rewarded for your loyalty and commitment, which has
been apparent throughout this correspondence.
Wwarm regards,
Meryem
Dara
This was meant for Sister Nasruddin not Sister Meryem my apologies to Meryem Brawly
--DARA
Fried Jack Morgan
alt.sufi hides the extra dot. That is, there are two where there should
be One.
james
<snip>
>
> Thanks to James, and to counter any bias in my first set of quotations, I
> have taken the liberty of reproducing a series of passages from Shah
> translated into Arabic (I think) as presented on an Islamic web-site at
> their discretion and from their own Islamic perspective.
The Translators at the Indonesian Website have simply attempted to
translate "The Sufis", "The Way of the Sufi" and "Tales of the
Dervishes" as accurately as possible. I do not see any evidence that
the material has been employed for the purpose of religious or
anti-religious didactic let alone any evidence that someone has
attempted to construct a "golden calf" out of the exposition.
Regards
James
nasruddin
And they wonder why Islam is in the state it's in???
nasruddin
<mer...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>> Blaming Idries Shah for the way Muslim's are pecieved in the West
>> seems almost ridculous. Are you serious?
>>
>> I would suggest that the problem lies much closer to home.
>
>Yes, I am serious. If you, as an example, are picking up false understanding of Islam
>from Shah's books, then why is the point ridiculous? You are presumably more
>intelligent that a lot of people who don't read at all. There are lots of "more
>intelligent" people reading his books, integrating what they understand (not
>necessarily what he was teaching) into their lives, and attempting to do something to
>move the evolution of humanity forward - minus religion - as their life's work.
>Yikes.
Yikes indeed. Now, where to begin. How about the classification of
false understanding of Islam?
There are as many people in the East and West reading the Quran and
trying to integrate what they understand (not necessarily what IT is
teaching) into their lives. The same could be said of the Bible and
the Torah the Vedas....
In the case of the Quran matters are much worse, greater evils are
perpetrated in its name, and encouraged by self styled Sheiks and
Muslims all over the world.
Perhaps the energy of Moderate Muslims (if there is such an entity)
would be better spent promoting and counteracting these extreme
manifestations. I look forward to the million man march on Washington
(a milion peacefull Muslims, acting against the extremists).
>
>If you recall, much of this discussion started with Dara pointing out how the stories
>of Nasruddin Hoja were corrupted in his country (Iran) to subvert Islam. Dara
>questioned Shah's use of the stories and where he sourced them from. Since the
>stories of Nasruddin Hoja are so much a part of this list's Shah exponents' basket of
>knowledge about sufism, Shah's sourcing and use of those stories takes on added
>significance when some of those same people are using Shah to justify their abhorance
>of his religion. (Sorry about the run-on sentence.) With all the discussion about
>references, there is still no proof - on this list - of the existence of a 13th
>century manuscript called "The Subtleties of the Incomparable Nasruddin". (I am not
>doubting it exists. Someone must have looked for it in all these years of Shah
>material being available.)
Well, I bow to Dara's wisdom here -
"My points were clear and they do not matter to be neither true or
false they are JUST TALK, it is best for you to find a better use of
your time. And same is true for me:"
>
>When Muslims look at the history of the last 200-250 years, they see an insidious
>undermining of the foundation of Islam by western-influenced secular and nationalist
>forces within Muslim countries, and, according to Dara, by people taking shortcuts to
>explain Islam.
What is Islam?
>Most westerners have learned about Islam from westerners.
Complete and utter gibberish.
>Much of the
>material available to the average English-only speaker is offbase.
That would depend upon which material you were seeking.
> It only takes a
>minor shift in each iteration of a story or explanation of a concept to have it end
>up as a completely different entity with a completely different meaning over time.
Well, from what I understand, if you've read the books, you should
realise that a part of Idries Shah's mission, if mission is acceptable
here, was -
"We have done all we can to embody as much of the teachership function
as we can in the literature itself which we have published, largely we
have been able to do this by excluding a lot of extraneous and
external accretions ... We have been able to reconstitute the emphasis
of the stories, so instead of their being instruments only to make you
think how great the spiritual master is and how nothing you are, and
how wonderful the possibilities of the situation are, we have
retrieved the dynamic of the stories in order to show aside from those
things what is possible ... what is called in some disciplines
enlightenment, can be in the Sufi process, the result of the falling
into place of a large number of small impacts and perceptions (from
these stories and one's own experiences) producing insights when the
individual is ready for them." - Idries Shah
>Shah should have been above and beyond providing false information, since he
>presumably had access to authentic material. Was he scrupulous in what he taught to
>westerners? If so, why did some on this list end up with such a bad perception of
>Islam?
>
>Meryem
Well, shall we start at the beginning - what is Islam? How do you
define the term 'false information' with respect to the latter
definition?
Allah knows best.
Eric Twose
news:408C4364...@frontiernet.net...
> Bismillah
> Hello, Eric
> Thank you very much for your straightforward and thorough response to my
> question. May you be justly rewarded for your loyalty and commitment,
which has
> been apparent throughout this correspondence.
>
> Wwarm regards,
> Meryem
Dear Meryem,
Thank you, too, for being here and for the efforts you are making here.
As for your praise, having got my Arabic and Malay in such a wondrous
muddle, I can't help but hear those immortal words from the UK comedy series
"Only Fools and Horses" in my head: "What a plonker, Rodney!"
One of the things I've noticed over the years, and I'm not sure if it's
merely my own psychology or something that happens to the others is that
sometimes I am "prompted" by one part of me -- the fall guy? -- to do
something and then -- lo and behold -- things go awry and I learn something
about myself, and I have a feeling that another part of me (or is it a part
of us all?) deliberately "kept stumm" (quiet) and gave me sufficient rope to
hang myself for just such a purpose for the edification of me and of others.
My apologies also for any part I've played in bringing this group once again
to the brink of civil war.
In the interests of openness, Dara, I should point out that the tag
"undauntedbyshah.org" was not meant to be malicious in any way, merely my
attempt at humour. There have been times in the past when I've had a good
old grumble or vented my anger at Shah myself.
Best Wishes,
Eric.
Obo Vajrin
From Meryemb<< how members of this
list speak ill of religion. >>
For the last few months, I have probably been the most extreme. Has that
negitive energy provoked any more positive efforts towards communication
amongst we participants?
<< My self-appointed
role is to challenge the ideas, attributed to Shah, that sound to me like
"disparaging comments" about Islam and Muslims. >>
Is it possible that thou and I mirror each other in a way. Mostly what I'm
saying is No free pass for the religious! And (I hope) pointing out to the
religious that PERHAPS they are making a greater assumption (conditioned
response) then what IS readers are being accused of.
<< And I am
learning some things myself. >>
Isn't this what we are supposed to be about?
I thank you for your words of conscern for my current lack of well being as is
indicated by my posts. It is all too true. I thank all here for letting me use
this place and giving me attention.
On the other hand: My current outrageousness started to manifest itself about
the time Jereck C. was ruffeling a few feathers with his posts. It occured to
me, it might be worth while to see what happens if a few more sensitive "corns"
were stepped on. (I am trying to be aware of the thought that self
justification is usually worse than the original offense)
Share the Care, obo
Eric Twose
> Sunshine proves its own existence.
Dear Obo,
Like it, thanks. How often do I complain that "the sun has gone in"?
In reality, the sun is always shining -- it's my clouds which get in the way
(and help shade me from the sun ("the light which illumines also blinds"))
> From Meryemb<< how members of this
> list speak ill of religion. >>
>
> For the last few months, I have probably been the most extreme. Has that
> negitive energy provoked any more positive efforts towards communication
> amongst we participants?
When we're cooking food on a good old-fashioned gas ring, more often than
not, we first of all turn the heat up full. Then when the food comes to the
boil, we turn down the heat or put the vessel "on the back burner" (a
synonym for the subconscious work we do "in the dark"). Thanks for the
energy, both then at the time that Jherek was most active, and now.
There's a lot "cooking" here at alt.sufi at the mo', imo, and we can expect
a certain amount of "plopping" noises and steam generation and other
signs of stress.
> << My self-appointed
> role is to challenge the ideas, attributed to Shah, that sound to me like
> "disparaging comments" about Islam and Muslims. >>
>
>
> Is it possible that thou and I mirror each other in a way. Mostly what I'm
> saying is No free pass for the religious! And (I hope) pointing out to
the
> religious that PERHAPS they are making a greater assumption (conditioned
> response) then what IS readers are being accused of.
Personally, I have difficulties with displays of black and white thinking,
as this reminds me so much of childhood and the ego-states that engendered.
Yes, I can also see myself being mirrored in this way.
> << And I am
> learning some things myself. >>
>
> Isn't this what we are supposed to be about?
>
> I thank you for your words of conscern for my current lack of well being
as is
> indicated by my posts. It is all too true. I thank all here for letting
me use
> this place and giving me attention.
My very best wishes to you, in these hard times, Obo.
> On the other hand: My current outrageousness started to manifest itself
about
> the time Jereck C. was ruffeling a few feathers with his posts. It
occured to
> me, it might be worth while to see what happens if a few more sensitive
"corns"
> were stepped on. (I am trying to be aware of the thought that self
> justification is usually worse than the original offense)
BTW, Jeff: do you still maintain that Jherek is really an advanced mystic?
That, understanding him as you are able, you are fully able to communicate
with him at the level of "the lovers of the garden", as you told me in 2003
when you were considering what would happen to *you* if you were to close
all your e-mail and newsgroup accounts?
> Share the Care, obo
With Good Wishes,
Eric.
Eric Twose
> Salaam Sister [Nasrudin]
Hi Dara and Nasrddin,
In a sense, and up to a point, you're right to place our activities here
into context: in terms of the Grand Scheme of Things, it is just talk.
Sometimes what I write here is given and taken as "just a thought".
In another sense, what is important to us, as seekers after Truth, is that
we should ourselves initially aim at being as truthful as possible -- and
that together we should aim to arrive at something approximating Truth: even
if we would prefer to have our beliefs confirmed. As Peter says: a fact
needs no conversion mechanism; whatever is, is, irrespective of what we
might prefer to believe.
And in that sense, it really shouldn't matter to us whether we are right or
wrong, providing we learn something or arrive at a better understanding or
make progress in our studies or outwit our own nafs, and to a *relatively*
lesser extent improve our social interactions as human beings. It's actually
useful for me, for example, to be able to detach from my own "need to be
right" and from my own "fear of being wrong". And I am grateful to the good
folk in this list for allowing me to learn by making mistakes, which is
something I was not allowed to do as a child.
Above and beyond the competitiveness of a solitary pursuit such as snooker
or pool, there is a cooperative team spirit and beyond that there is good
feeling and cameraderie between "fellow players" in nominally opposing
teams,
and the realization amongst all but the obsessed or ego-driven that it is
"just a game" aswell as a worthwhile social pursuit.
As I said, it's just a thought. I may be wrong.
Best Wishes,
Eric.
nasruddin
<er...@anchor92.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>As I said, it's just a thought. I may be wrong.
>
>Best Wishes,
>Eric.
>
The beauty is that you are willing to entertain the possiblity that
you may be wrong. You'd be surprised how few ever get this far.
Steve
Nicely put.
Cheers,
Stephen
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.665 / Virus Database: 428 - Release Date: 4/21/04
Martin Edwards
>
>Thank you, too, for being here and for the efforts you are making here.
>
>As for your praise, having got my Arabic and Malay in such a wondrous
>muddle, I can't help but hear those immortal words from the UK comedy series
>"Only Fools and Horses" in my head: "What a plonker, Rodney!"
And Rodney had an excuse: he was from south of the river. :-)
nasruddin
<friedja...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ah, yes. My mistake. Thanks for the reminder.
>>
>> A Koan -
>>
>> What is the difference between
>>
>> alt.sufi
>>
>> and
>>
>> alt.islam.sufism
>>
>> ?
>
>alt.sufi hides the extra dot. That is, there are two where there should
>be One.
I wonder if the people who criticise the West are the same ones who
sing the praises of the Islamic Empire (at its Zenith) , choosing in
the former to focus on the destructive, in the latter the
constructive.
Different eyes for differently skies.
It is interesting to note that both Islam and Christianity had
extremely violent births, and became even more violent shortly after
the death of both founding Prophets, developing schisms within each
that still reverberate to this very day.
Dara
>
> Best Wishes,
> Eric.
It is not JUST a thought it is from your heart and that is precious.
Thanx & appreciate the point.
--DARA
Fried Jack Morgan
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 22:55:38 -0500, Fried Jack Morgan
> <friedja...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>
>>>Ah, yes. My mistake. Thanks for the reminder.
>>>
>>>A Koan -
>>>
>>>What is the difference between
>>>
>>>alt.sufi
>>>
>>>and
>>>
>>>alt.islam.sufism
>>>
>>>?
>>
>>alt.sufi hides the extra dot. That is, there are two where there should
>>be One.
>
>
> I wonder if the people who criticise the West are the same ones who
> sing the praises of the Islamic Empire (at its Zenith) , choosing in
> the former to focus on the destructive, in the latter the
> constructive.
>
> Different eyes for differently skies.
This is quite interesting when one considers that, at least with respect
to America, it is as though the Middle East and America behaviorally are
almost mirror images of each other in many ways.
It is also interesting to consider that no culture in known history or
known pre-history has ever recovered from being the dominant empire of
its day. Look at Egypt, Africa, South America, China, Great Britain,
the Roman Empire, and so on. This includes the Moorish Empire.
>
> It is interesting to note that both Islam and Christianity had
> extremely violent births, and became even more violent shortly after
> the death of both founding Prophets, developing schisms within each
> that still reverberate to this very day.
>
>
Also interesting that Idries Shah said that Islam is the continuation of
Christianity.
azo
you on this ...it seems that the qoran is a mixture of earlier
religious materials..most of the verses composed in mecca were copied
entirely from christan and sabian(hanifs)mystics of mecca , the verses
composed in medina where jews abounded were copied from the
jews....the slight difference between the qoranic versions and the
biblical versions is due to mohamed re-interpretation as well as the
particularity of the jews of arabia who differ slghtly in the doctrine
frm nrthern jews. the romance of alexander ,the story of moses and
khidr and others can be easily traced to syriac and Sabian gnosticism
...mohamed homself admitted that he hadnot come with anything new and
all what is contained in the qoran was' revealed' bfore him...
was mohammed a true mystic?n my view not quite , mohammed never went
beyond what modern psycholgy calls sensate stateof mystical
experience..mohamed's view of realiy is dual:there is the creator and
there is the creation ..the mystic view of all mystical traditions is
that god and man and cosmos are one..
if there is such a thing as the inner circle of humanity then probably
mohammed was used as an instrument for some social-political task and
the koran(especially the meccan koran )as a vehicle for preserving the
gnostic materials of earlier sufism ....the problem is with the
medinian koran which really preaches hatred and dstruction of others
who dont believe in god and prophets . iam sorry some say it all
depends on interpretation but some verses are clear in their
message.examples :terrorise the ennemy of god (terhibun edew ellah),
beat your women if thy dnt obey you, cut the hand of the thief ,slash
those who have sex outside marriage,fight those who disbelieve ntill
they convert or kill them all...it is all in the koran and it is not
that sm narrwo-minded clerics of the past or the western media who
made it up....unless todays moslems come to the conclusion that most
of what is in the qoran is time and place-bound and that is not
destined for all times and places and especially to this day and age
they will be always seen as danger to human civilisation and world
peace...in fact the only tolerant moslems i know is the ones who dont
obey the decrees of the koran and the majority of moslims ,while they
believe they shuld,dont .how many islamic countries cutting the thief
hand or stoning adultrers is practised ?very few because it is
unatural inhumane law ,anti-human freedoms anti-human rights such as
the right to be an atheist or apostate..in the koran atheist are
killed or converted and the apstate has to be killed even if he
decides to repent... it is in the koran: jews and moslems are allowed
to practice their faith as long as they thy pay protection money but
seculars /atheists are not ...
it may also be benficial for moslems to realise that the true athentic
qoran is the meccan koran because is based on arabian mystical
traditon of the hanifs and arab christians whereas the medinian koran
is based on laws and decrees of the forein plestenian hebrews, laws
nd decrees alien to the free spirit of arabian bedouins of the time as
well as alien to the free thinking spirit of all of us today ...
best regards
azo
www.geocities.com/metaco8nitron/
gree...@my-deja.com (GV) wrote in message news:<67a52ef4.04042...@posting.google.com>...
> d...@untiredwithloving.org (Dara) wrote in message news:<62f348c3.04042...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > I am sure the other definitions I could not find in Koran are given in
> > Hadith or Narrations of the Prophet. I hope this serves as an example
> > that many of IS writings are extracts from FOSSILS except he did not
> > include the references.
> >
> But not to forget that the Way and its phases existed before the
> Koran. And that Islam is/was the last terrestrial projection of "the
> perennial faith."
> As for references, there are enough. For academics, of course,
> there are never enough.
>
> GV
nasruddin
<friedja...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> I wonder if the people who criticise the West are the same ones who
>> sing the praises of the Islamic Empire (at its Zenith) , choosing in
>> the former to focus on the destructive, in the latter the
>> constructive.
>>
>> Different eyes for differently skies.
>
>This is quite interesting when one considers that, at least with respect
>to America, it is as though the Middle East and America behaviorally are
>almost mirror images of each other in many ways.
It may be more case of Christianity and Islam being out of phase. As
you know the Shari'a was invented in the centuries following
Mohammed's (PBUH) death, and effectively placed Islam into a straight
jacket, which modern liberals are still struggling to get out of. In
much the same way as the early Christian fathers, via the Councils,
sought to control their congregations. But a lot changed after the
Reformation.
Islam may just be entering that phase.
'If a new method of studying a subject is adopted, the teachers of the
old way are no longer wanted by the rising generation. They must make
way for those who know the new learning. IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT
ENORMOUS OPPOSITION IS ENCOUNTERED BY THOSE WHO WOULD BRING NEW LIFE
INTO THE OLD ORGANISM. What would become of the host of 'ulama, the
muftis, and the qadis and so on, were it at once admitted that the
Shari'a was an invention of the centuries after Mohammed's death and
that his revered name was falsely invoked to validate it?'
I often wonder which throat the feet are on?
>
>It is also interesting to consider that no culture in known history or
>known pre-history has ever recovered from being the dominant empire of
>its day. Look at Egypt, Africa, South America, China, Great Britain,
>the Roman Empire, and so on. This includes the Moorish Empire.
>
A lot of resentment, greed and jealousy to deal with there.
In many ways it appears that the rise of Sufism within Islam during
the golden period was both a blessing and a curse.
Is there a difference between a fanatical Christian, Muslim, Jew or
Sufi?
nasruddin
wrote:
>Is there a difference between a fanatical Christian, Muslim, Jew or
>Sufi?
>
You do appreciate that I'm using the word 'Sufi' in its loosest sense,
here. i.e. I'm not talking about Real Sufis, only those fanatics who
would seek to exploit the label.
nasruddin
Thank you Azo.
I dread to think what they might have said had the following
information been provided by a non-Muslim.
Yikes indeed.
Sura 4, 34.
Fried Jack Morgan
It is much appreciated your explanation of your words. I was wondering
a bit.
there are more than fanatics who would seek to exploit the label.
james
> > 2. Nafs-i-lawwama (the accusing nafs, [conscience])
> > 3. Nafs-i-mulhama (the inspired nafs)
> > 4. Nafs-i-mutmainna (the serene nafs)
> > 5. Nafs-i-radiyya (the fulfilled nafs)
> > 6. Nafs-i-mardiyya (the fulfilling nafs)
> > 7. Nafs-i-safiyya wa kamila (the purified and complete nafs).
>
> Salaam Eric:
>
> Lets see where these came from :)
>
> 1. Ammara:
> "Nor do I absolve my own self (of blame): the (human) soul (Nafs) is
> certainly prone (Ammara) to evil, unless my Lord do bestow His Mercy:
> but surely my Lord is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful." Koran [12:53].
> (this was said by Prophet Joseph Peace Be Upon Him after he was found
> not guilty of rape charges).
>
> 2. Lawwama:
> And I do call to witness the self-reproaching (lawwama) spirit(Nafs) :
> (Eschew Evil). Koran ([75:2]).
>
> 3. Mulhama (?)
>
> 4. Mutmaninna:
> (To the righteous soul will be said:) "O (thou) soul (Nafs), in
> (complete) rest and satisfaction (Mutmainna)! (Koran [89:27])
>
> 4. Radiyya & Mardiyaa:
> "Come back thou to thy Lord,- well pleased (thyself)(Radiyaa), and
> well-pleasing (Mardiyaa) unto Him! Koran[89:28].
>
> 5. Safiyaa & Kamila (?)
>
> I am sure the other definitions I could not find in Koran are given in
> Hadith or Narrations of the Prophet. I hope this serves as an example
> that many of IS writings are extracts from FOSSILS except he did not
> include the references.
>
>
> -DARA
Hello Dara,
It is stated that every passage in the Koran has seven meanings, each
applicable to the state of the reader or listener. The dictum of
Mohammed was: 'Speak to everyone in accordance with the degree of his
understanding.'
The Sufi method, according to Ibrahim Khawwas, is: 'Demonstrate the
unkown in terms of what is called "known" by the audience.'
Regards
James
GV
Yeah, that's what I thought. ):
Thanks for the in depth info.
gV
azo
the value of the qoran or to belitle the role of mohammed who indeed
did pass to us literature of ancient sufism but to just demonstrate
those who accuse shah of plagiarism that mohammed too do can be seen
by many as a plagiarist...it is not really important for me if
mohammed was a true mystic or a true prophet but as in the case of
shah what is really important is to take from their hands what is
usefull for us ...mohammed is dead 1400 years ago and shah too is gone
so were they true teachers or not is not important but the important
thing is wether there is anything in their writings that can benefit
us(as well as those that can harm us as in the case of som koranic
passages) ..in my case there is some benefit in the koran and i still
study the qoran because i found out it contains precious teaching
materials dating from time immemorial and because is writen in arabic
which is itself is constructed on certain mystico-mathematical
principles their usefullness is beyond description (a tiny sample of
these materials could be seen at my
webpage:www.geocities.com/metaco8nitron/sat.html).
in my view people who are annoyed with shah are the people who cannot
adopt the right sufic attitude for sufi learning - this attitude as i
said somewhere else is a mode of cognition (deikman calls it receptive
mode of consciousness,ornstein simultaneous mode of consciousenss,
Fromm calls it the mode of Being ). in this mode there is no
expectation or covetousness for anything be it concrete or abstract,
hence shah's stress in his writings on adopting the right attitude
for sufi studies,an attitude free from expectation ,greed,impatience
and heedlessness ... we were conditioned to do anything for a specific
purpose hence if you read a sufi story or practice meditation you
expect some benficial effect and when you are discouraged to expect
these effects and are told that even desiring spirituality is a form
of greed you rebel and shun who tells you so . this rebellion is more
marked in religious pepole because religions especially islam
encourages greed :if you do this and this and dont this and that you
go to heaven you get married to houries there etc or if you practice
dhikr you reach exctacy and bliss in this life etc ...
i am talking from my own experience. when i first come across shah's
writings:what is the point of acquiring sufi books and reading them if
there is nothing to expect, i protested..only when i realized that i
was living in the spiritually inappropriate mode of the commanding
self, elnefs elammmara, the mode of doing/having did i start to
understand...in the being/knowing mode you do things just as a duty(in
dekmanian terms :attending the task at hand) and not in order to get
something out of them(remember the line in ''the way of the sufi''
about service:to serve without a stick or a carrot ).you do things
because you have to do them and stop.besides expectation and greed
,the other element i find prevents us entering in the being/knowing
mode is mindlessness and heedlessness hence people who read sufi
mindlessly are reading in an automatic manner and therefore their
assimilation of their content is always selective ..reading this way
no wonder they come to realization that the spiritual value of sufi
stories or nasrudin is nil..not only that their attitude is
inappropriate but also they don't have a clue what spirituality really
is about ..to all of them sipiruality is no more than a HIGHtened
state of emotionality...you could get this HIGH from a good joint of
black morroccan and not fom nasrudin stories i assure you..
may allah guide us ALL to his right path .amiin
regards
azo
www.geocities.com/metaco8nitron/
azo6...@yahoo.co.uk (azo) wrote in message news:<2a44d706.04042...@posting.google.com>...
Dara
Salaam James
>
> It is stated that every passage in the Koran has seven meanings, each
> applicable to the state of the reader or listener.
About the 7, there are 7 dialects or accents of Arabic to read Koran.
That I know from the sayings of the Prophet. I do believe however that
some or many of the verses have multiple meanings.
> The dictum of
> Mohammed was: 'Speak to everyone in accordance with the degree of his
> understanding.'
This is correct.
>
> The Sufi method, according to Ibrahim Khawwas, is: 'Demonstrate the
> unkown in terms of what is called "known" by the audience.'
I believe this applies to the teacher or Morshid (The Guide). This
does not apply to the poets or scholars who wrote their research.
Obviously reading Araqi you get a feeling "I need to learn more" but
reading Baba Tahir you are enlightened immediately. One is a scholar
and one is a guide.
Araqi taught us the Beloved in every mirorr (heart) shows a different
reflection of the same Divine Face. So the Sufi researchers looked
upon their own mirror (heart) to see what they found.
A teacher looks upon the deeds of the students to guess what is in
their hearts to guide them away from harm.
So there is a difference on what you mentioned, between the teacher
and a scholar.
--DARA
Eric Twose
> > The Sufi method, according to Ibrahim Khawwas, is: 'Demonstrate the
> > unknown in terms of what is called "known" by the audience.'
>
> I believe this applies to the teacher or Morshid (The Guide). This
> does not apply to the poets or scholars who wrote their research.
> Obviously reading Araqi you get a feeling "I need to learn more" but
> reading Baba Tahir you are enlightened immediately. One is a scholar
> and one is a guide.
>
> Araqi taught us the Beloved in every mirorr (heart) shows a different
> reflection of the same Divine Face. So the Sufi researchers looked
> upon their own mirror (heart) to see what they found.
>
> A teacher looks upon the deeds of the students to guess what is in
> their hearts to guide them away from harm.
>
> So there is a difference on what you mentioned, between the teacher
> and a scholar.
That rings a bell.
cf 'The "Net" at Meetings', IS, Knowing How To Know, p338
Best Wishes,
Eric.
ernobe
> just want to add that my motif for my previous post is not to demean
> the value of the qoran or to belitle the role of mohammed who indeed
> did pass to us literature of ancient sufism but to just demonstrate
> those who accuse shah of plagiarism that mohammed too do can be seen
> by many as a plagiarist...it is not really important for me if
> mohammed was a true mystic or a true prophet but as in the case of
> shah what is really important is to take from their hands what is
> usefull for us ...mohammed is dead 1400 years ago and shah too is gone
> so were they true teachers or not is not important but the important
> thing is wether there is anything in their writings that can benefit
> us(as well as those that can harm us as in the case of som koranic
> passages) ..in my case there is some benefit in the koran and i still
> study the qoran because i found out it contains precious teaching
> materials dating from time immemorial and because is writen in arabic
> which is itself is constructed on certain mystico-mathematical
> principles their usefullness is beyond description (a tiny sample of
> these materials could be seen at my
> webpage:www.geocities.com/metaco8nitron/sat.html).
> in my view people who are annoyed with shah are the people who cannot
> adopt the right sufic attitude for sufi learning
Being ignorant of what Shah intended to do with his books, we seek for
an explanation based on what is contained in them, by asking questions
concerning specific passages which seem to affirm or corroborate
his intentions. To interpret that as an evidence of anger is to
misunderstand the question. For example, on page 41 of "The
Commanding Self", it is evident from the phrase, "what we are really
doing" that Shah is referring to doings of the Sufis beyond what appears
in that book. Now the only reason that we ask these questions is because
the proper context of his sayings needs to be understood in order to
understand the references to him and his work which are common in
newsgroups such as this. Accordingly, we have procured ourselves two
of his books and referred to them occasionally, as time permitted.
Unfortunately, they are no longer in our possession. But our surprise
knows no end, as it appears that people have been scared away by our
questions, as Rumi says: "affrighted asses fleeing from a lion."
Eric Twose
> Being ignorant of what Shah intended to do with his books, we seek for
> an explanation based on what is contained in them, by asking questions
> concerning specific passages which seem to affirm or corroborate
> his intentions. To interpret that as an evidence of anger is to
> misunderstand the question. For example, on page 41 of "The
> Commanding Self", it is evident from the phrase, "what we are really
> doing" that Shah is referring to doings of the Sufis beyond what appears
> in that book.
Hi Ernobe,
What Shah is overtly saying in this passage entitled "How Things Seem To Be"
is:
<< Everyone has the compulsive habit of relating everything that comes into
his mind with as many other things as the pattern of his thoughts allows.
You can interpret what is happening to you in any way you like, or in any
way you need . . . . For instance, various schools of psychology will
provide you with tailor-made frames of reference through which you can
account for this process. If you need the protection and reassurance of such
a system, you will find it in that system. What we are really doing,
however, is beyond the formal limits of a psychology as generally understood
at the moment. >>
Which is not quite the same thing as:
>' it is evident from the phrase, "what we are really doing" that Shah
> is referring to doings of the Sufis beyond what appears in that book.'
From my limited and subjective perspective, I would re-phrase that as:
' it is evident from the phrase, "what we are really doing" that Shah is
referring to doings of the Sufis beyond what appears to appear
(or is readily apparent) in that book.'
> Now the only reason that we ask these questions is because
> the proper context of his sayings needs to be understood in order to
> understand the references to him and his work which are common in
> newsgroups such as this.
> Accordingly, we have procured ourselves two of his books
> and referred to them occasionally, as time permitted.
Who is this "we" of whom you speak?
> Unfortunately, they are no longer in our possession. But our surprise
> knows no end, as it appears that people have been scared away by our
> questions, as Rumi says: "affrighted asses fleeing from a lion."
I won't pretend that I fully understand your meaning here, though perhaps
I might expect an answer such as:
"How could you, from your gleaning of Shah's gleanings" :)
Best Wishes,
Eric.
Obo Vajrin
Commanding Self", it is evident from the phrase, "what we are really
doing" that Shah is referring to doings of the Sufis beyond what appears
in that book. >>
I'm sorry, I cannot find that phrase "what we are really doing" on page 41 of
"TCS". My copy has the last 80% of the passage "Misunderstood" and the
begining of the passage "Simplifying Sufi Teacher". I don't think we are on
the same page, hence I'm not able to argree with your conclusion.
Take Care, obo
nasruddin
>But our surprise
>knows no end, as it appears that people have been scared away by our
>questions, as Rumi says: "affrighted asses fleeing from a lion."
I know what you mean.
There's a lot of it about, running away from questions that is.
ernobe
> Hi Ernobe,
>
> What Shah is overtly saying in this passage entitled "How Things Seem To Be"
> is:
>
> << Everyone has the compulsive habit of relating everything that comes into
> his mind with as many other things as the pattern of his thoughts allows.
> You can interpret what is happening to you in any way you like, or in any
> way you need . . . . For instance, various schools of psychology will
> provide you with tailor-made frames of reference through which you can
> account for this process. If you need the protection and reassurance of such
> a system, you will find it in that system. What we are really doing,
> however, is beyond the formal limits of a psychology as generally understood
> at the moment. >>
>
> Which is not quite the same thing as:
>
>>' it is evident from the phrase, "what we are really doing" that Shah
>> is referring to doings of the Sufis beyond what appears in that book.'
>
> From my limited and subjective perspective, I would re-phrase that as:
>
> ' it is evident from the phrase, "what we are really doing" that Shah is
> referring to doings of the Sufis beyond what appears to appear
> (or is readily apparent) in that book.'
Greetings Eric,
No where else in the book does Shah refer to the "formal limits of a
psychology" as producing a "compulsive habit" similar to the one adduced
in this passage. Therefore, "what we are really doing", which is "beyond"
such a psychology, is also beyond the formal limits of that book.
What these other doings are is the object of my question. Perhaps,
though, my own limited and subjective perspective of contemporary
psychologies would convince me otherwise. If so, perhaps "what we are
really doing" really is explained in the same book, by a veiled reference
to psychological processes. And if so, it poses a further question
concerning the basic assumptions of the Shah doctrine, which is that not
everybody can be a teacher because not everybody can face their own
psychological dilemmas. Isn't it a fundamental Shah doctrine that a
teacher is required because the students can't perceive the nature and
extent of their own shortcomings? And that most never will? That
whether they can or not is not relevant to the Work in the first place?
Therefore, what is to stop anyone from making the most out of his own
shortcomings, and with fancy sounding words like "dervish", "king",
"Sufi", "vazir", try to impose them on others, claiming all along be doing
the "Work"? What is to stop the Work from becoming a war of words in
which the loudest mouth wins out? This would be a sufficient cause for
anger, fortunately in writing some semblance of civility can be
maintained, and even if that is the only visible outcome, it supplies an
alternative to those other doings which all too many seem to find wisdom
in.
>
>> Now the only reason that we ask these questions is because the proper
>> context of his sayings needs to be understood in order to understand
>> the references to him and his work which are common in newsgroups such
>> as this.
>
>> Accordingly, we have procured ourselves two of his books and referred
>> to them occasionally, as time permitted.
>
> Who is this "we" of whom you speak?
Me, myself and I.
>
>> Unfortunately, they are no longer in our possession. But our surprise
>> knows no end, as it appears that people have been scared away by our
>> questions, as Rumi says: "affrighted asses fleeing from a lion."
>
> I won't pretend that I fully understand your meaning here, though
> perhaps I might expect an answer such as:
>
> "How could you, from your gleaning of Shah's gleanings" :)
>
> Best Wishes,
> Eric.
Fried Jack Morgan
Dara, the teacher looks directly into the hearts of students. There is
no guessing.
nasruddin
<friedja...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> A teacher looks upon the deeds of the students to guess what is in
>> their hearts to guide them away from harm.
>>
>> So there is a difference on what you mentioned, between the teacher
>> and a scholar.
>>
>> --DARA
>
>Dara, the teacher looks directly into the hearts of students. There is
>no guessing.
The reality of the true 'state' of Sufi experience is very difficult
to grasp for the outsider, because he is accustomed to thinking in
terms which are different from this state. "Allowances must be made
for him," Ghazali says, "because he is unaware of what these states
are. It is like a blind man trying to understand the experience of
seeing green herbage or flowing water.
Seek knowledge even as far as China.
Eric Twose
news:pan.2004.04.28...@yahoo.com...
Sorry, what I should have included in the quote to put it more fully into
context (at the point where I have inserted ". . . ." is:
"Among us, the variety and parabolic nature of the impact is so arranged as
to address itself to parts of the consciousness which are least conditioned
to automatism. You can, however, interpret the phenomenon in accordance with
whatever pattern of thought you are dependent on."
Surely this book and any number of Shah's other 30-or-so works are brim full
of such potential impacts, which are activated through the process of
*inwardly digesting* the materials, or later through an interaction with
sets of circumstances or with others in the environment?
I would say that if we have immersed ourselves in a sufficiently
representative sample of the materials presented, for a certain length of
time, then we are going beyond what most folk would see as the "formal
limits" of written materials into something approximating an interaction
between the teacher['s mind-set] and the taught? To this end, Shah has
considered and already anticipated and provided answers for just about any
and every reaction that we will come up with in the course of our studies
("The Book of the Book" being an example of how such a thing might be
practically accomplished). Shah is still alive and kicking. School is not
yet out for summer. The work goes on ... imo.
BTW, I think one key factor in getting something extra out of the curriculum
is to be found in Desmond Morris' counter-thinking to the proverb "Nothing
ventured, nothing gained" -- "Nothing ventured, nothing lost". Was it Rumi
who said: "Gamble everything for Love"?
> What these other doings are is the object of my question. Perhaps,
> though, my own limited and subjective perspective of contemporary
> psychologies would convince me otherwise. If so, perhaps "what we are
> really doing" really is explained in the same book, by a veiled reference
> to psychological processes. And if so, it poses a further question
> concerning the basic assumptions of the Shah doctrine, which is that not
> everybody can be a teacher because not everybody can face their own
> psychological dilemmas. Isn't it a fundamental Shah doctrine that a
> teacher is required because the students can't perceive the nature and
> extent of their own shortcomings? And that most never will? That
> whether they can or not is not relevant to the Work in the first place?
> Therefore, what is to stop anyone from making the most out of his own
> shortcomings, and with fancy sounding words like "dervish", "king",
> "Sufi", "vazir", try to impose them on others, claiming all along be doing
> the "Work"? What is to stop the Work from becoming a war of words in
> which the loudest mouth wins out? This would be a sufficient cause for
> anger, fortunately in writing some semblance of civility can be
> maintained, and even if that is the only visible outcome, it supplies an
> alternative to those other doings which all too many seem to find wisdom
> in.
Thanks for this: I'll take a rain-check on these latter points, Ernobe. I'm
sure others here will be able to provide responses here that I cannot.
Best Wishes,
Eric.
Eric Twose
That rings a bell.
Sorry, Dara, I should have explained here what Shah had to say in the above
reference. Since I don't want to mangle his carefully-chosen intention, nor
quote him out of context, here is the quote in full.
Please ignore any anti-religious flavour you might detect, for our present
purposes:
<< You can soon see the difference between a Sufi lecture and a preaching
one.
The preacher, didactic, [scholar?] etc, always has a theme which he affirms
or tries to persuade the people about, or relates to some part of his or her
beliefs.
This is, in fact, largely indoctrination in action or reinforcement.
There is usually, too, a moral 'meaning', and the use of logic, intellect or
emotion, sometimes all of these.
With the Sufis, the address or other initiative by the teacher is based on
his [direct] perception of the needs of the individuals and collectivity in
the audience. In other words, he casts a 'net' to find out how people are
thinking [he is a 'spy of the Heart'], and then stimulates them in such a
way as to help develop their consciousness.
The two methods are entirely distinct. The former is one which is shared by
religious people with political, national, tribal and other projections. The
latter is only operative on the interior spiritual plane.
As examples, using similar materials: the religionist may point to art or
nature as wonders and encouraging and aesthetically and emotionally
satisfying; the Sufi will use them to stimulate understanding and
development rather than indulgence.
Best Wishes,
Eric.
ernobe
>
> BTW, I think one key factor in getting something extra out of the curriculum
> is to be found in Desmond Morris' counter-thinking to the proverb "Nothing
> ventured, nothing gained" -- "Nothing ventured, nothing lost". Was it Rumi
> who said: "Gamble everything for Love"?
Perhaps it is time that we should be really doing something after all!
Fried Jack Morgan
Read the last few paragraphs from the chapter of Seth in ibn-Arabi's
*The Bezels of Wisdom* about China, perhaps with respect to the context
of the phrase you quoted above.
Fried Jack Morgan
The proper context of his sayings is talked about somewhat and may be
understood partly here --
*The Unknown She*, Hilary Hart, in the chapter entitled, "The Unknown
She: a meeting with Lynn Barron"
Dara
As always you are very prepared and very proper :)
I am a rubber-hit-the-road person. For me abstract disucssions are
great TO A POINT. (mostly to impress the ladies)
Now the rubber and the road (since there no ladies with me here):
It is very important that the work I publish to be RESPONDED TO. It
does not matter if the response is favorable or not, but it is
important that readers respond. So to say I spy on their hearts. Book
readers and book writers can not do that.
2 years ago when I started this writing projec the concetp was, and is
today, to personalize the work to the flavor of a community. So I went
all over the net and chose alt.sufi for a sample community.
Today I believe that Sufi writers, poets and scholars of Islam should
write in SMALL CHUNKS and place them on the net for response and fine
tune according to the REAL NEED OF THE COMMUNITY.
I despise the intellectual books since there is no relationship
between the author and the readers. So what is the point of all these
techs? (you have to understand I have to be exterem and arrogant about
these opinions to cause a change. Nice guys finish last :)
Back to alt.sufi the experience is great with some of the readers.
They allow me to peek thru them and select from massive amounts of
research I have a few pages to feed their eyes.
On the other hand, there are others who just want to babble and push
anger all over e.g. my book is better than your book, which is silly
as many have noted.
Since you like the techs and I noticed have some skills and
experience, perhaps we can brainstorm how to make my 2 year experiment
to GRADUATE into something more useful.
These are my issues:
1. How to measure & log the discussions away from this hodge podge of
posts into a presentable DERIVATIVE RESEARCH to add to the translated
material in order to make the future eyes learn not only from the text
by also fromt he READER-GENERATED-CONTENT. I added the update link to
my first page for that purpose. Which is not very useful since many
silly posts ruins the good posts. I need something that I can prune.
Thought about installing my own nntp server and etc but not happy with
that concept.
2. How can the english readers grab something that they can read or
experience off-line. For example I added the download-able version of
some of the pages. Can there be other things to download.
3. Story-boarding, can we have a medium where the users can
personalized an ensemble of translated text, user generated content,
music, pics and etc to creat a presentation which WALKS THEM THROUGH a
story. For example, a nice way of showing the Nasruddin discussion the
pros & cons without going through hundreds of posts.
I have more ideas but later on if you are interested to talk
--DARA
GV
A funny synchronicity: the above quote and today's newstory about
frightened joggers in Southwest parks running from mountain lions.
(The latter moving from their usual habitat more toward the cities and
viceversa).
gV
Eric Twose
<< BTW, I think one key factor in getting something extra out of the
curriculum is to be found in Desmond Morris' counter-thinking to the
proverb "Nothing ventured, nothing gained" -- "Nothing ventured,
nothing lost". Was it Rumi who said: "Gamble everything for Love"?
Ernobe:
< Perhaps it is time that we should be really doing something after all! >
The story springs to mind in which Nasrudin approaches the gallows, knowing
full well that if he tells a lie when questioned, that he will be hung on
order of the king who maintains that he can *make* people tell the truth.
Nonetheless, he pushes his way through the crowd and walks right up to the
gallows.
"Where are you going?!" demands the captain of the guard.
"To be hanged."
"I don't believe you!"
"Very well," Nasrudin says: "if I have told a lie, then hang me."
"But that will make it the truth!" splutters the captain.
"That's right - *your* truth," responded Nasrudin, walking on through the
gates of the city.
Though it's not spelt out in the story, it is possible that many of the
people in the crowd through which Nasrudin stepped out of turn will see in
Nasrudin's actions simply the obvious: that he pushed in, out of turn. In
reality, if they were to follow his lead, then everyone in that crowd could
follow safely in his footsteps and enter the city.
At one level, these stories bypass the censors in the mind and are stored in
areas less prone to conditioning than usual. Re-reading the stories
exercises these same less-trodden-pathways. Their springing to mind at
appropriate moments continues this exercise and helps us to come to more
"rounded" decisions when we are faced with situations in our life.
Eventually, this exercise becomes a transferable skill, and rather than
drawing on examples of Nasrudin's actions pre-packaged in his stories, to a
greater or lesser extent we come to possess Nasrudinesque (or Sufic)
qualities ourselves. At a deeper level, we "make contact" with
the Sufi dynamic.
And at another level, in order to "be really doing something after all", as
you say, we need to be willing to play Nasrudin. To deliberately set aside
our hopes and fears ( in my case the hope of being right and the fear of
being wrong (and consequently left feeling foolish ) ) and step out of the
comfort zone of standing in line and face not only the captain of the guard
and the king's wrath but the sight of our own nafs.
Maybe we'll get it wrong and feel foolish.
Big deal. We'll hopefully have learnt -- or unlearnt -- something about
ourselves and about others that we would not have otherwise learnt.
And sometimes we'll get it right, and again we will have learnt and made
some progress.
At least, that's my current hypothesis. And I may be wrong. "Nothing
ventured, nothing lost."
Best Wishes,
Eric.
Andreas
> It does not matter if the response is favorable or not, but it is
> important that readers respond. So to say I spy on their hearts. Book
> readers and book writers can not do that.
> 2 years ago when I started this writing projec the concetp was, and is
> today, to personalize the work to the flavor of a community. So I went
> all over the net and chose alt.sufi for a sample community.
Hi,
I was away when you joined, so therefore allow me to enquire whether
you actually asked the participants of alt.sufi whether they wanted to
be used in the way you outline above - ?
And are you periodically checking on whether *they* are finding it a
useful experience?
> Today I believe that Sufi writers, poets and scholars of Islam should
> write in SMALL CHUNKS and place them on the net for response and fine
> tune according to the REAL NEED OF THE COMMUNITY.
Do you think it could be possible - for example - that actual Sufis
might observe people's behaviour, perceive their real needs, and
provide what is needed?
> I despise the intellectual books since there is no relationship
> between the author and the readers. So what is the point of all these
> techs? (you have to understand I have to be exterem and arrogant about
> these opinions to cause a change. Nice guys finish last :)
>
> Back to alt.sufi the experience is great with some of the readers.
> They allow me to peek thru them and select from massive amounts of
> research I have a few pages to feed their eyes.
It seems to me you are feeding on them, and others, much like a flea,
do you not?
A.
Steve
"Eric Twose" <er...@anchor92.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c6qqv2$9ua$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Flying or falling, eyes open or closed, everyone exists in the darkness
of the Abyss. Sufi stories are like little wake up calls to keep the eye
of the heart open to the potential that exists in an unknowable place,
little distractions that stop us from falling. Douglas Adams seems to
have understood:
http://www.extremelysmart.com/humor/howtofly.php
As Gandalf said: "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that
is given us."
Best Wishes,
Stephen
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.670 / Virus Database: 432 - Release Date: 4/27/04
nasruddin
Breadcrumbs, perhaps ;-)
Steve
"Andreas" <jaye...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:b9d67115.04042...@posting.google.com...
>
> It seems to me you are feeding on them, and others, much like a flea,
> do you not?
Don't we all? An old friend pointed out that all human interaction is
manipulation(fleaness). A slightly newer friend differentiated that to
I-Thou(two fleas) and I-It(a flea and it's prey) interactions. (No
equality without differentiation and all that).
It can be hard to tell, can it not? And even if one can there is still
this to consider:
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you
give it to them?"
nasruddin
>Hi,
>
>I was away when you joined, so therefore allow me to enquire whether
>you actually asked the participants of alt.sufi whether they wanted to
>be used in the way you outline above - ?
>
>And are you periodically checking on whether *they* are finding it a
>useful experience?
>
>> Today I believe that Sufi writers, poets and scholars of Islam should
>> write in SMALL CHUNKS and place them on the net for response and fine
>> tune according to the REAL NEED OF THE COMMUNITY.
>
>Do you think it could be possible - for example - that actual Sufis
>might observe people's behaviour, perceive their real needs, and
>provide what is needed?
>
>> I despise the intellectual books since there is no relationship
>> between the author and the readers. So what is the point of all these
>> techs? (you have to understand I have to be exterem and arrogant about
>> these opinions to cause a change. Nice guys finish last :)
>>
>> Back to alt.sufi the experience is great with some of the readers.
>> They allow me to peek thru them and select from massive amounts of
>> research I have a few pages to feed their eyes.
>
>It seems to me you are feeding on them, and others, much like a flea,
>do you not?
>
>A.
Slartibartfast coughed politely.
"Earthman," he said, "it is sometimes hard to follow your mode of
speech. Remember I have been asleep inside this planet of Magrathea
for five million years and know little of these early sixties sit coms
of which you speak. These creatures you call mice, you see, they are
not quite as they appear. They are merely the protrusion into our
dimension of vast hyperintelligent pandimen-sional beings. The whole
business with the cheese and the squeaking is just a front."
The old man paused, and with a sympathetic frown continued. "They've
been experimenting on you I'm afraid."
Arthur thought about this for a second, and then his face cleared. "Ah
no," he said, "I see the source of the misunderstanding now. No, look
you see, what happened was that we used to do experiments on them.
They were often used in behavioural research, Pavlov and all that sort
of stuff. So what happened was hat the mice would be set all sorts of
tests, learning to ring bells, run around mazes and things so that the
whole nature of the learning process could be examined. From our
observations of their behaviour we were able to learn all sorts of
things about our own . . . "
Arthur's voice tailed off.
"Such subtlety . . . " said Slartibartfast, "one has to admire it."
"What?" said Arthur.
"How better to disguise their real natures, and how better to guide
your thinking. Suddenly running down a maze the wrong way, eating the
wrong bit of cheese, unexpectedly dropping dead of myxomatosis, - if
it's finely calculated the cumulative effect is enormous."
He paused for effect.
"You see, Earthman, they really are particularly clever
hyperintelligent pan-dimensional beings. Your planet and people have
formed the matrix of an organic computer running a tenmillion-year
research programme . . . "Let
me tell you the whole story. It'll take a little time."
"Time," said Arthur weakly, "is not currently one of my problems."
Eric Twose
Agha
> > Khan version. It would make an interesting scientific experiment to
compare
> > the two side by side.
>
> You are not talking about the Golshan that is another book. The one I
> am translating is the TRAINING manual for Golshan. He wrote one book
> as the poems for artistic pupose and the other as the
> training/teaching material.
Hi Friend Dara,
Rather than being a *training course*, from my own limited, subjective
perspective, I see the main thrust of the Sufi study of the particular
tributary I follow as a *process*; akin to establishing a state of resonance
through mutual electromagnetic induction between teacher and taught. A
change in electrical flux in one, causes a corresponding change of flux in
the other; and visa-versa, via the medium of magnetic linkage.
Perhaps these differences in approach are partly responsible for the
difficulties we have, from time to time, in achieving a satisfactory meeting
of minds?
Therefore, I am tempted to read more into the poems of the Secret Garden
than mere "artistic purpose".
Best Wishes,
Eric.
nasruddin
wrote:
>
>"Andreas" <jaye...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:b9d67115.04042...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> It seems to me you are feeding on them, and others, much like a flea,
>> do you not?
>
>
>Don't we all? An old friend pointed out that all human interaction is
>manipulation(fleaness). A slightly newer friend differentiated that to
>I-Thou(two fleas) and I-It(a flea and it's prey) interactions. (No
>equality without differentiation and all that).
>It can be hard to tell, can it not? And even if one can there is still
>this to consider:
>"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you
>give it to them?"
>
>Best Wishes,
>
>Stephen
>
Stephen,
Andreas' questions were most pertinent, don't you think so?
Dara
>
> Rather than being a *training course*, from my own limited, subjective
> perspective, I see the main thrust of the Sufi study of the particular
> tributary I follow as a *process*; akin to establishing a state of resonance
Salaam Eric, forgive the buzz words from my Unix geek years :)
> through mutual electromagnetic induction between teacher and taught. A
> change in electrical flux in one, causes a corresponding change of flux in
> the other; and visa-versa, via the medium of magnetic linkage.
>
> Perhaps these differences in approach are partly responsible for the
> difficulties we have, from time to time, in achieving a satisfactory meeting
> of minds?
I think these differences are very good for my work. I learn break the
MOLD and thing OUT OF BOX. So no worries. I just dont like the same
broken record gargling of the same old same old...
>
> Therefore, I am tempted to read more into the poems of the Secret Garden
> than mere "artistic purpose".
If you like there is a research book on the Golshan (Secret Garden)
which is the meanings and analysis and historical notes. If you like I
can order them from Iran this week INSHALALH :)
This way you can give me sections so I can post the reserach rather
than aimlessly transling
--DARA
Dara
> "Andreas" <jaye...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:b9d67115.04042...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > It seems to me you are feeding on them, and others, much like a flea,
> > do you not?
>
>
> Don't we all?
Cock Roach is a more proper insect to insult me in public forum. That
is what we, folks from mid east, are called in foriegn TVs and papers
and congresses...
Please do not be shy in future be more frank
--DARA