What is lacking inside...

Sameer:

Just a quick response. Haven`t read the book yet. Have heard some lectures.

Limiting to the points stated ---- my perception would be based more on SMILING 2,3,4,5 and 7.

rgds

t

PS: Please go to temporal`s dargah page at

http://chowk.com/people/Tools/cc_printhome.cgi?temporal

and scroll down to the Final section. I have a character sketch there. You may enjoy it. Let me know.

PM, temporal and yj: The discussion about God on this board was really an intellectual discourse on my part. It is more like a hobby to learn about these matters; otherwise I do not participate actively in any religion. I am content with a normal secular lifestyle of New York.

What got me going in this area were the reading of a number of books on comparative religions and watching several videos and TV programs on this topic. It was intersting to learn how different people have interpreted the mystery of existence. The evolution of transcecedental mystery dates back to Mother Godess, an earth-bound deity, lasting for about 10000 years before a sky-bound masculine deity took hold in the last 3000 years. The diversity of cultures produced different images and interpretations of God. The Middle-Eastern traditions were very paternalistic where God only opened to transcedence to elite like Sargon I, Hammurabi, Moses and Muhammad, whereas in the Eastern, native American and African tribal traditions, the deity was open to people at large. When deity is close to transcendence, you worship the deity and become slave or part of the flock; when deity is open to transcendence, you identify with the deity and the union with the deity is the ultimate achievement. Some saints and sufis did try transcedental approach to knowing God but Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions by-and-large have remained ritualistic worshipping traditions, because of their convenience.

Well if God existed before big bang, He is beyond the trappings of time and space and can not be understood completely, through rational and logical intrpretations. He can be partially known through His attributes like mercy, love, compassion etc. and through various manifestations. Some saints, sufis, gurus, bodhisattvas and spiritualists achieve a higher state of consiousness to know more about the transcendental nature of God. At the highest level, He is usually talked about as negating attributes; that what he is not. It almost sound like a complete nothingness and emptiness of the ultimate mystery when he is described by terms like, unborn, undying, unchanging, unmoving, unmanifest, immeasureable, invisible, intangible and infinite. This highest state is considered as ``I am`` state. Once you realize that you are part of the same eternal consiousness encompassing everything in the universe; you will be free to participate actively in life as a service to your universal self and not to your ego only. Everything you do in daily life becomes ritual, worship and sacrifice with standardized and prescribed rituals and worships out the window---like famous sufi, Madhu Shah Hussain.

Anyway, here is an intersesting description of the seven levels of knowing God (copied from deepak Chopra`s recent book ``How To Know God``.)

1) Fight-or-Flight Response: God the Protector. Qualities: Vengeful, Capricious, Quick to Anger, Jealous, Judgemental, Unfathomable, sometimes merciful.

2) Reactive Response: God the Almighty.

Qualities: Soverign, Omnipotent, Just, Answerer to Prayers, Impartial, Rational, Organized into rules.

3) The Restful Awareness Response: God of Peace.

Qualities: Detached, Calm, Offering consolation, Undemanding, Conciliatory, Silent, Meditative.

4) Intuitive Response: God the Reedemer.

Qualities: Understanding, Tolerant, Forgiving, Non-Judgemental, Inclusive, Accepting.

5) Creative Response: God the Creator.

Qualities: Unlimited creative potential, Control over space and time, Abundant, Open, Generous, Willing to be known, Inspired.

6) Visionary Response: God the Miracles.

Qualities: Transformative, Mystical, Enlightened, Beyond all causes, Existing, Healing, Magical, Alchemist.

7) Sacred Response: God the Pure Being--``I Am``.

Qualities: Unborn, Undying, Unchanging, Unmoving, Unmanifest, Immeasureable, Invisible, Intangible, Infinite.

Intersting stuff? So my friends, PM and temporal--what stage are you at? I think, I am at 10.

No need to take this material seriously. It just demonstrates what some learned people are thinking and talking about in the 20th century. I believe Taliban and Fundos are stuck at stage 0.5 or less---flocks and slaves.

YJ(Post # 24):

I just happened to browse Chowk after a week and found your succinct note. Just thought of clarifying a few points:

- To exchange views and perspectives is not equal to argue or outwit each other.{I have intentionaly taken out the possibility of ``convince``} I think Sameer JB had very thorough points but our perceptions were different.

- I felt that he was missing a very obvious component that was evident in his own writings. Now, whether that was significant for him or not it was his call. I was just trying to play the devil`s advocate. :-)

- I was forced to come forth and bring up the mention of the book as Sameer mentioned that we should try to read other perspectives rather than sticking to our own. It is ironic that we have so much to gather, absorb and gain in our own belief system and we end up going to other belief systems for knowledge annd enlightment. As this conversation never got initiated based on a particular belief system therefore we were incorporating various points.

Each person has something that comforts their heart and soul. For Person A it may be HIS/HER knowledge and intellect, whereas for Person B it may be his faith and belief. Let`s not stop here, Person C may see material gains as the comforting factor. So it is personal and depends on the elements used to nurture ones heart and soul.

My mental faculties simply fail to understand that how can a human being ignore the existance of God in each and everything in life{Let`s not forget that there is a marked difference between ``existance`` and ``concept``} ?

I have not been able to get an answer that is true for all cases but have some observations.

Sometimes when one reads the Scientists and Intellectuals who rationalize each and everything in life, they sound aloof to God`s grandeur. Even intellect, knowledge, brain, EQ, IQ and etc are granted to a human being by God`s blessing. Let`s not forget why Shaitaan was kicked out of Heaven ?

a)Intellectual arrogance.

b)Obedience

c)Humility

d)Disobedience

e)a&d

f)none of the above

During my recent travel, I was reading a relatively lighter book. It had the bios of different scholars and sufis. There was a bio on Mulla Sadra, including some pertinent stuff that has been addressed a few times & I felt like quoting it here:

``In order to gain perfect knowledge of things, one`s rational knowledge should be combined with spiritual tasting and one`s theoretical knowledge should be combined with the realization of higher consciousness, which is a gift by the grace of God, attained by those who purify their souls following the Muhammadi way of life``

Take Care

Sameer Mian Ji:

I have sort of `thumbed through` this board. Your posts, P.M.s, fairdinkum`s ans Aansa Zahra`s.

My dear man, don`t get into a discussion with Zahra. Yeh pouhNchi huii haiN. All I had to do was to read her post #23. Give up. She is way ahead spiritually. You and I shed that in our F.Scs, and became dehrias!

Sameer JB (Post # 21):

I read your response, the first part (Post # 17) and was disappointed that you kept on missing the point. But I am glad that you saved me from the effort of logically analyzing this matter in light of the Ajeeb “Mind-Level vs Heart-Level” perspective :-)I felt something lacking in your approach based on the examples that you have been quoting.



There is some background behind my suggesting you to look into the web-site and the book. My father’s side has their “Roohani Silsala (Spiritual Connection)” with Silsal-ae-Qadiria. Therefore, I have been looking into this web-site. I have grown up listening to different stories from those times and have read the bios of many Buzurgs at a very young age. But when it came to reading the discourses, I have never had a chance to make a conscious effort to do so till recently.

Last year, I attended a session by CAIR in DC and picked up this book for my dearest Abu as a “special gift”. I was very surprised to find a book in English on the discourses. My ancestors’ library held many books on the lives of the famous Buzurgs and their teachings but they were very intense books written in several languages. I would have needed to have a teacher to enlighten me as I was too young to be “Khailo-Koodo-fying” with the precious books in the library (my sanctuary). Somehow, I knew my fate would force me to read them at a later stage in life. Anyway, I bought this book and kept it with me very carefully. I also had a strange feeling that if I opened it, I would be very enlightened on the perspective of life.

Finally one night, I opened it and read the first discourse. I could not sleep for many days as I kept on making an effort to “be present to what I read”. There was also the realization at the back of my mind that I was no longer the child who could take the plea, “ Oh, it is a difficult read so I will just read what I can understand and leave the rest for some other day”. I finished the first two chapters and told myself that I needed to spend a weekend just contemplating. I had to tell some friends that I am on a “special thinking assignment”, so please do not disturb! It is not something that you can just read like a novel. I felt that I needed to be present and above all give it the “Ta’azeem”. So that is the brief story of the “precious mind and heart enlightening book”. You can also find it on Amazon.Com.

I came across the web-site while searching for this book and found it to be an excellent site.

Some sayings from the 22nd Discourse:



“It was in the guesthouse, in the early morning of the last day of Dhu`l-Qa`da, A.H. 545, that the Shaikh (may Allah be well pleased with him) said, after some discussion, when someone asked: ``How can I evict the love of this world from my heart?”

Notice the world`s fickle treatment of its lords [arbab] and its sons, how it tricks them, plays games with them, and pushes them behind it, then promotes them step by step, in order to raise them above the people and put them in control of them, and in order to display its treasures and its wonders. But while they are enjoying their lofty status, their dominance, their pleasant lifestyle and having the world at their service, this is when it seizes them, binds them, cheats them and throws them headlong down from that elevated position, so that they are dismembered, disintegrated and destroyed, while the world stands there laughing at them with Iblis by its side, laughing along with it. This is what it has done and will do with many of the emperors, kings and rich men, from the time of Adam (peace be upon him) till the Day of Resurrection. It exalts then abases, promotes then sets back, enriches then impoverishes, nurtures then sacrifices. Rare indeed are the few individuals who remain unharmed by it, who master it instead of being dominated by it, who receive help against it and escape its greedy clutches. There is no escape from its greedy clutches unless one knows it really well, and is intensely wary of it and of its cunning tricks.

O questioner, if you observe its faults with the eyes of your heart, you will be able to evict it from your heart. But if you look at it with the eyes in your head, you will be distracted by its charm instead of noticing its faults. You will be unable to evict it from your heart and to abstain from it, and it will kill you as it has killed others. Struggle with your own self [nafs] until it becomes tame. Once it has become tame, it will recognize the faults of this world and abstain from it. Its tameness [tuma`nina] consists in its taking instruction from the heart, complying with the wishes of the innermost being [sirr], obeying both of these in all they may command or forbid, and being satisfied when they give and patient when they withhold. Once it has become tame, it will become attached to the heart and will rely upon it. You will see the crown of pious devotion [taqwa] on its head, and the robes of nearness clothing it. “

The above reaffirmed my evolving belief that heart and mind are inter-connected. I also used to believe in the “heart matter” as a separate entity, but I am realizing “my evolving belief” with the passage of time.

Take Care

Re: Zahra, SameerJB, and PM:

Interesting discussion! Mind if I join in?

Indeed religion and spirituality, science and rational thought, heart and mind – all have their places under the sun … Why do we have to make choices?

Would religion and spirituality (or science and rational thought for that matter), survive after so many thousands of years if they didn’t satisfy some very innate human need? And what is truth and knowledge? Are they absolute or are they relative? Or they absolute and relative?

I find the big bang theory or the chaos theory and description of attributes of God equally fascinating.

Enjoy the following quotes by Albert Einstein.

‘It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.``

``As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.``

``A man`s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.``

``Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.``

Patrick: I pretty much agree with everything you have said. I suppose it is natural human tendency to apply one`s best skills...science in my case. There is no doubt about various branches of knowledge and the scientific knowledge is just one of them. I am certain that noone will disagree with you that there is lot more left to be known. Any form of knowledge beyond the understang of human mind will never be known--only percieved or believed. For instance, palmistry, astrology and telepathy are having difficulty in being accepted as a real knowledge. Would there be an understanding during my lifetime which could predict my fortune based on the motion of the stars? I will certainly not bet on it.

Patrick, since science is my forte, I have no choice but to use it to my best advantage and this was the main reason for its extensive use to justify my opinions. I believe science should be as valid as other areas of knowledge. However, I would have very difficult time accepting that scientific knowledge is somehow inferior to another form of transcedental knowledge which only the select few knew, mostly in the past. Most of the people, and Muslims in particular will disagree with the above statement because noone in the present can achieve the reverence of the past seers, saints and gurus. I have no problem with it except that scientific principles can not be bent to justify a branch of knowledge whose existence can not be proven by any analytical means at hand. This is the justification when famous psychatrist Heinrich Zimmer says, ``the best thing(knowledge) can not be told``. Similarly a famous verse of Rig Veda says,`` Those who know It speak of It not, those who speak of It know It not``. Notice the very abstract nature of God in the East, they would not even assign a gender to God. Now in the Western traditions, consider the statement of famous French priest, Simone Weil who says,`` In what concerns divine things, belief is not appropriate. Only certainty will do. Anything less than certainty is unworthy of God.`` The certainty requires a non-abstract way, i.e., knowing Him through His manifestations. Nature/ Universe is one of His best manifestations. In this sense, God as a unified force governing all laws of nature is not much different from considering nature as a manifestation of God. He can be better understood when He is internal as compared to external and beyond the limitations of time and space and thus beyond the reach of logical and rational mind.

I have read Karen Armstrong`s book. It is excellent reference to the history of God from masks of Gods...to the manifestations of God....to the abstract and non-abstract nature of the Understanding of God....and the mind of God.

Zahra: I visited the URL you provided. It was very good read of the several discourse by Abdul Qadir Gilani. I can see now what you meant by the heart level. For you it meant a total dedication, free from wordly thoughts, a fully immersed state....as we say it in Urdu/ Hindi, sacchey dil se or pakkey dil se. My heart level terminology was really a substitute for blind faith. BTW, how did you come up with a URL from South Africa? Are you actually in RSA?

Sameer,

I read your replies (17 & 18) with great interest. Am almost in total agreement with you. However, I wonder whether you are being too restrictive in your use of the word knowledge, and the means by which it may be attained. You seem to use knowledge in a sense synonomous with logic, or scientific knowledge, or that reached through sense-perception and/or reason. Thus, your God (and I am perfectly willing to go with you on that God is, nay, must be, a subjective thing) is, paradigmatically, the God of Newton and DesCartes.

Please correct me if I am mistaken.

However, what I would argue (and I think what Zahra is driving at) is that there are other sources of knowledge. Perhaps the term itself needs to be broadened to accomdate our contention. Consider this.. All sientific knowledge is based on certain premises or axioms. The truth of a prosposition can thus be ascertained or rejected based on the application of logical principles. But at some progressively anterior point, we must say we know something not by logical deduction but, well, we `just know`. Like, that if a=b and b=c, then a=c.

Such intuitive knowledge operates to a certain degree within all of us, an especially as children. We `know` the dynamics of language, without a critical examination. (maybe that example is out of place... tell me if it is).

I think this issue of knowledge without `proof` is beautifully tackled by Sagan himself in the Contact, when the heroine scientist is forced to admit that she `knew` something she was willingl to defend with her life, though only intuitively.

You`ve expressed interest in the Eastern religions, esp. Zen and Vedanta. Well, it is rather astounding to find that had `access` to knowledge of the universe that they obviously could have not reached using the scientific techniques and technology o modern physicists. What was the source, then, of their knowledge? Or more appropriately, what were the `channels` used. You point out that we are of but cosmic dust. Is the rational mind the only agent of perception of our ultimate reality?

Having said that, I must state that I am in no way making a case for blind belief. Whatever it`s utility (cohesion, direction etc.) it should, IMHO never be mistaken for Truth, even if it represents it, since belief without an experiencial substratum is still only the pointing finger; not the object -- whether we are talking about Class 7 Algebraic formulas or beliefs about God.

So, do we `know`- I mean truly know, understand - with our minds, or our hearts? Or both?

Gosh, this is getting to be a can of worms, isn`t it? I guess that wht we get when we engage in barroom philosphising.

But since it`s free, what the heck..

You hold the knowledge of Al-Arabi and Rumi to be valid, in any universal sense, only to their time and place, ``like Shakespeare`s literature was to his age``. Sameer, are you not perhaps misapplying the principle of cumulative knowledge, which applies to science. Don`t get me wrong, I am not claiming that all non-scientific knowledge is valid; merely that SOME knowledge, or more appropriately, some experiences, are universal to mankind, such as the ones dealt with by Shakespeare, or Rumi... ``Truths`` not in th province of science at all.

I suspect that your distrust of the nonrational knowledge and their sources has to do with their great propensity for abuse, their likelihood of invalidity and their general nonveriafiablilty. But to reject it complelety on those grounds would be to throw the baby out with the bath water, would it not!?

... just some ramblings.. hope they`ll be worthy of comment/feedback.

by the way, Sameer, Karem Armstrong`s History of God is a great `study` in the evolution of that idea. I`m sure you`d find it interesting, even intriguing. Another is Erich Fromm`s take on the same idea, You Shall Be As Gods. Great read!

best regards,

Patrick

btw, you can touch base with me @ postmatser@yahooo.com, if you care to. Are you i

Sameer,

I read your replies (17 & 18) with great interest. Am almost in total agreement with you. However, I wonder whether you are being too restrictive in your use of the word knowledge, and the means by which it may be attained. You seem to use knowledge in a sense synonomous with logic, or scientific knowledge, or that reached through sense-perception and/or reason. Thus, your God (and I am perfectly willing to go with you on that God is, nay, must be, a subjective thing) is, paradigmatically, the God of Newton and DesCartes.

Please correct me if I am mistaken.

However, what I would argue (and I think what Zahra is driving at) is that there are other sources of knowledge. Perhaps the term itself needs to be broadened to accomdate our contention. Consider this.. All sientific knowledge is based on certain premises or axioms. The truth of a prosposition can thus be ascertained or rejected based on the application of logical principles. But at some progressively anterior point, we must say we know something not by logical deduction but, well, we `just know`. Like, that if a=b and b=c, then a=c.

Such intuitive knowledge operates to a certain degree within all of us, an especially as children. We `know` the dynamics of language, without a critical examination. (maybe that example is out of place... tell me if it is).

I think this issue of knowledge without `proof` is beautifully tackled by Sagan himself in the Contact, when the heroine scientist is forced to admit that she `knew` something she was willingl to defend with her life, though only intuitively.

You`ve expressed interest in the Eastern religions, esp. Zen and Vedanta. Well, it is rather astounding to find that had `access` to knowledge of the universe that they obviously could have not reached using the scientific techniques and technology o modern physicists. What was the source, then, of their knowledge? Or more appropriately, what were the `channels` used. You point out that we are of but cosmic dust. Is the rational mind the only agent of perception of our ultimate reality?

Having said that, I must state that I am in no way making a case for blind belief. Whatever it`s utility (cohesion, direction etc.) it should, IMHO never be mistaken for Truth, even if it represents it, since belief without an experiencial substratum is still only the pointing finger; not the object -- whether we are talking about Class 7 Algebraic formulas or beliefs about God.

So, do we `know`- I mean truly know, understand - with our minds, or our hearts? Or both?

Gosh, this is getting to be a can of worms, isn`t it? I guess that wht we get when we engage in barroom philosphising.

But since it`s free, what the heck..

You hold the knowledge of Al-Arabi and Rumi to be valid, in any universal sense, only to their time and place, ``like Shakespeare`s literature was to his age``. Sameer, are you not perhaps misapplying the principle of cumulative knowledge, which applies to science. Don`t get me wrong, I am not claiming that all non-scientific knowledge is valid; merely that SOME knowledge, or more appropriately, some experiences, are universal to mankind, such as the ones dealt with by Shakespeare, or Rumi... ``Truths`` not in th province of science at all.

I suspect that your distrust of the nonrational knowledge and their sources has to do with their great propensity for abuse, their likelihood of invalidity and their general nonveriafiablilty. But to reject it complelety on those grounds would be to throw the baby out with the bath water, would it not!?

... just some ramblings.. hope they`ll be worthy of comment/feedback.

by the way, Sameer, Karem Armstrong`s History of God is a great `study` in the evolution of that idea. I`m sure you`d find it interesting, even intriguing. Another is Erich Fromm`s take on the same idea, You Shall Be As Gods. Great read!

best regards,

Patrick

btw, you can touch base with me @ postmatser@yahooo.com, if you care to. Are you i

Part II

Zahra: Religion is a personal matter. It provides 1) Easy understanding and belief in God; 2) A set of rituals; 3) A set of moral and ethical laws and a way of life; 4) identity.

1) I have already discussed in Part I as to why it is necessary to have a simplified concept of God. It is to make it acceptable and understandable to a large number of people with varying degree of knowledge and acceptable regardless of class, gender, color, age or ethnicity. The concept is barely abstract among middle eastern religions but profoundly abstract among eastern religions.

2) A set of rituals is necessary to clearly distinguish one religion from others, in addition to providing spirituality. The spirituality is a condition of human psyche where relaxation of the mind is achieved through valid illusions. They may be practiced in moderation.

3) This is the most problematic area as far as Islam is concerned. The followers of literal excegesis of Islam believe in the perfection of these laws. This shuts the door on further learning and leads to obscurantism. In reality the past perfection is a fallacy. No society could ever be considered perfect and mistake-free. Similarly penal codes were neither fair, nor they could be applicable in modern Muslim societies which are composed of various nationalities, ethnicities and sects. At the most, it can be said they were progressive in that particular time and place. A thief could have his hand cut or an adulterer could have been stoned but many of the mistakes and blunders of the ruling elite went unpunished. During the Uhad war some soldier showed negligence and left the hilly flank they were posted, in case enemy attacks from that side. A brilliant Meccan commander named Khalid Bin Walid took the advantage and attacked from that side resulting in many Muslim casualties. Was anyone stoned to death for showing negligence, because negligence is a crime? Is it the sign of a perfect society when three out of four Rashidain Caliphs were actually assassinated while in office? Is it possible to nominate a Caliph in modern times, approved by select few men in a mosque or through a referendum? What about the women rights to vote which is relatively a recent phenomena but definitely irreversible? Could religion be the main basis of relationship with outside world?

The fact is that Sharia’ah and Fiqah may have been good for a different time and place, they have no relevance in the affairs of modern nation states. Sooner we get this hangover behind us, better it is for Pakistan. Religion is and should remain a matter of personal choice.

4) No problem with Islam as an identity, in addition to nationality and ethnicity, as long as it is not the domineering one.

Zahra: The symbolism of heart and mind are somewhat similar to chakra system of Hinduism. Instead of seven levels of chakra, this is merely a distinction between levels of involvement. What heart level really mean is an acceptance without knowledge and the mind level means understanding based on knowledge. Since knowledge is constantly evolving, the understandings will keep evolving also. On the other hand acceptance without knowledge is based on belief and is mostly static. For instance love, happiness and beauty are domains of the heart. A person can appreciate the beauty of a rose or a mother can love her child as much as it could have been 1000 years ago while a person equipped with the modern knowledge of climatology will find little use for praying for rain and would instead be concerned with the storage of water for the season when it does not rain. The acceptance of beliefs as they are, is non-discriminatory and more or less socialistic in nature where an illiterate as well as an intellectual are at par in their understanding of God through religions. The religions have made it easy for everybody to have some sort of experience of God through prayers, meditations or myths. The problem, however, is that actual truth may be very different and even unacceptable for common folks than the joyful illusion of God or spirituality created by the religion. Take for example movies or television, which are nothing but a series of still photographs. Since human mind is programmed to see a maximum of 16 pictures in a second; a rate of 22 pictures per second will create an illusion of a continuous motion. Since this illusion is not harmful and may even be beneficial; it is a valid illusion. Similarly birth control pills also work through tricking the mind into believing that the person is already pregnant. The effect of this illusion is also widely accepted by both the illiterate an intellectuals alike.

It takes lots of learning and knowledge to figure out the truth behind the facade of moving picture, birth control pills, other technologies and God. It takes the knowledge of human body, mind and psyche in addition to the current understanding of the working of nature and universe to develop a plausible model for an understanding of God which is acceptable to human mind. From this standpoint, He is the embodiment of all the forces of the universe, and we being part of the same cosmic dust, contain the same forces within us. This is the God of knowledge; this is my God. He is internal and works according to the laws of His own creation. It is not going to rain if according to His laws, there is not enough moisture in the upper atmosphere. He would not turn salt bags into sugar, neither would move Kaa’ba to go and meet Rabia Basri.

All the prayers are meant to satisfy yourself. If God is unprincipled, how can He expect His creations to follow laws?

Deepak Chopra is just one of several thinkers of the new age spirituality. His concept of God is mostly external and in line with Judeo-Christian-Islamic God which is, of course, very pleasing to his clientele at Hollywood. His God is also beyond time and space and could be felt mostly by His miracles in everyday life. He does use the current understanding of Physics, Chemistry, Neuroscience and Psychology to suggest the eternity of common soul in all life forms. I read him and others not so much to agree but learn alternative explanations. It is actually better to read opposing viewpoints instead of re-reading the same old and new material, in-agreement with your point of view. My personal view are actually more closer to people like Joseph Campbell, Stephen Hawkins, Carl Sagan and like. In the area of human psyche, I admire Mahayana Buddhism, Zen Buddhism and Vedanta Hinduism and my concept of God is mostly scientific interpretation of Allah.

I will visit the website you suggested, for information about Sheikh Abdul Qadir Gilani. I have great respect for him and people like, Ibn Arabi, Mansoor Hallaj and Rumi. Their teachings and philosophies were great and provide foundation for further exploration. At the same time one must realize that they were in a different time and space. They did not have access to the current understanding of the laws governing nature. It would be anybody’s guess what they would have said, if they were present in modern times. One should try to get up-to-date knowledge and should not stop at 1000 years old knowledge. From the literary point of view their writings are as valid as Shakespeare would be for English literature. They should be read as the starting point and not as the end point.

A Correction:

The book`s name is `` The Sublime Revelation`` and there are 62 discourses explained. You can checkout the following site also: http://www.islam.co.za/abdalqadirjilani/

Sameer JB (Response Part II):-

By Taz`kara(An Urdu Word, I will stay away from the origin and other philosophies behind it, for now)I meant, ``Mention``.

I feel that people with the ``mind level approach`` are either unaware or are hesitant to accept that the ``heart level component`` does not need to be evoked in any way or shape. It is naturally there. They have to bring up the mention of ``logic and rationality`` to draw a clear cut line defining the boundaries between the heart and mind. Please do try to contemplate, do you have an option to go with one or the other ?

In my second post, I referred to `heart` as the initiator of belief and travelling towards, the human intricate machine - `mind` to create the balance. I did not say that it can survive on its own. Correct me if I am assuming that you are trying to build a world of belief based on `mind alone` ?

Now I feel guilty of bringing up too many questions, but can`t help as you thoughts were the initiating force :-)

Sameer JB:

I read the following lines, a few times and disagree with the portrayed picture (heart level). Then, if you are a person who functions on (brain level), you’ll have hard time synthesizing the events taking place at (heart level).

“If a person has a blind faith in the prayer for rain, he will go to the prayer happily (heart level); if a person knows for sure that it is gonna rain if he prays, he will carry umbrella with him to the prayer (mind level).”

I have not read your posts before, therefore cannot comment on the views expressed in them.



Regarding the following statement: -

“To me God is more internal than external because myself as well as all form of matter is part of the original unified force which brought the universe into existence.”

- Are you associated in any way with Physics?

- Define internal and external concepts, in the above statement’s context?

Besides the above questions, I will appreciate if you assist me in understanding a little deeply without being “vague” the “mind level” approach towards the following “heart level” case :-

It was a dry hot summer day. A group planned to get together to offer the prayer for rain. They offered the prayer and then dispersed. (Now, they were never under the assumption that as soon as they finished their prayers, it will rain. Their intent was to ask God whole-heartedly to help them.) To their utter dismay, it did not rain. They decided to reorganize their session and go with more passion and humility. To their despair, it did not rain even after the second time. They went home and did not let it go. As a result, they waited and waited. All in vain!

The third time they decided to have a plan of action. The plan was to stay focused (Khushoo-Khuzo-o) and request, going to the level where the ego disappeared and the remainder was a helpless creature, looking up for assistance. And, this time after they finished praying and were about to head home, there was Grhhhhhhhhhhhhh….. thunder and lightning. And then, in no time, it just rained and rained and kept on raining for hours. They were intelligent individuals, so they just took out the umbrellas from the back of their car and thanked God. Their going to a certain level of depth and focus in their prayers never meant that they were ill-prepared.



I have heard some of Deepak Chopra’s books on audio. Besides him, I have heard quite a few on their perceptions and interpretations on mind, soul, spiritualism and etc. It is fine to listen to their perspectives but there is a lack of authenticity. Somehow, I am not a Deepak Chopra fan. I just have his quotes on few pages of my planner but they were already printed there and I did not have any option.

I suggest something more authentic than Deepak Chopra, try finding a book, “62 discourses of Abdul Qadir Jilani” . Just to forewarn you, it is not an easy read. You’ll have to re-think before you plan on proceeding to the next sentence.

Take Care

Zahra (#11): It is true that I hold an opinion about God and religion which is not standardized Islamic version. My opinions are greatly influenced by my admiration of the eastern philosophies.

To me religion is an identity and God is personal. At personal level, the concept of God will be different for different people. God is the collective force of nature/ Universe as understood by my mind. At personal level it is not sufficent to merely believe in God, you must know Him exactlly. To me God is more internal than external because myself as well as all form of matter is part of the original unified force which brought the universe into existence.

It is a matter of the mind to know God; It is a matter of the heart to believe in religion and the God of the religion. It is not to say that God of religion and personal God are two different things; It is to say that the understanding at the mind/ brain level is usually logical and rational whereas it is a blind faith or love at the heart level.

If a person has a blind faith in the prayer for rain, he will go to the prayer happily (heart level); If a person knows for sure that it is gonna rain if he prays, he will carry umbrella with him to the prayer (mind level).

This is the point I have repeatedly made in my several posts that since religion is an affair of the heart, a blind faith, then religion and state are seperate things.

I am not familiar with Tazkara. If you like to elaborate it or like to extend this discussion further, I will be glad to interact.

P.S. I am lately reading Deepak Chopra`s recent book, titled ``How To Know God``. He has some intresting discussions.

MM - Very nicely written - thanks! I think education and experience empower us and together shape our belief system. Aren`t we a product of society, shaped to its fancy depending on which way the wind blew at that time and place?

Definitely, the Quran needs to be read and redefined. Sadly, second-hand experience is taking precedence and thus, it takes forever to re-educate a brain washed mind. Would it be safe to say the Quran also changes with the times?

Agreed, there should be consistency in our actions! Perhaps, some of us are hesitant to state our religious preference for fear of judgmental statements? Oh yes, dealt with the inner sensibilities years ago and battled the outer forces with my Jedi beam... still doing so!

=zensufi.com=