From tariqas-digest-approval@europe.std.com Fri Aug 16 11:16:08 1996 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 10:55:51 -0400 (EDT) From: tariqas-digest-approval@europe.std.com Reply-To: tariqas-digest@world.std.com To: tariqas-digest@world.std.com Subject: tariqas-digest V1 #103 tariqas-digest Wednesday, 14 August 1996 Volume 01 : Number 103 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve H Rose Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 00:00:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Spirit (fwd) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 23:36:12 +0800 Message-Id: <199608131536.XAA01630@leonis.nus.sg> X-Sender: sci30342@leonis.nus.sg X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: sci30342@nus.sg From: Imaan Shivani Joshi Subject: Spirit Cc: tariqas@world.std.com, med30077@leonis.nus.sg, sci40270@nus.sg as salaamu 'alaikum "Knowledge saves, only on condition that it enlists all that we are; only when it is a way which tills and which transforms, and which wounds our nature as the plough wounds the earth..." "metaphysical knowledge is scared. It is the right of sacred things to demand of man all that he is." "Someone who does not know the house is on fire has no reason to call for help; just as the man who does not know he is drowning will not clutch the rope that could save him. But to know we are perishing means, either to despair or else to pray." "If I should will something that my Lord does not will for me, I should then be guitly of unbelief."-- Rabi'a al Adawiyya. O God, You called, and we were slow. Alas! alas! what we did we did in poor judgement. ------------------------------ From: Steve H Rose Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 00:07:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Can Allah do it? Assalamu alaikum. Why don't we discuss something useful -- something that we KNOW something about, like: How many angels can stand on the end of a pin? ;-) Yours, Habib ------------------------------ From: Lilyan Kay Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 21:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Can Allah do it? Amin! On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Steve H Rose wrote: > Assalamu alaikum. > > Why don't we discuss something useful -- something that we KNOW > something about, like: > > How many angels can stand on the end of a pin? ;-) > > Yours, > > Habib > > > ------------------------------ From: maarof Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 13:44:13 +0800 Subject: Re: Can Allah do it? On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, "Michael J. Moore" wrote: >maarof wrote: >> >> Michael J. Moore wrote: >> > >> > Can Allah create another Allah? >> > >> > -- >> >> Does a question always has an answer? -- maarof > >No, not when the question is lauched from a lie. And >the lie here is 'created'. We have taken the idea >of divine creation and shrunk it into our tiny notion >of what creation means. Firstly we have taken a concept >that is of necessity eternal in perspective and shrunk it >into the temporal relm and stuck a label on it 'c-r-e-a-t-e-d'. >Now we can verbally bat it back and forth like some kind >of theological ping-pong ball. But it is all nonsense because >we are only playing with our concept which has no likeness >to anything real. This taking of something higher and >dragging it down into something lower is the very definition >or pornography. >Had somebody choosen to reprimand me for me for daring >to ask such a question, they would have been well justified! > >> Surah 112. The Unity, Sincerity, Oneness Of Allah >> >> 1. Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; >> >> 2. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; >> >> 3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; >> >> 4. And there is none like unto Him. > >Absolutely right! He has said "SAY:" or "SAY THIS" >This is all that we are capable of dragging down >the rungs of Jacob's ladder without commiting >heresy. This is all that can >be SAID. Anything else, we must go up the ladder >to the relm where things cannot be know by speaking. > >And speaking of speaking, I've been doing far to much >of it and will now stop before I manage to crown >my own stupidity. > >As -salaamu 'alaykum > >-- > >Michael Moore > Assalamualaikum, I think it is man's nature to doubt things which he does not know or has not experienced. Tanzen has response mathematically to your question, and I doubt whether mathematic can explained abstract things such as God, love or compassion. If we accept al-Quran as God's words, then we accept God's answers to our questions and also accept our limitations to understand them. About the answer to your question: Can Allah create another Allah? My answer: The question imposed limitation upon Allah. The question is not valid. salam maarof ------------------------------ From: Craig Johannsen Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 22:50:58 -0500 Subject: Re: Can Allah do it? On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Steve H Rose wrote: > Assalamu alaikum. > > Why don't we discuss something useful -- something that we KNOW > something about, like: > > How many angels can stand on the end of a pin? ;-) Hey, everybody knows the answer is 42! The mice spent a long time computing it. What kind of question is that anyhow? ------------------------------ From: pivotal@inxpress.net (Jabriel Hanafi) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 01:59:02 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: why one doesn't post often My Friend Woody said: okay. I've been warned not to do this... but i'm throwing caution to the>wind these days! ... I am one of the 'unknowledgable'. I wish>to see Truth. I wish to do God's Will. I have absolutely no >undersatanding of Islam -- but i do have an intense desire to "surrender >to Allah".... TELL ME how to do that! The question is wrong until it is asked in silence, and from your heart instead of your position. Jabriel - ----------------------------------------- Jabriel Hanafi Pivotal Point Dynamics ------------------------------ From: pivotal@inxpress.net (Jabriel Hanafi) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 01:59:04 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Sufi and Re: to postings Lala said The little I have learned has>helped me to feel closer and more akin to islam and at least knowing>something is better than completely being in the dark as I was a couple of>yrs. ago. What I am saying is that without this experience in the sufi>order, I would have no understanding at all about Islam, Rumi, Sheiks, The>Quran. One thing I would wish is when you use Arabic terms is that you could >please put the translation in english, so I can learn more from your >beautiful words. Love Kaffea Lalla What does it matter what we call ourselves? I call you an angel, but what do I know. I know that your heart always lends to me a sense of nurishment and it would not be hard for me to kiss the groung upon which you walk if I would only know it served. My Friend how easy it is to thank you for being with me regardless what it is that you believe. Jabriel - ----------------------------------------- Jabriel Hanafi Pivotal Point Dynamics ------------------------------ From: Craig Johannsen Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 00:32:25 -0500 Subject: Re: Spirit (long) Dear Brothers and Sisters, Over the last couple of weeks I have been reading a book that you might find very thought-provoking and challenging. Its title is "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind". The author is Julian Jaynes, who used to teach psychology at Princeton University. He wrote the book from an atheistic or agnostic point of view, but, despite its trivializing of man's relationship to God (or gods), much of what he presents is so revolutionary that one is led to a new interpretation of the past as we know it from existing books, tablets, and oral traditions. Here are just a few propositions (my own paraphrasing): 1. Prior to 1000 BC or so, most people were not conscious (or self conscious) in the way we are today. People did not introspect nor worry about moral questions. People spoke directly to their gods and frequently hallucinated their physical presence. In particular, their gods provided them with guidance when they encountered novel or stressful situations. These people, whom he calls "bicameral", had only a very limited concept of self. 2. For bicameral people, deceit or dishonesty was not possible or even conceivable. There was no concept of good or evil. 3. Bicameral people were extremely obedient to their gods. This obedience was more or less automatic -- there was no decision to obey. 4. Bicameral people did not see themselves as choosing or willing things to happen. Instead, they saw themselves as being constantly at the mercy of the will of their gods, often buffetted about at the wimsey of the gods. 5. The earliest gods were merely representations of authority figures -- often recently departed relatives or group leaders. Later, kings or past kings were the dominant gods, but individuals also had their own personal gods or guides. 6. The gods of bicameral people resided in the right hemisphere of the brain and provided an oral interpretation of incoming perceptual information to the owner of the brain, particularly under stress or when the pattern was unfamiliar. 7. Sometime very roughly around 1000 BC or between 2000 BC and 1000 BC, the increasing complexity of city life, a large number of mass migrations and mixing of people with different cultures led to an overabundance of potential gods and a consequent weakening of the authority of the gods. People didn't know which god to listen to and adapted by finding other criteria or mechanisms for judging novel situations and for making decisions about their own destiny. Divination, casting of lots, and reliance on oracles were some of these mechanisms and were important steps in developing a more extensive concept of self and time. There was a transition from an aural mode (based on hearing voices) to a more visual mode of thought. 8. During the transition from bicameral to post-bicameral, people were very distressed that it appeared to them that they were losing their gods or that their gods were deserting them. Prayer emerged during this transition as a means for people to persuade their gods to return or at least to speak to them again. Prior to this period prayer was unnecessary -- most everyone could speak directly with their god or gods. 9. Many of the differences between bicameral and post-bicameral mentality can be seen even today by comparing works of literature from the two periods (e.g., by comparing the language of Homer's Iliad with that of the Odyssey, which, although attributed to Homer, is thought to have been composed much later). 10. The Genesis chapters in the Hebrew Bible or Torah may be interpreted as the story of how self knowledge led to the loss of a direct relationship with god. Much of the Bible and Torah was written during the transition period, so they reflect both mentalities (the earlies parts bicameral, the later parts post-bicameral), as well as the historical factors that led to the transition (the mass migrations, changing lifestyles, struggles against a polyphany of gods, etc.). I hope I have accurately represented Jaynes' views. If you have a chance to read the book, please do. The publisher was Pelican Books, 1982. I invite one and all to comment on the book or any of the above propositions. Could it be that the central theme of most of today's religions is to return in some sense to this bicameral mentality -- to return to the state where we once again can communicate directly with God and derive our guidance primarily or entirely from God? What are the implications for Sufi practice? Wa salaam, Craig ------------------------------ From: maarof Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 18:27:23 +0800 Subject: Re: Spirit (long) On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Craig Johannsen wrote: >Dear Brothers and Sisters, > >Over the last couple of weeks I have been reading a book >that you might find very thought-provoking and challenging. >Its title is "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the >Bicameral Mind". The author is Julian Jaynes, who used to >teach psychology at Princeton University. He wrote the book from >an atheistic or agnostic point of view, but, despite its trivializing >of man's relationship to God (or gods), much of what he presents >is so revolutionary that one is led to a new interpretation of the >past as we know it from existing books, tablets, and oral traditions. > >Here are just a few propositions (my own paraphrasing): >1. Prior to 1000 BC or so, most people were not conscious (or self > conscious) in the way we are today. People did not introspect nor > worry about moral questions. People spoke directly to their gods > and frequently hallucinated their physical presence. In particular, > their gods provided them with guidance when they encountered > novel or stressful situations. These people, whom he calls > "bicameral", had only a very limited concept of self. >2. For bicameral people, deceit or dishonesty was not possible or even > conceivable. There was no concept of good or evil. >3. Bicameral people were extremely obedient to their gods. This obedience > was more or less automatic -- there was no decision to obey. >4. Bicameral people did not see themselves as choosing or willing things > to happen. Instead, they saw themselves as being constantly at the > mercy of the will of their gods, often buffetted about at the wimsey of > the gods. >5. The earliest gods were merely representations of authority figures -- > often recently departed relatives or group leaders. Later, kings > or past kings were the dominant gods, but individuals also had their > own personal gods or guides. >6. The gods of bicameral people resided in the right hemisphere of the brain > and provided an oral interpretation of incoming perceptual information > to the owner of the brain, particularly under stress or when the pattern > was unfamiliar. >7. Sometime very roughly around 1000 BC or between 2000 BC and 1000 BC, the > increasing complexity of city life, a large number of mass migrations > and mixing of people with different cultures led to an overabundance > of potential gods and a consequent weakening of the authority of the gods. > People didn't know which god to listen to and adapted by finding other > criteria or mechanisms for judging novel situations and for making decisions > about their own destiny. Divination, casting of lots, and reliance on oracles > were some of these mechanisms and were important steps in developing > a more extensive concept of self and time. There was a transition from an > aural mode (based on hearing voices) to a more visual mode of thought. >8. During the transition from bicameral to post-bicameral, people were very > distressed that it appeared to them that they were losing their gods or > that their gods were deserting them. Prayer emerged during this transition > as a means for people to persuade their gods to return or at least to speak > to them again. Prior to this period prayer was unnecessary -- most everyone > could speak directly with their god or gods. >9. Many of the differences between bicameral and post-bicameral mentality can be > seen even today by comparing works of literature from the two periods > (e.g., by comparing the language of Homer's Iliad with that of the Odyssey, > which, although attributed to Homer, is thought to have been composed much > later). >10. The Genesis chapters in the Hebrew Bible or Torah may be interpreted > as the story of how self knowledge led to the loss of a direct relationship > with god. Much of the Bible and Torah was written during the transition > period, so they reflect both mentalities (the earlies parts bicameral, the > later parts post-bicameral), as well as the historical factors that led to > the transition (the mass migrations, changing lifestyles, struggles against > a polyphany of gods, etc.). > >I hope I have accurately represented Jaynes' views. If you have a chance to >read the book, please do. The publisher was Pelican Books, 1982. > >I invite one and all to comment on the book or any of the above propositions. > >Could it be that the central theme of most of today's religions is to >return in some sense to this bicameral mentality -- to return to the >state where we once again can communicate directly with God and derive >our guidance primarily or entirely from God? What are the implications >for Sufi practice? > >Wa salaam, >Craig > Assalamualaikum, >From my limited experience visiting the Orang Aslis who inhabited the forest -- remnant of "bicamerals society" ?? -- I suspect life as it originally created was meant to be simpler. Religions (beliefs?) and God is also easily understood, and so thus the rituals as a way to communicate with God or the Creator. IMO, religions have become too complicated. I for one, would like to see religion be simple, as simple as life as it should be live. salam maarof ------------------------------ From: woodsong@juno.com (Carol Woodsong) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 13:33:23 PST Subject: Re: Fatwa declares Goethe a Muslim (fwd) Hello, friends! >In my humble opinion, Being truly loyal means extending that loyalty >to >commands of the Beloved, Eblis was arrogant about it's own power (i.e. >ego) and >perceived superiority over other "creation" and did not comply to the >wishes of >the Beloved. > >The lesson for the "created" is for submission and humility to the >Greater Will >of Almighty does anyone here remember the story i posted here about 'False Face'? Is this the 'same' story, perhaps? peace & love, carol ------------------------------ From: woodsong@juno.com (Carol Woodsong) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 13:32:43 PST Subject: Re: further to carol woodsong Hello, A.N. Durkee, and thank you for your reply. I would appreciate if you could help me with a few terms. what is a khalifah? zawiyah? and khulafah? >the shaykh taught that if you did not get it at once from the one who >had >it the chances were that you would never get it. what "it" is is of >course >very difficult to define but simply put "it" is to know by direct >tasting >and realisation who or perhaps what Allah is, who you are, why you >are, >what is going on and what your own 'place' is within that realisation. okay. This is a bit confusing to me. It seems that all of sufism focuses on this "IT" -- this realization... could i assume this is the same as what is known to Buddhists as 'enlightenment'? At-Oneness... Is this the object of sufism (or at least that of your particular school)? How do you get it from another? (I realize this is probably a difficult question to answer... but i am looking only for a very general answer. Perhaps i'm just interested in believing that this is possible. If it is possible --and i have no reason to believe it is not-- WHY 'give' this to another who has not 'earned' it? Does this question make sense, or am i attaching too much of my own beliefs here?) Also, your above statement seems... well, somehow sad. That some will never 'get it'. Do we then 'give up' on them? What do you see as your responsibility to others? >what follows that realisation is tarbiyah or training which is >exhaustive >and which we refer to as 'breaking the knees' becomes it entails many >years >of sitting with your shaykh until you can incorporate the "it" you got >into >all aspects of your life. Ahhh!! But, this incorporation... this LIVING is most important? So... why the focus on "enlightenment"? Is it possible to 'break the knees' as a way TO 'realization of God'? >this is an attempt to answer the first question you asked. i will try, >inshallah, if you like, to answer other questions you raised as i have >the time. Thank you. I hope i have not asked too many questions! I appreciate your answers. peace, carol ------------------------------ From: Erik S Ohlander Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 08:44:31 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: further to carol woodsong khalifah: a successor or head zawiyah: North African khaniqah khulafah: plural of khalifah Erik. On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, Carol Woodsong wrote: > Hello, A.N. Durkee, > and thank you for your reply. > > I would appreciate if you could help me with a few terms. > > what is a khalifah? > zawiyah? > and khulafah? > > >the shaykh taught that if you did not get it at once from the one who > >had > >it the chances were that you would never get it. what "it" is is of > >course > >very difficult to define but simply put "it" is to know by direct > >tasting > >and realisation who or perhaps what Allah is, who you are, why you > >are, > >what is going on and what your own 'place' is within that realisation. > > okay. This is a bit confusing to me. It seems that all of sufism > focuses on this "IT" -- this realization... could i assume this is the > same as what is known to Buddhists as 'enlightenment'? At-Oneness... > > Is this the object of sufism (or at least that of your particular school)? > How do you get it from another? (I realize this is probably a difficult > question to answer... but i am looking only for a very general answer. > Perhaps i'm just interested in believing that this is possible. If it > is possible --and i have no reason to believe it is not-- WHY 'give' > this to another who has not 'earned' it? Does this question make sense, > or am i attaching too much of my own beliefs here?) > > Also, your above statement seems... well, somehow sad. That some will never 'get it'. Do we then 'give up' on them? What do you see as your > responsibility to others? > > > >what follows that realisation is tarbiyah or training which is > >exhaustive > >and which we refer to as 'breaking the knees' becomes it entails many > >years > >of sitting with your shaykh until you can incorporate the "it" you got > >into > >all aspects of your life. > > Ahhh!! But, this incorporation... this LIVING is most important? So... > why the focus on "enlightenment"? Is it possible to 'break the knees' > as a way TO 'realization of God'? > > > >this is an attempt to answer the first question you asked. i will try, > >inshallah, if you like, to answer other questions you raised as i have > >the time. > > Thank you. I hope i have not asked too many questions! I appreciate your > answers. > > > peace, > carol > ------------------------------ From: frank gaude Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 06:48:50 -0700 Subject: RUMI 945 A VOICE OUT OF THIS WORLD calls on our souls not to wait any more get ready to move to the original home your real home your real birth place is up here with the heavens let your soul take a flight like a happy phoenix you've been tied up your feet in the mud your body roped to a log break loose your ties get ready for the final flight make your last journey from this strange world soar for the heights where there is no more separation of you and your home God has created your wings not to be dormant as long as you are alive you must try more and more to use your wings to show you're alive these wings of yours are filled with quests and hopes if they are not used they will wither away they will soon decay you may not like what i'm going to tell you you are stuck now you must seek nothing but the source RUMI, ghazal number 945, translated May 18, 1992, by Nader Khalili. tanzen ------------------------------ From: woodsong@juno.com (Carol Woodsong) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 09:04:26 PST Subject: Re: Good Morning! (fwd) g'mornin' Panther Eagle, >Mitakuye oyasin! - We Are One People.... Yes! :) ALL my relatives... Not only One People, but One with ALL. Earth my Mother, Sky my Father... i am one with the rocks, the grasses, the birds and the spiders who share this space... we are One Song... :) Are you Lakota? peace & love, carol ------------------------------ From: woodsong@juno.com (Carol Woodsong) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 09:03:38 PST Subject: Re: why one doesn't post often hi Jabriel, >The question is wrong until it is asked in silence, and from your heart >instead of your position. Jabriel Thank you, dear friend. The question is, was and will always be from my heart, of my heart. The answer must come, i suppose, from the same place? I've given up 'position'... there are no ideas to defend... no thing to protect... nothing to desire, save Allah. Help me remember? Into the Silence... come with me? :) be well. love, only love, woody ------------------------------ From: Ellen L Price Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 07:18:33 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: further to carol woodsong A.N. Durkee... Thank you for your reply. It gives a window into the workings of a small school, of which there are others besides the one of which you are a member. It also emphasizes the importance of a living teacher rather than trying to rely on books to get "it." ...Ellen ------------------------------ From: Ellen L Price Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 07:48:14 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: Can Allah do it? The same kind of question as the first one. Ellen On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, Craig Johannsen wrote: > On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Steve H Rose wrote: > > > Assalamu alaikum. > > > > Why don't we discuss something useful -- something that we KNOW > > something about, like: > > > > How many angels can stand on the end of a pin? ;-) > > Hey, everybody knows the answer is 42! > The mice spent a long time computing it. > What kind of question is that anyhow? > ------------------------------ From: Ellen L Price Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 07:55:41 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: why one doesn't post often Jabriel... Glad to see that you back on the net with your insightful comments. ...Ellen On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Jabriel Hanafi wrote: > My Friend Woody said: okay. I've been warned not to do this... but i'm > throwing caution to the>wind these days! ... I am one of the > 'unknowledgable'. I wish>to see Truth. I wish to do God's Will. I have > absolutely no > >undersatanding of Islam -- but i do have an intense desire to "surrender > >to Allah".... TELL ME how to do that! > > The question is wrong until it is asked in silence, and from your heart > instead of your position. Jabriel > ----------------------------------------- > Jabriel Hanafi > Pivotal Point Dynamics > > > ------------------------------ End of tariqas-digest V1 #103 *****************************