The Qu'Ran and Ibn Al Arabi

DanielS said:
This seems to be a slippery slope, and from what you are saying, there is probably a myriad of Sufi Schools, or groups that vary in large or small degrees, some closer to Islam in practices and belief, others very different, and like you said, similar in nature to Catharism.

This reminds me of http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=215.0 the thread that dealt with Imitation Fourth Way Groups. There are a number of groups that continued Gurdjieff's work, but without fully understanding what the Fourth Way really meant and the messages and understanding that Gurdjieff was trying to convey. It seems (not surprisingly) that the same is true of Sufiism. Depending on where and who you learn from, the teachings will either be 'spot on', 'way off' or a mixture of grey area inbetween.

Could it be that the early Sufi mystics did see something of deeper meaning in the Qu'ran that Muhammed didn't mean to put in there, or had meant in another way. I remember a quote from Laura in another thread.

Laura said:
As Mephistopheles told Faust, "I am he who constantly intends evil, yet does good."


Yes there are various Sufi schools as you already figured out. Even those schools are divided in themselves. So when I say Sufism doesn't come from Islam, I felt somewhat disturbed because there are so many of them and as obyvatel said they carry the same name. There are those like Arabi who really understands the issue, and there are those like Gazali who is nothing but a disgrace in history of Sufism. They all call themselves Sufi so it is hard to make any generalization.

After writing the first post, I was going to put another about how Fourth Way changed and it is similar to Sufism. You figured out that already, yes it is exactly so. And keep in mind that it hasn't been a century since Gurdjieff died, but Sufism was there for a milennium. There were lots of chances to obscure the Truth for Control System.

Well the hidden meaning of Quran doesn't exist, but I am sure they saw how this is STS try to mimick STO behaviour, and they saw chances to convey their message. So I agree with Faust quote, this is what Sufis used Quran for. I said in my first post in this thread:

I personally think Quran was dictated by Lizzies in a careful manner, so that each person can interpret given words with their false personalities to cause divisions. Lucky for us, these holes in interpretation opens up the possibility for people like Arabi to "interpret" those texts in a "correct manner".

which is basically the same thing Goethe said, unintentional good. I would like to post a Sufi story, so that you can see the difference between Sufis with STS thinking and Sufis with STO thinking. Also you can see they lived side by side even at those times:

One day some Sufis come to visit the “ascended ones of Khorasan” who are also Sufis. When they came, they eat, talk and discuss certain issues for a while. Then, ascended ones of Khorasan ask: “How do you live your life, what is your philosophy?” The guests respond: “When there is no food we be patient, when there is food we praise to Allah.”

Ascended ones of Khorasan respond: “Well, even the dogs of Khorasan can do that for their masters.” Guests ask: “What do YOU do then? What is YOUR philosophy?” And they respond: “When there is no food we praise to Allah, when there is food we share it with others.”
 
Biomiast said:
I would like to post a Sufi story, so that you can see the difference between Sufis with STS thinking and Sufis with STO thinking. Also you can see they lived side by side even at those times:

One day some Sufis come to visit the “ascended ones of Khorasan” who are also Sufis. When they came, they eat, talk and discuss certain issues for a while. Then, ascended ones of Khorasan ask: “How do you live your life, what is your philosophy?” The guests respond: “When there is no food we be patient, when there is food we praise to Allah.”

Ascended ones of Khorasan respond: “Well, even the dogs of Khorasan can do that for their masters.” Guests ask: “What do YOU do then? What is YOUR philosophy?” And they respond: “When there is no food we praise to Allah, when there is food we share it with others.”

Thank you Biomiast and everyone who contributes their in-depth knowledge to this thread. I am only a reader, but this discussion has revealed a lot about the Sufi's 'strategic enclosure' and how the STO orientation goes deeper than any words and concepts. The Sufi's ability to interpret and use the STS ideas from the Qu'ran in a benevolent manner (where necessary) seems to demonstrate their full capability to effectively Work and BE, wherever they are.

I enjoy and learn a lot from stories that place two opposites side-by-side like that, especially when so much detail came just before. :)
 
Buddy said:
Biomiast said:
I would like to post a Sufi story, so that you can see the difference between Sufis with STS thinking and Sufis with STO thinking. Also you can see they lived side by side even at those times:
One day some Sufis come to visit the “ascended ones of Khorasan” who are also Sufis. When they came, they eat, talk and discuss certain issues for a while. Then, ascended ones of Khorasan ask: “How do you live your life, what is your philosophy?” The guests respond: “When there is no food we be patient, when there is food we praise to Allah.”

Ascended ones of Khorasan respond: “Well, even the dogs of Khorasan can do that for their masters.” Guests ask: “What do YOU do then? What is YOUR philosophy?” And they respond: “When there is no food we praise to Allah, when there is food we share it with others.”

Thank you Biomiast and everyone who contributes their in-depth knowledge to this thread. I am only a reader, but this discussion has revealed a lot about the Sufi's 'strategic enclosure' and how the STO orientation goes deeper than any words and concepts. The Sufi's ability to interpret and use the STS ideas from the Qu'ran in a benevolent manner (where necessary) seems to demonstrate their full capability to effectively Work and BE, wherever they are.

I enjoy and learn a lot from stories that place two opposites side-by-side like that, especially when so much detail came just before. :)

Thanks Biomiast, you've given me some insight into Islam, Qu'ran and Sufiism. One thing that I was reminded of when you brought up the story above was this:

Q: (L) Back to the quorum and illuminati.
A: Quorum mostly alien; illuminati mostly human.
Q: (L) Well, the quorum has been described...
A: Meet; two halves of whole.
Q: (L) Well the quorum seems to be described as being in touch with the Cassiopaeans, that is, yourselves, which you have described as beneficial beings, is this correct?
A: Close.
Q: (L) The illuminati has been described as being behind or with the brotherhood which has been described as being in connection with the Lizard beings...
A: Close. But not that simple.
Q: (L) Well, if the quorum is the good guys and the illuminati is the bad guys, and they both are at the high levels of Freemasonry, what is the story here?
A: Picture a circle or cycle first now then contemplate for a moment before follow up.
Q: (L) Okay, I am contemplating a cycling circle.
A: Now, two halves representing positive and negative. Two halves.
Q: (L) Well, what I am getting out of that is the two halves and both sides are playing with the human race. Is that it?
A: No. This is complicated but if you can learn and understand, it will be a super revelation.
Q: (L) Well, go ahead and explain.
A: Ask step by step.
Q: (L) Why do we so often have to ask things step by step?
A: In order to absorb the information.
Q: (L) The quorum is described as the good guys. The illuminati is described as bad guys. And yet, they are both Masonic. When a person in the Masonic organization reaches the higher levels, are there individuals at the higher levels recruiting masons to one side or the other?
A: First, not exactly one side or another.
Q: (L) I am beginning to not understand something here because if the Lizzies...
A: Unblock.
Q: (L) I don't have a block here. If the brotherhood AKA illuminati AKA Lizzies AKA beast are the ones who are going to do detrimental things to this planet, how are they related or connected to the quorum which is in touch with...
A: This will take time to explain be patient it will be worth it.
Q: (L) Well, are you going to explain it right now?
A: Ask step by step.
Q: (L) Okay. What is the nature of evil?
A: Blend.
Q: (L) Are the Lizzies what we would consider to be evil?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Are the Cassiopaeans what we would consider to be good?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Yet, do the Cassiopaeans use and manipulate the Lizzies to accomplish certain things?
A: No.
Q: (L) The Lizzies work independently and in opposition to the Cassiopaeans?
A: Independently, not in opposition.
Q: (L) Well then, is there somebody over and above this whole project...
A: We serve others therefore there is no opposition. Careful now. Step by step. If you do not fully understand answer ask another.
Q: (L) Part of a whole. Part of a circle.
A: Blend.
Q: (L) Does this mean...
A: Picture a blending colored circle image.
Q: (L) Are you saying that at some levels the two halves overlap?
A: Close.
Q: (L) Are you saying that some of the Quorum are good guys and bad guys and the same for the Illuminati because the two are on opposing sides of the circle but at the point of blending one is weighted more to one side and the other to the other side? And these organizations are where the interactions come together?
A: Closer.
Q: (L) Let's leave it for the time being.
A: No. Now please.
Q: (L) Okay. So it is a blending. Does it have something to do with ... in your case service to others means that you even serve those who serve self, is that correct?
A: Yes; we serve you and the Lizards have programmed your race to self service remember.
Q: (L) Well, I am down a notch or two. So, I am still a service to self individual to some extent, is that correct?
A: But moving slowly toward service to others. Not all humans are.
Q: (L) Does this mean that when people who are members of the quorum or illuminati call for information or help, that you, because of your service to others orientation are obliged to answer whoever calls?
A: Yes and no.
Q: (L) What is the no part.
A: If vibrational frequencies are out of pattern we do not connect.
Q: (L) Is the work of the Lizzies part of an overall grand plan or design?
A: All is.
Q: (L) Let's go on. I am depressed because you guys told me I was a bad person.
A: You are not a bad person.
Q: (L) Well, I am feeling pretty crummy right now.
A: Lizzies induced.
Q: (L) You mean my crummy feelings are Lizzie induced?
A: As always.
Q: (L) Well I am feeling crummy because you guys let me know that I am in the same sinking boat as the rest of the poor slobs on this miserable planet. I was working pretty hard to get out of the boat.
A: Silliness; you're in your own boat.
Q: (L) I would like to know where Dr. Usui got the Reiki symbols?
A: Must answer question.
Q: (L) What question? The quorum and illuminati question?
A: You will feel ecstasy once answered.
Q: (L) Okay. A blending. Yet two halves.
A: Of a circle.
Q: (L) Who designed this circle?
A: Natural frequency wave. Some near conjunction blend both service patterns and each "camp" to create perfect balance.
Q: (L) Okay, so the Illuminati are the higher level on the pathway of service to self and somehow, by reaching these higher levels may have come to realizations or frequencies which have caused their position to be modified or blended to where service to self becomes or incorporates or moves them to service to others realizations, is this correct?
A: Continue.
Q: (L) Okay, the ones in the quorum are those who are focused on service to others and they, in their pathway of service to others begin to understand that some service to self is service to others.
A: Close.
Q: (L) And the whole idea is to blend both pathways no matter which direction you come to it from?
A: Service to others provides the perfect balance of those two realities; service to self is the diametrical opposite closing the grand cycle in perfect balance.
Q: (L) So it is necessary to have a pathway of service to self in order for the pathway of service to others to exist?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And those who are in the quorum and the illuminati ...
A: Blends in middle.
 
Thanks to all of you for this very interesting trend. Since I hadn't use this forum for long I had little problems with the quote system, but I promise I'll fix it and learn it properly at the next intervention.

A couple of days ago the Sott Team quotated the Ecclessiast to comment the well composed article:Why the Secret Team was created: to compose a ruling, corporate overclass in America.
We must all have understood what the Sott editors meant with that comment and maybe agree silently. Yet we all know here that the Bible is a fraud. As it has already been said by some in that discussion, I also « «see » that the book called Koran contains truths (common sensical ones about social life, personnal sanity but also through obscur verses which could well describe the « real » nature of the real world we are interacting with, the Big Picture) mixed with questionnable assertions (to say the least). If I remember well, the C's sais about 30% of the Bible was STO stuff. It may be the same with Kuran. It may be a good (crucial for some?) question to be asked in a session to come.

BIOMAST:I personally think Quran was dictated by Lizzies in a careful manner, so that each person can interpret given words with their false personalities to cause divisions. Lucky for us, these holes in interpretation opens up the possibility for people like Arabi to "interpret" those texts in a "correct manner". I read some parts of Quran and personally don't suggest it to anyone unless you want to see STS forces in action.

What is Kuran (the recitation)? It is a book composed of a compilation of so called sayings of Muhammad under direct inspiration from Allah, which litteral translation is « The god ». Thus according to the Kuran, this « entity/concept » is different in nature compare with other gods (entities of other densities) in that « it » has not been procreated, nor has it been procreated. It does encompass all level of creation. It is the source of all beings in all the different dimensions of « creation ».

If we are to consider the history of that book objectively, we notice that, even if the delay between the so-called revelation and the final redaction of the text (and it's dangerous sanctification) is far shorter than for the Torah and the Gospels, there has been a delay. That means that for some time, the Muhammad followers had no book at all! This is a crucial issue for all the Muslims wich is almost never mentioned. To sum up my point, some humans chosed to compiled the so called inspired sayings of Muhammad decades ago and which had not been redacted on paper at that period . It has been done in a context of power struggle. The new book would be the matrix of the new civilisation and some parts were crucial to the political process of the « new world». Some groups rejected the final choice of the compilation and denounced it as being a polical cabal. That is to say that the book may not be what has been « dictated ». It may be true of it's content as well as of the order of compilement (which is very important for most Muslims). Muhammad is said to have say that he feared that his followers would fight like louts after his death...

This may have lead in thee need for a continuous revelation through the Imams ('Shiites eschatology) and with the help of spiritual guides in other dimensions (that is clearly a specific trait of esoteric Shi'ism)for those who hadn't fully recognize the compilation.

When Biomast refers to the possibility of interpretation, he refers to a major issue, mainly in Sunni Islam, that is of Ishtihad , the opportunity for commoners to interpret the recitation according to his own understanding. Surely this interpretation differs according ones cultural background and one personnal psychological state of being. This process has been closed long ago by the Ulemas who, consequently have kept the monopoly of the orthodox interpretation, which has thus became juridic.

I have already mentioned elsewhere the masterpiece of Henry Corbin who has written a crucial book on Ibn Arabi: 'L'Imagination créatrice dans le soufisme d'Ibn Arabi' (Creative Imagination in Ibn Arabi's Sufism). What Henry Corbin tells us (or maybe what I have grasp out of it), is that the « methodology » of Ibn Arabi (shared by the true Shi'ites) cannot be called interpretation. It is a different matter. this is also why his name is still mostly revered in the educated Muslim world. It must also surely have been an enclosure strategy like many of you have mentioned. I don't think anyway that Ibn Arabi would have say he had the correct interpretation, rather, the correct state of the heart to have had so much understanding.

PRIF: God fearing seems to be a primary need, if not how would we try to find alternatives to our inicial situation?

When talking about that issue Corbin talks about a different kind of fear let's say, that the PTB is imposing on the majority of human being. He speaks of a « reverent fear ». That is quite a difference. It is a indeed a prerequisite. All there is is The Source, the whole and it is illusory to hope understanding the reality of the universes while forgetting that all emanates from the Unique Source and goes back to the Source. It looks rather like the Cosmic Mind.

As I may quote the Imam Ali with some little distortion because I will translate from my language from memory, I hope Biomast will correct me. Imam Ali once said that there were three kind of prayers. Those who are looking for eartly reward in their prayers and 'pseudo good deeds' are performing the faith of the merchants. Those who are praying for fear of Hell or in expectation of the reward of Paradise are performing the faith of the coward. Those who pray Allah (The God, the oneness of all things concept) because there is Allah, are performing the prayer of the free ones.

About the Kaaba, the direction of the intent in the prayer, all Sufis clearly state that the true Kaaba is in the heart of oneself. The physical Kaaba has been a place of meeting for people of different origins. Before the arrival of the often ridiculous « aeronautic pilgrimage » of our days, the pilgrimage was performed through land and seas traveling. For the most, it was a very long and perilous journey and many died before arriving to the earthly place which was the direction they faced while « praying ».

Can we imagine how many different landscapes, people, languages, faunas, customs, food a Muslim from dakar or a Chinese would encounter during that trip? How many thing he could thus learn?And when finally and eventualy he reached Meqqa, it was to meet even more different people ( the Han could meet the Fulani), the others. All these people would shaved their body and would perform rituals ( turning around the meteoritic stone, touching it, lapitating Satan, going to zamzam...and for the Shi'ites other rituals which are now impossible because the places have been destroyed by the sunnis, they would go to the Fatima shrine, which is feminin). The way back remained as dangerous and when the pilgrim, the Hadj came back to the homeland he had indeed another comprehension of what the Kaaba and Islam meant than previously for him. There is a wide gap between the experience of a Muslim before the arrival of western technologies and nowadays.

Still, sadly, racism plagues the Muslim world and blacks are still considered inferior by most of the other Muslims.

FOOFIGHTER: Around here that's a rule rather than exception. Malaysians are quite obese overall. I read that 50+% are clinically obese or overweight now, and considering the sugary and western diets that are now becoming the norm, I'm not surprised. The traditional cooking also includes LOTS of sugar. And they all avoid exercise as much as possible, and am relying for cars as much as possible. My neighbour gets water from a natural spring which is 100m from his house, and uses his car to go there... insane...

We must not confuse the subject of the topic with the actual situation of the human population living in the present time in Muslim countries. I am not sure whether most Muslims hundred years ago could eat that much sugar that they indeed do eat nowadays. Most of them ate what grew in their surrounding, a healthy organic food not forcibly made of sugar and cakes but rather with thing like dates for those where those fruits grew. Nowadays, sadly, most people on this BBM eat junk food (Hallal junk is common and Hallal fastfood are spreading in the area where i live) and have lost or are on their their way to lose any sense of nutrition, this is true of many Muslim countries. One could notice that this is not the fact of the Muslim civilisation, but of big corporates and profiters mimicking Islam and having interest in perpetuating the religious exploitation. Most of the people living in Muslim areas are now subject to a propaganda by the PTB through TV stations and the internet and are thus very influenced and confused.
Anyway, a legalistic religion goes hand in hand with hypocrisy...

There is another aspect that is crucial when dealing with Koran. Most of the so-called Muslims don't understand Arabic, and so there understanding comes thru clerics which are often uneducated (but this subject would deserve an essay). It is just crucial to understand anything about the "muslim civilisation".



BIOMAST: I was, because of my family, grow up with the thoughts and legends of 12 Imams, but looking at the whole situation from an objective point, I don't see anything but a political fight to grab power over Muslims. Also considering 12. Imam disappeared when he was 7 and will come back on the Judgement Day according to that belief, I don't think it is an objective source of knowledge. I personally don't see anything spiritual about this movement, but that's just my idea, others might think differently


To bad Biomast, that you can't read Henry Corbin (even to critize it). His conclusion after having translate, read most of the old texts written not by religious but by what he called authentic Shi'ites, those who 'risked' their life in the pursuit of experiencing the esoteric path through the inner states, is that the twelfth Imam is the Imam of oneself. Most of the texts have been written in obscur manner so that the religious apparatus (whatever it could have been) could not condemn them. The complexity of these writting is also often due to the fact that they refer to other dimensions perceived through other states of consciouness. According to Corbin, the time to which the Shi'ites refer is not the linear, historic time. The authentic Shi'ites were by no way like the modern new agers.

Twice in history of Ismaelian Schia Islam, groups have collectively urged the « resurection » and have thus emancipated themselves from the bondage of the legalist religion. First in Alamut and during the Qarmati rebellion. In both case, according to Eric Laurent and Henry Corbin, thess events hav led among many other things to the rejection of separation between genders, (women were not obliged anymore to wear women cloths and were not subject to the religious prescription, they became equal to men), in the Qarmati experience, the private property was even abolished, as well as social standing( but they kept slaves, racism is hard to topple). The latter went so far as to still the stone of the Kaaba. Of course both experiences have been suppressed, the stone rstolen by the Qarmats returned broken to Meqqa, fixed and the legalist religion took over.

MONTAIN CROWN:Quote from: Pryf
Yes at first sight these words awaken in us an alarm status, because we asociate them with the Bondage state of man in ignorance.

But maybe they are not refering to a separate God from us, what if they are refering to the truth within us, the kingdom, the lord, the real self, essence.
Maybe they are saying we have to give less power to the entity we BELIEVE to be, giving freedom to what we really are.
Then this entity(ego)will became the servant, just because essence has come,the lord has come.

This is insightful and well said Pryf.

I also adhere to that « probability », and in the case of Shia Islam the lord would be the Imam of oneself...

BIOMAST: If the reason was their discipline, I would praise them. I don't see anything but fear in them. All that words like "understanding the poor" seems meaningless to me because when they are allowed to eat, they eat so much, so expensive things and they completely forget about the poor they were trying to understand. Words seems meaningless to me and when holiness of Ramadan is the subject you can't help but to notice doublethink.

Biomast, you talk as a Bektashi, denouncing hypocrisy. ;D

BIOMAST:One of the most disturbing things is that Qu'ran says it is sinful to eat in front of fasting people. If you don't fast, this cause them to think you are a sinner and they are beloved of "God". It really creates social pressures and arguments especially in Turkey which is a secular state but Islamists are really sensitive to such things. Last year I read an article of a man who wasn't permitted to use the bus because he wasn't fasting, eating something before getting into the bus. There was a fight, and in the end somebody stole his phone during the fight.

Pathetic indeed...

BIOMAST:It is a really sad thing if you consider the whole point of Ramadan isn't just eating nothing, but also being free of dark thoughts, arguments and respect other people. So those people who made the fight are "good Muslims" and they are "fasting" according to their beliefs. By their fruits, you shall know them...


But meanwhile, silently, others may really fast in consciousness, dont 'overeat' and try to seek the truth and love in this obscure time. And if they have good time at night, I guess it is good for the children who love these feasts, and it is also good for the society.
When I experienced it, the daily fasting made me able to take distance, to observe my mechanical behaviours, STS nature and how my thaught were focused on this level.

BIOMAST:Unfortunately, nobody has an answer to that question exactly. Some Sufis believe they are seperate, some believe they are Islamic. Some Islamic scholars accept them and some don't. Considering how the same understanding developped in different parts of the world(Sufis at East and Cathars at West) and considering the similarities between those teachings, I don't think it is a branch of Islam, but rather a strategic enclosure as I explained in this thread. Of course there are those who call themselves Sufis and highly Islamic today and maybe also in the past.

I have never heard of Sufi claiming they were separated from Islam. I have heard of many Sufis denouncing some as non-sufi.

Sufism is much older than Catharism, but links have been made between the Orient and the West, during the French/catholic occupation of a part of the Middle East after the Crusades. These link seem to have been made by the Ismaelis. This seems to have had a great impact on the Templars and French history.

I have had a personal experience with « highly Islamic » Sufis and they were by no way intolerant. I have for a while been the neighboor and the friend of a Sufi spiritual teacher in the Island Réunion. He was very tolerant and in search of conversations with truth seeker whatever their religious background was. Every morning after his morning prayer he went to the shores to practice Iaï do. After that he worked hard in his restaurant, refusing to live on his students generosity. He was a father of six joyous children and wrote mostly poetry but also essays in the night time. His student were proposed to practice aïkido and whenever they criticised my odd appearance (the wearing of dreadlocks) he always told them to beware of the appearance of people and thus accepted me for the zikr. His motto was « Integrity, not integrism ». He had been a professor in the university of the Island and a blues guitar player. He consulted an homeopatic doctor and would have like to eat organic at that time(it was difficult and costly in the Island). One day I came to visit him and share a good conversation, he told me: « You see, during my studies in Pakistan, we have been taught magic for a while, a couple of years. He showed me a cut he had on the lip and said: « I learned how to fix it instantaneously, like many other things, but we chosed to be Human, live the human experience and it's relation to Allah and I refuse to use these magic things ».
I didn't fit in their Tariqa (path) and the Sunna zahir behaviour, but this man sincerity and dedication has been an exemple for me.

BIOMAST: All Sufi schools claim that Islamic Orthodoxy interprets Quran with a "zahiri" perception, meaning they don't understand the hidden meanings in it. They claim to know this hidden meaning and it may be interesting to note that this "hidden meaning" changes according to each school of thought.

From what I know, they should not claim to « know » the hidden meaning, they should be truth seekers, they can only say that they know the path to that knowledge.

BIOMAST: Quran says Allah is one, Sufis say we are Him, like Arabi claimed, they claim Unity of Being. So the question comes down to "what did Quran meant by Allah is the one?"

This is a crucial question Biomast, I guess your ancestors would have liked your questionning since the Tawhid is indeed the most important subject of meditation for a Sufi. The Sufi can only make that claim when he has experience it, that is when he has gotten rid of his false personnalies and bias, when he has 'died' and when the soul returns to its source « accepted and accepting ». Again, Corbin wrote a very interesting book « Le paradoxe du Monothéisme » where you would find interesting thing on that matter. According to him most of monotheism is just metaphysical idolatry.

BIOMAST: If you could read what he wrote about Muhammed by using Islamic sources you would be surprised and stop searching for any hidden meaning in Quran. It is purely sick, sexist, narcissistic and even psychopathic at times. I can't help remembering what an Alevi poet, Harabi said: "It is an inspiration from God, we are reading it, we have the Book. His book, his knowledge was inside him, not hidden inside a book and I believe this is what REAL Sufism is all about, not hidden meanings inside a book, but knowledge as a result of Work on the self in an ancient form.

That is what true Sufis have said all over. Most brotherhood have been corrupted by STS influence and this may be why we are here... seeking for knowledge and less sacred cows. Anyway, maybe, when we finally have succeeded in working on oneself, we can read the verses with a different insight.

OBYVATEL: There are traditions which possibly constituted a way of life for people with a loose set of beliefs and practices extending far back into antiquity. Without a strong central authority promoting these traditions, they may just remain without a name for themselves. Then when some strong centralized tradition comes in from outside and threatens to overrun the existing way of life, there may be a push to form an organized standard and give a name to the existing way of life to protect itself from being overrun. Seems like this was the case for Taoism with the advent of Buddhism on the Chinese horizon (Russell Kirkland - Taoism The Enduring Tradition - thanks to Laura for suggesting this book.). In the case of Hinduism, the name itself was coined by foreign invaders. Due to the absence of any single original teacher and original text to be followed, such traditions are likely to be flexible and may easily incorporate within itself new ideas, beliefs and practices that are brought about by migration, invasion etc down the centuries. When someone tries to put a name to such a tradition and define it in later years, it may give rise to confusion and misinterpretations with different groups claiming their version to be the authentic one. Add to that politically motivated efforts to suit the needs of the time.
It may be possible that Sufism has followed a similar course. The wikipedia quote about Sufism traces its beginnings to the "formative period of Islam" - but what if it was a previously existing tradition that had to accept the political reality of the times and adapt itself to survive? To survive in an authoritarian environment, it may have had to take on the garb of the dominating religion - strategic enclosure as Biomiast said. Seems like a logical possibility.



This seem to be what has happened.

Thank you DanielS for having providing this transcript.

A verse of the Koran seem to be relevant in some way in our questionning. I won't quote it litteraly but from my memory. It goes like that: If someone hurt you, it is right to hurt him back, BUT if you chose to forgive, it is preferable.
When I read Koran without anykind of guiltyness (having conscience of one's own failure isn't guilt but objective)I just don't mind about the weird menacing stuff, and I see I am asked permanently to "Think" "meditate" "ponder""balance""learn"...and finally exerce my free will...
 
I had little problems with the quote system, but I promise I'll fix it and learn it properly at the next intervention.

Hi Sankara, if you wanna quote something, you put
Code:
[quote]
in front of it, and
Code:
[/quote]
behind it. Or above while you post you'll see there's a yellow quoting button as well. :)
 
This has been an enlightening thread. Thank you all for your input and knowledge. Have learned much here.
 
sankara said:
If we are to consider the history of that book objectively, we notice that, even if the delay between the so-called revelation and the final redaction of the text (and it's dangerous sanctification) is far shorter than for the Torah and the Gospels, there has been a delay. That means that for some time, the Muhammad followers had no book at all! This is a crucial issue for all the Muslims wich is almost never mentioned. To sum up my point, some humans chosed to compiled the so called inspired sayings of Muhammad decades ago and which had not been redacted on paper at that period . It has been done in a context of power struggle. The new book would be the matrix of the new civilisation and some parts were crucial to the political process of the « new world». Some groups rejected the final choice of the compilation and denounced it as being a polical cabal. That is to say that the book may not be what has been « dictated ». It may be true of it's content as well as of the order of compilement (which is very important for most Muslims). Muhammad is said to have say that he feared that his followers would fight like louts after his death...

It is true that Quran was not a book for a number of decades. The issue was exactly what you have explain. There were some people who wrote Quran on certain places. And also there were people that said Muhammed tell them a certain verse. If they could bring two witnesses, that verse was included. The bringing together process was very problematic and Shii'te sources tell us that caliphates never listened what Imam Ali had to say who is believed to be the most reliable source. Some even claim he had a Quran on his own.

Also there were some slight changes according to the same sources. Shii'tes always talk about Mut'a marriage which says a man can marry with a woman for a certain time in exchange for money. Omar refused it and destroyed all Quran verses about Mut'a marriage. If you ask me it was a shameful method, an excuse for men's sexual desires. I shouldn't use the word dictated but in a sense, since all of us under STS influences it still reflects the truth, or so I think. :)

Ali is really an interesting person. How can a person be so close to Muhammed and not influenced by his thinking, I don't know. If I would have to choose a side in Islam apart from Sufism, Ali's side is definitely the better one and I have read all those "miracles" about him, it is just confusing. According to a source when his mother was giving birth to her, the walls of Kaaba opened[4th density bleedthrough?] and she gave birth to him inside. He is the first and last person who was born there according to the claims. And when he died, there is another claim that a man from desert came to take his funeral, which was his last wish. When the man take his dead body and left, they realized that the man who take the funeral was Ali himself! He was carrying his own body. Of course all of those things could just be a distraction, but one wonders.

There are many interesting stories about him. Unlike Muhammed's life he was a modest person, and very knowledgable in his area of interest as far as I know, yet he also fought many battles together with Muhammed and he was a mighty warrior. It was said that without Ali, Muhammed would be destroyed. He has some good quotes, sankara wrote one, I know one that says, "I would be a slave for forty years for anybody who can teach me a letter." In the past, I thought if he was an alchemist who achieved Great Work, but there weren't any evidence to point in that direction. He is an interesting figure though. If he weren't so close to Muhammed and so protective about him and his message and don't carry Islamic mindset, I would have think good things about him. Or was it a strategic enclosure also? :)

sankara said:
About the Kaaba, the direction of the intent in the prayer, all Sufis clearly state that the true Kaaba is in the heart of oneself.

And Hajji Bektash said: "The heat is in the flame, not in the iron/ The wisdom is in the head, not in the ages/ Whatever you are looking for, look for it inside yourself/ It isn't in Meqqa, in Jerusalem, in Hajj."

sankara said:
To bad Biomast, that you can't read Henry Corbin (even to critize it). His conclusion after having translate, read most of the old texts written not by religious but by what he called authentic Shi'ites, those who 'risked' their life in the pursuit of experiencing the esoteric path through the inner states, is that the twelfth Imam is the Imam of oneself. Most of the texts have been written in obscur manner so that the religious apparatus (whatever it could have been) could not condemn them. The complexity of these writting is also often due to the fact that they refer to other dimensions perceived through other states of consciouness. According to Corbin, the time to which the Shi'ites refer is not the linear, historic time. The authentic Shi'ites were by no way like the modern new agers.

I also think it is too bad. I have never heard of anything about authentic Shii'tes. The Shii'te sources I read was extremely political and had nothing spritual about it. The explanation of twelfth Imam is really interesting, I have never heard of it as well. If there were authentic Shii'tes as Corbin states, that would explain the oppression inflicted by the Sunnis towards them. Yet, even my family claim to be a an authentic Shii'te tradition(obtained knowledge from eleventh Imam) and oppressed, but they are also racist, sexist and many other things.

I wish I could meet at least one authentic Shii'te and listen what he/she has to say. The information about Alamut and Qarmati rebellion is really interesting. You know, I always felt that the history blames Hasan Sabbah for many things including suicide bombers, but he may not be what he is portrayed today. I would really like to know what kind of man he was, what was his ideology. Your information about woman remind me Bektashis and how they behave. And Qarmati rebellion remind me Sheikh Bedrettin rebellion in Anatolia, who start with the ideology that "To share everything but your lover's cheek". He too was supressed and executed.

sankara said:
From what I know, they should not claim to « know » the hidden meaning, they should be truth seekers, they can only say that they know the path to that knowledge.

Yes, indeed. They should, but they don't. Many things changed since the beginning of those movements, corruption destroyed many Sufi orders and ponerized many others. There are those who say exactly what you say and there are those who say it, but don't apply it. They act like they know everything.

sankara said:
But meanwhile, silently, others may really fast in consciousness, dont 'overeat' and try to seek the truth and love in this obscure time. And if they have good time at night, I guess it is good for the children who love these feasts, and it is also good for the society.

I really hope so.

Thank you for your contribution, not only you corrected the places I generalize, but also give very insightful information about authentic Shii'tes. I don't know if they really exist or not as Corbin described them, but they are a definitely an interesting group for me.
 
It is possible to find an interesting introduction to Corbin's legacy on this website
http://www.amiscorbin.com/textes/anglais/anglaistextes.htm

If I have time, I may try to translate the best part of the wiki page.

I mentioned Eric Laurent when I should have mentioned Christian Jambet, sorry.
 
Sorry, I have made another mistake, but this time because of translation problem. One don't say Qarmati in english but Qarmatian:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qarmatians

Biomast, you may find an interesting text on that link

http://www.amiscorbin.com/textes/anglais/Corbin%20Cyclical%20Time.pdf
 
sankara said:
There is another aspect that is crucial when dealing with Koran. Most of the so-called Muslims don't understand Arabic, and so there understanding comes thru clerics which are often uneducated (but this subject would deserve an essay). It is just crucial to understand anything about the "muslim civilisation".
This is something that has really surprised me here in Malaysia: most people have read the Qu'Ran, but only in Arabic, meaning, they have learnt to recite it phonetically but have literally no idea what it says. So the irony is that now that I have read half of the Qu'Ran in English I have more knowledge about the contents than about 90%(or more) of the Muslim population here. It seems being a Muslim is one of the things you can be where it "makes sense" to say "While I am a Muslim I haven't read the book, but I've talked to someone who has". Exchange "Muslim" with "physicist" or "doctor" and you'll see how silly it becomes.

I'm not sure whether this is a good or bad thing though. On the one hand they are not directly tainted by the twisted logic, and on the other hand they don't get to see for themselves what it is they are supposedly supporting. It should also be said that very few Muslims actually chose to be so. The vast majority were born in to it, and have no way to legally renounce it. It's a one-way street. And even if you, as an individual, would want to leave the social pressure is immense, and the legal system of Shariah is set up so that you are either "in or out", as a family. It's very cleverly set up.

So much to learn and see. In any case, I have started reading the "Sufi Path of Knowledge" in earnest now, and the feedback from this thread has really helped me read between the lines in ways that I could not have hoped to do on my own. Thanks everyone for your insights!
 
sankara said:
Imam Ali once said that there were three kind of prayers. Those who are looking for eartly reward in their prayers and 'pseudo good deeds' are performing the faith of the merchants. Those who are praying for fear of Hell or in expectation of the reward of Paradise are performing the faith of the coward. Those who pray Allah (The God, the oneness of all things concept) because there is Allah, are performing the prayer of the free ones.

Interestingly there is a strikingly similar reference in the Bhagavad Gita (Hindu religious text). There Krishna talks about 4 kinds of worshippers: those who worship for material wealth; those who worship when in sorrow or distress; those who worship looking for knowledge; and those who worship without any expectation of any reward or reason. The first 3 are looking for something from God while the 4th is not - similar to those performing the prayer of the free ones in the above quote.

Biomiast said:
And when he [Ali] died there is another claim that a man from desert came to take his funeral, which was his last wish. When the man take his dead body and left, they realized that the man who take the funeral was Ali himself! He was carrying his own body. Of course all of those things could just be a distraction, but one wonders.
Seems like the creation of the "double". Castaneda talks about it in "The Power Of Silence" and Yogananda mentions it in his "Autobiography Of A Yogi". Some possible horizontal references to the same phenomenon.

sankara said:
When I read Koran without anykind of guiltyness (having conscience of one's own failure isn't guilt but objective)I just don't mind about the weird menacing stuff, and I see I am asked permanently to "Think" "meditate" "ponder""balance""learn"...and finally exerce my free will...


Regarding religion as it is practiced, the following quote from ISOTM seems relevant
In exactly the same way there exists the religion of man number one, that is to say, a religion consisting of rites, of external forms, of sacrifices and ceremonies of imposing splendor and brilliance, or, on the contrary, of a gloomy, cruel, and savage character, and so on. There is the religion of man number two; the religion of faith, love, adoration, impulse, enthusiasm, which soon becomes transformed into the religion of persecution, oppression, and extermination of 'heretics' and 'heathens.' There is the religion of man number three; the intellectual, theoretical religion of proofs and arguments, based upon logical deductions, considerations, and interpretations. Religions number one, number two, and number three are really the only ones we know; all known and existing religions and denominations in the world belong to one of these three categories.
Man1: center of gravity lies in the moving center
Man2: center of gravity lies in the emotional center
Man3: center of gravity lies in the thinking center

Religion as it is practiced by people seem to follow from what kind of "Man" they are. Within the same religion name, there are people who belong to each of the 3 types and their beliefs and practices get shaped according to their type even when they may be interpreting the same "written word". It makes sense that Man1 who learns by imitation would get attracted to the rituals and ceremonies, Man2 would imagine an idealized God either as a loving entity or as a punitive fearful one , whereas Man3 would look for philosophical ideas and principles in his object of worship. This understanding (along with hidden political agendas and the hyperdimensional perspective) perhaps renders the different types of religion as well various divisions within a particular religion more understandable.
fwiw
 
foofighter said:
sankara said:
There is another aspect that is crucial when dealing with Koran. Most of the so-called Muslims don't understand Arabic, and so there understanding comes thru clerics which are often uneducated (but this subject would deserve an essay). It is just crucial to understand anything about the "muslim civilisation".
This is something that has really surprised me here in Malaysia: most people have read the Qu'Ran, but only in Arabic, meaning, they have learnt to recite it phonetically but have literally no idea what it says. So the irony is that now that I have read half of the Qu'Ran in English I have more knowledge about the contents than about 90%(or more) of the Muslim population here. It seems being a Muslim is one of the things you can be where it "makes sense" to say "While I am a Muslim I haven't read the book, but I've talked to someone who has". Exchange "Muslim" with "physicist" or "doctor" and you'll see how silly it becomes.

I'm not sure whether this is a good or bad thing though. On the one hand they are not directly tainted by the twisted logic, and on the other hand they don't get to see for themselves what it is they are supposedly supporting. It should also be said that very few Muslims actually chose to be so. The vast majority were born in to it, and have no way to legally renounce it. It's a one-way street. And even if you, as an individual, would want to leave the social pressure is immense, and the legal system of Shariah is set up so that you are either "in or out", as a family. It's very cleverly set up.

So much to learn and see. In any case, I have started reading the "Sufi Path of Knowledge" in earnest now, and the feedback from this thread has really helped me read between the lines in ways that I could not have hoped to do on my own. Thanks everyone for your insights!

I tend to think that it may not be a good thing when people are suppose to revere a book which is suppose to tell them about the most crucial questionning one can have on earth and actually don't understand a word about it. It is a rather silly situation because whose who hold the book are the ones who instruct the people and get power from them because of this. It has been what the Catholic church has been doing.
It is interesting to note that basically Islam is a personnal matter and the Koran actually calls on to ponder it's content.
What most of the so called Muslim around the areas where this 'religion' is influencial know, is the melody of the 'recitation' and the laws.
For those who get education, it is hard for non Arabic to have a point of view of the subtilities of the endless debate among Muslim scholars about the meaning of certain verses according on the voyels.

this is precisely why, Wahabbism has been so detrimental to so many cultural and spiritual environment. The Saudis had a lot of money for preaching and they basically came in many countries saying: "You are not Muslims, we are Arabic, scholars, and will teach you the true religion".
Le Monde Diplomatique published an article years ago telling that in the "old days", it took 15 years to complete the formation of a preacher (or propagandist as you will). He had to master on Coran, religious, juridic affairs, history... But during the 90, it took only three years. from my direct experience in West Africa, there was a kind of competition with the Zionists christians. But they had the same modus operandi and I see they are both faces of the same coin.

As to the ISOTM it is relevant and maybe a Sufi would say that one is to become a type 4...inch'Allah.
 
obyvatel said:
Biomiast said:
And when he [Ali] died there is another claim that a man from desert came to take his funeral, which was his last wish. When the man take his dead body and left, they realized that the man who take the funeral was Ali himself! He was carrying his own body. Of course all of those things could just be a distraction, but one wonders.

Seems like the creation of the "double". Castaneda talks about it in "The Power Of Silence" and Yogananda mentions it in his "Autobiography Of A Yogi". Some possible horizontal references to the same phenomenon.

Oh boy, how did I missed that! You know, I keep thinking he died first, then this man came. Of course it could be the double, who really "died". I am familiar with this phenomena, yet I didn't see it. This is one of the favourite "miracles" of Alawi Sheikhs which are the group my family is in.

If I remember correctly, my grandfather did that also according to a story. I can't ask this to my family because the "miracles" of a Sheikh is rarely mentioned in public before he dies. Of course all of those "miracles"(if they really happened) don't show spiritual growth in this case, it was just genetics(yet I haven't done it :)) or maybe STS manipulation to show superiority of someone to support the Control System. Same can be true for Ali.

Thank you obyvatel for pointing that out.

sankara, I don't have much access to internet for now, but hopefully I will relocate this weekend and have a chance to read all of the links you provided. I read some parts and find it interesting that Mircea Eliade was connected to Henry Corbin, yet I couldn't find time to search the nature of this connection. He is definitely an interesting guy.
 
foofighter said:
I am currently quite confused by an apparent contradiction that I can't resolve myself, and am hoping that anyone can shed some light on it. It started by me trying to read the "Sufi path of Knowledge", by Chittick/Ibn al Arabi. But then it made so many references to the Qu'ran, saying that it was great, that I figured that I should read it first. Since I'm now staying in a Muslim community it would also make sense to try and see what it was all about.


Here's some more interesting information that tends to show that the depth of Sufi knowledge goes below religion, therefore, can exist in an environment with Islam and Qu'ran adherents. (at least, I think):

If the believer understood the meaning of the saying 'the colour of the water is the colour of the receptacle', he would admit the validity of all beliefs and he would recognise God in every form and every object of faith.

Ibn 'Arabi, from the work: Fusûs al-Hikam (an exposition of the inner meaning of the wisdom of the prophets in the Judaic/ Christian/ Islamic line)
Source: _http://www.ibnarabisociety.org/ibnarabi.html

Inayat Khan expands on that a bit:

If one took six or seven different glasses, each one of a different colour, and poured water in each glass, the water would appear red in one glass, blue in another, green in a third, and so on, although it were the same water in each. In the same way, all religions are in their origin of divine inspiration, but, like the image of water poured into different coloured glasses, as soon as divine inspiration is crystallized in human thought, it acquires the colour of that thinking. We then call the one colour Hinduism, another colour Buddhism, another Islam and still other colours are called Judaism, Christianity, or by any other religious denomination.

Therefore, since the origin of all religions is of divine nature, these can only be understood inasmuch as one is prepared to recognize the unity of all religious ideals, at which level all religions are so many derivations of one and the same impulse, the cry of the heart, the longing of the soul for God.
_http://lovetiana.blogspot.com/2009/08/sufism.html
By Hazrat Inayat Khan

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inayat_Khan

Who is Hazrat Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan?

"Hazrat" is an honorific; "Pir-o-Murshid" is an esoteric title, signifying the head of the Inner School of the Sufi Movement.

On July 5th, 1882, in Baroda, India, a child named Inayat was born into one of the most musical families in the country. Inayat's grandfather, Maula Bakhsh, known as the 'Beethoven of India,' had become a master of the music of both North and South India, a feat hitherto considered impossible, and had then, at the invitation of the Maharaja Khanda Rao, settled in Baroda where he founded 'Gayanshala,' the first musical academy of its kind in India. Maula Bakhsh drew about him many people of culture and refinement. Among his students and associates was Rahmat Khan, who came from a family of musicians, poets and mystics. Rahmat married Khatidja, the second daughter of Maula Bakhsh, and their first child was Inayat.

Inayat quickly showed great musical talent, and before he was twenty he was singing and playing the vina in the courts of royalty all over the subcontinent. Indeed, from a set of recordings Inayat made at the age of 27, modern musicologists are able to say that his vocal skill and musical understanding remain unequalled to this day. Called to something beyond worldly success, however, he at last met his Murshid, Abu Haimages/shim Sayed Madani and entered the Sufi path.

On September 13th, 1910, destiny brought Inayat "from the world of lyric and poetry to the world of industry and commerce," sailing from Bombay first to America, and travelling thence to Europe. In this he was fulfilling the last words of his Murshid, "Fare forth into the world, my child, and harmonize the East and West with the harmony of thy music. Spread the wisdom of Sufism abroad, for to this end art thou gifted by Allah, the most Merciful and Compassionate." Companions on that journey were his brothers Maheboob Khan and Ali Khan, who left auspicious careers in India to share his hardships and his work. Within a year they were joined by Inayat's youngest brother, Musharaff Khan.

During the next sixteen years, Inayat founded the International Sufi Movement and travelled widely, inspiring many and teaching the Sufi Message from California to Moscow. In America, he met the woman destined to become his wife and companion, Ora Ray Baker. Their first child was born in Russia, and the remaining three in England, where they sheltered during the First World War.

In the early 1920's, the family settled in Suresnes, a quiet suburb of Paris, and here Summer Schools were held for the growing number of students. The lectures given here and elsewhere have subsequently been published under such titles as "The Unity of Religious Ideals," "In an Eastern Rose Garden," "The Mysticism of Sound," "Love, Human and Divine," and "Health, Mental Purification and the Mind World."

In 1926, Inayat returned for a visit to India, leaving his family in the West. After a brief illness, he passed away in Tilak Lodge, New Delhi on February 5th, 1927, at the age of 44. His Dargah or tomb, located near that of Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya, is now a place of pilgrimage for Sufis from all over the world.
_http://www.sufimovement.org/khan.htm


Khan on Breath Music and Sufism:
To me, architecture is music, gardening is music, farming is music, painting is music, poetry is music. In all the occupations of life where beauty has inspired, where the divine wine has been poured out, there is music.
...
Breath manifests as voice, as word, as sound. And the sound is continually audible, the sound without and the sound within oneself, and that is music. This shows that there is music outside, and music within ourselves. Music inspires not only the soul of the great musician, but every infant the instant he comes into the world begins to move his little arms and legs with the rhythm of music. Therefore it is no exaggeration to say that music is the language of beauty, of the One Whom every living soul has loved. And one can understand that if one realizes and recognizes the perfection of all this beauty as God, our Beloved, it is natural that this music that we see in art and in the whole universe should be called the divine art.

Really, before its incarnation the soul is sound. It is for this reason that we love sound. The breath, the speech, the step, all have rhythm. Religions have all made music part of their worship. The Sufi especially loves music, calling it Ghiza-i-ruh, food of the soul.
_http://www.sufimovement.org/sufimusic.htm


Khan On Islam:
Many think Sufism to be a mystical side of Islam, and the thought was supported by the encyclopaedias, which speak of Sufism as having sprung from Islam, and they were confirmed in this by knowing that I am Muslim by birth. Naturally I could not tell them that it [Sufism] is a Universal Message of the time, for every one is not ready to understand this.
...
I have always refrained from taking the side of any particular nation in my work, and have tried to keep my Movement free from any political shadows. Vast fields of political activity were laid before me, during and after the war, and if I hesitated to take interest in such activities, it was only that my heart was all taken by the need of a universal brotherhood in the world.
_http://www.sufimovement.org/special_message.htm
 
Back
Top Bottom