KAP

[Apech]

Watched this interview. Thanks. I disagree with his approach. I prefer to say that the words and the mysterious are not strictly separated. This Sufi makes a sharp distinction between ego and the absence of ego, between intellect and love, and I do not think that such sharp distinctions are the best way to approach the truth.

 

...

 

I thought it was interesting for two points in relation to what was being said on here. At one point he talks about the zero that is infinity (and visa versa) and the woman interviewer says "is that infinity god?" (or similar) - and he says that you should go to the mosque for an answer to that (later agreed or church as 'it doesn't make a difference). This is not what a Muslim teacher would say as they are all about Allah after all. Secondly, despite spending his whole life in the field of psychiatric medicine he completely dismisses this as well.

 

Also throughout the interview there was no hint of a sales pitch or any kind of suggestion that anyone should become a Sufi ... he just said that he himself 'stumbled upon it' and that if you were meant to be a Sufi you would.

 

NB. I would just add that although I met him once and was impressed I was and am not a student of his and do not particularly think that anyone should follow him but just look at him and compare with others.

[heavenlygong]

Then I became more of a jnani than a bhakti. And to this day I consider the path of wisdom to be superior to the path of non-intellectual love.

 

And that is also what Hindu teachers/scriptures teach. Bhakti attitude is considered as a useful tool to developing the attitude of a jnani though. If you can't take the royal road, then take something else that eventually puts you back on the high way.

[Enishi]

Speaking of Islam, it is my personal prediction that Western Europe will become more Islamic within the next couple decades given the simple fact that the birth rate among Muslim immigrants is something like 4 babies per women, while it's 1.3 babies per native European woman. Lol.

[Vajrasattva]

And that is also what Hindu teachers/scriptures teach. Bhakti attitude is considered as a useful tool to developing the attitude of a jnani though. If you can't take the royal road, then take something else that eventually puts you back on the high way.

 

 

Bhakti is Key

[Pero]

I hope you don't mind, but since Tao is my religion, I feel the need to point out that no Taoist considers "it" = supreme being / GOD to be the TAO, or the TAO to be GOD. They are not synonyms, as you portray them.

 

That's not what you wrote first is it? Anway I feel the same for Buddhism.

[Vajrasattva]

What had the most impact is that he said that Koran and hadiths might be corrupted by those who poisoned Mohammed. In other words, he appears to admit they contain doctrines that are inappropriate for the current world. So at least he accepts some kind of criticism. That's a huge change from trying to constantly apologize for Koran and hadiths, which is what a lot of people correctly have in mind when talking about the image and content of the conventional Islamic doctrine.

Vajra, if there is a possibility to live one's life counter to God's wishes, then God is not omnipotent. On the other hand, if God is omnipotent, we are in a state of what you call "submission" to begin with. In reality, since there is no boundary between God and his creations, there is no possibility for submission, as that which might submit is not distinct from that which might be submitted unto.

 

Furthermore, we live on the planet Earth. And it would be nice if you came out of your cave from time to time. On Earth, down here, the word Muslim means someone who follows the conventional and widely available to all doctrine of Islam. The doctrine of Islam is what's contained in Koran and hadiths. This simpler, non-mystical definition is what I use.

 

I know you use the Sufi definition. I've studied Sufist ideas before and I understand what you are trying to say. I understand you've been taught to think that way and I understand why too. However, this is what happens when you rely on a teacher too much: you tend to disconnect from the world. So a teacher will teach you how to define a Muslim, and now you feel free to ignore the definition of a Muslim that the rest of the world likes to use. That's really a bad quality. You should be able to appreciate and use both definitions.

 

 

I am not going by what a TEACHER says I am going by what I know from my own experience. Take it or leave it.

 

You can not "study it". You simply have to surrender & Let go to the One heart that makes all hearts Beat. The one thing that gives life force to all regardless of "Religion", "Islam"

etc.

[Vajrasattva]

The "ALL" is in all paths. Religion is not the sole carrier.

[C T]

I am not going by what a TEACHER says I am going by what I know from my own experience. Take it or leave it.

 

You can not "study it". You simply have to surrender & Let go to the One heart that makes all hearts Beat. The one thing that gives life force to all regardless of "Religion", "Islam"

etc.

I am curious about two things -- one, to know what you have surrendered, and the benefits of this surrendering.

 

Btw, is learning to surrender part of the KAP curriculum?

[Vajrasattva]

Watched this interview. Thanks. I disagree with his approach. I prefer to say that the words and the mysterious are not strictly separated. This Sufi makes a sharp distinction between ego and the absence of ego, between intellect and love, and I do not think that such sharp distinctions are the best way to approach the truth.

 

He makes some interesting statements. He was a psychologist, and he said you must work as a Sufi. And by this I think it's clear he means work at a mundane job, not a "job" of selling Sufism, but like being a carpenter, or like being an accountant and so on. In fact, if I understand this Sufi correctly, you couldn't sell Sufism even if you wanted to, so any pretense of doing so is contrary to the path.

 

When I first started on the path, right after I got over my obsession with energy and auras, I was huge into bhakti and annihilation in God. I was utterly crazy. Exactly like what this Sufi describes. I've had amazing experiences that words can't do justice to. Nonetheless I realized that there is no separation between those amazing experiences and the non-amazing ones. I realized there is no separation between mystical and the intellect and in general, between any two things. This realization has allowed me to sober up. Then I became more of a jnani than a bhakti. And to this day I consider the path of wisdom to be superior to the path of non-intellectual love, because wisdom is inclusive of love and intellect, but the non-intellectual love is not inclusive.

 

Sounds like you where not rooted.

 

And also not rooted in the "self" either.

 

You can not loose Bhakti if you really Have it.

 

 

Also did you know that the secret smile is an ancient "Mudra" of the Jnani Yogis?

 

What had the most impact is that he said that Koran and hadiths might be corrupted by those who poisoned Mohammed. In other words, he appears to admit they contain doctrines that are inappropriate for the current world. So at least he accepts some kind of criticism. That's a huge change from trying to constantly apologize for Koran and hadiths, which is what a lot of people correctly have in mind when talking about the image and content of the conventional Islamic doctrine.

Vajra, if there is a possibility to live one's life counter to God's wishes, then God is not omnipotent. On the other hand, if God is omnipotent, we are in a state of what you call "submission" to begin with. In reality, since there is no boundary between God and his creations, there is no possibility for submission, as that which might submit is not distinct from that which might be submitted unto.

 

Furthermore, we live on the planet Earth. And it would be nice if you came out of your cave from time to time. On Earth, down here, the word Muslim means someone who follows the conventional and widely available to all doctrine of Islam. The doctrine of Islam is what's contained in Koran and hadiths. This simpler, non-mystical definition is what I use.

 

I know you use the Sufi definition. I've studied Sufist ideas before and I understand what you are trying to say. I understand you've been taught to think that way and I understand why too. However, this is what happens when you rely on a teacher too much: you tend to disconnect from the world. So a teacher will teach you how to define a Muslim, and now you feel free to ignore the definition of a Muslim that the rest of the world likes to use. That's really a bad quality. You should be able to appreciate and use both definitions.

 

You can not disconnect from the world if you are truly rooted in it.

 

I am curious about two things -- one, to know what you have surrendered, and the benefits of this surrendering.

 

Btw, is learning to surrender part of the KAP curriculum?

 

 

well you can not be filled if FULL.

 

 

Surrendering can also be a form of "releasing" as is done in certain Shamanic "Clearings"" & as is done in Karmic healing practices in Vajrayana & also "Chod". Which is the inner "Jihad".

 

Surrendering can bring an immense amount of "letting go".

 

The real surrender is to the Absolute "SELF"/ the Primordial Source not a "figure" a man with a beard or a thousand arms etc.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Vajrasattva

[goldisheavy]

I thought it was interesting for two points in relation to what was being said on here. At one point he talks about the zero that is infinity (and visa versa) and the woman interviewer says "is that infinity god?" (or similar) - and he says that you should go to the mosque for an answer to that (later agreed or church as 'it doesn't make a difference). This is not what a Muslim teacher would say as they are all about Allah after all. Secondly, despite spending his whole life in the field of psychiatric medicine he completely dismisses this as well.

 

I picked up on that too, but forgot to mention it. And I agree with you 100%. I figured this was why you wanted to share this interview.

 

Also throughout the interview there was no hint of a sales pitch or any kind of suggestion that anyone should become a Sufi ... he just said that he himself 'stumbled upon it' and that if you were meant to be a Sufi you would.

 

NB. I would just add that although I met him once and was impressed I was and am not a student of his and do not particularly think that anyone should follow him but just look at him and compare with others.

 

Yea. I liked the man (but not his approach) in the video. I may not follow him, but I wouldn't pick bones with him either, because he's not defending Islam or any other religion. That he's cutting himself off from people by refusing to deal with the words is his own personal mystical problem that he'll have to figure out for himself. Currently he's in a state where he heavily exults the divine and heavily denigrates the mundane, plus he keeps referring to "crazy", calling himself and others crazy (for different reasons), but I doubt he actually investigated the meaning of sanity to begin with. I think had he investigated what it means to be sane or crazy, he might talk with a bit more nuance.

 

As it stands, his approach is not nuanced. He just rejects discourse. Calls everything crazy. That's all. That's not very refined. It's no wonder these folks in his room can't really understand him. He's taken the position that "It's your job to connect to me, but it's not my job to connect to you." That's not a very compassionate position.

Edited January 7, 2010 by goldisheavy

[C T]

 

 

well you can not be filled if FULL.

Surrendering can also be a form of "releasing" as is done in certain Shamanic "Clearings"" & as is done in Karmic healing practices in Vajrayana & also "Chod". Which is the inner "Jihad".

 

Surrendering can bring an immense amount of "letting go".

 

The real surrender is to the Absolute "SELF"/ the Primordial Source not a "figure" a man with a beard or a thousand arms etc.

Is what you mentioned here performed as some kind of ritual, like some gathering where everyone gets together and then someone will say, alright boys and girls, today we are going to practice a bit of surrendering, and the group goes, "Yes, teacher, we will ritualize and learn how to surrender at this sacred gathering", or is it a personal relationship with your Source, which btw can include a bearded persona, or even a bearded persona with a thousand arms, but not necessarily so, where you are surrendering at every moment?

 

what happens to a person after he or she has surrendered everything? Stripped of all pretenses, conditions etc?

what remains of such a person?

 

I want to learn please.

[goldisheavy]

Sounds like you where not rooted.

 

And also not rooted in the "self" either.

 

You can not loose Bhakti if you really Have it.

 

What gives you the idea that I lost anything?

 

Also did you know that the secret smile is an ancient "Mudra" of the Jnani Yogis?

 

Never heard of it before. Now that you say so, I still don't know it.

 

You can not disconnect from the world if you are truly rooted in it.

 

What do you mean "if you are truly rooted?" What other options are there?

 

When I talk about disconnecting, I mean you lose touch with convention. So in your case, your teacher has taught you one definition of Islam, and now you feel free to ignore the definition that the majority uses. So you're not disconnected from the world in an absolute sense, but you are disconnected from our human world, because we have conventions and conventional meanings. You ignore them completely. By ignoring conventional meanings, you end up being unable to talk to anyone outside your Sufi circle. There are people in the world that disagree with you about what it means to be a Muslim. You have to honor that fact even if you disagree with the opinion of the majority. Even if you don't like how the majority defines "Islam", when you talk to people who hold the conventional understanding, you must not evade the issues but talk straight.

 

I'll give you an example of how to talk straight.

 

If I were you, here's how I would put it,

 

"Hey Gold, I understand what you mean about Islam. You are referring to the conventional definition of Islam and to the way most people understand and practice Islam. And I agree that way is fucked up and is not fit for the modern world. However, my Sufi teacher defines Islam differently. Sufi definition of Islam doesn't depend on Koran or on hadiths. It defines one's relationship with God. The more surrender you feel to God the more Islamic you are. In that sense, there is nothing wrong with Islam, because in that sense Islam is not an all-embracing ideology that includes politics and economics. It's something personal and mystical."

 

If you could communicate like that: honestly, openly, forthrightly, straightforwardly, we'd have nothing to disagree about.

 

But instead you choose to defend that which you have no business defending, and you do so out of fear and not out of love.

Edited January 7, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Apech]

I picked up on that too, but forgot to mention it. And I agree with you 100%. I figured this was why you wanted to share this interview.

Yea. I liked the man (but not his approach) in the video. I may not follow him, but I wouldn't pick bones with him either, because he's not defending Islam or any other religion. That he's cutting himself off from people by refusing to deal with the words is his own personal mystical problem that he'll have to figure out for himself. Currently he's in a state where he heavily exults the divine and heavily denigrates the mundane, plus he keeps referring to "crazy", calling himself and others crazy (for different reasons), but I doubt he actually investigated the meaning of sanity to begin with. I think had he investigated what it means to be sane or crazy, he might talk with a bit more nuance.

 

As it stands, his approach is not nuanced. He just rejects discourse. Calls everything crazy. That's all. That's not very refined. It's no wonder these folks in his room can't really understand him. He's taken the position that "It's your job to connect to me, but it's not my job to connect to you." That's not a very compassionate position.

 

 

For what its worth I think you may have missed the point here but I don't want to start a sub-thread within an already sub-thread or whatever so I'll just say he was a nice old guy who's now dead and completely free of nuance

[goldisheavy]

For what its worth I think you may have missed the point here but I don't want to start a sub-thread within an already sub-thread or whatever so I'll just say he was a nice old guy who's now dead and completely free of nuance

 

It's possible I missed the point. Were you trying to point out that Sufism is distinct from Islam?

[heavenlygong]

 

Also did you know that the secret smile is an ancient "Mudra" of the Jnani Yogis?

 

 

I lost you here. What is secret smile? A particular Taoist technique similar to the ones taught by Mantak Chia or Michael Winn? In that case, it is a technique, an activity and if you want to call it Mudra, then something that gives Bliss. But none of these are applicable to a Jnani - bliss, desire for bliss, activity, technique etc. etc. If it did, he is not a Jnani but an aspirant hopeful of Jnana. Jnana Yoga, though referred to as such, has no connection with Yoga the physical or energy techniques or Yoga as in unifying with something distinct such as a God figure (which means classic Yoga dualistic). There is no striving or practice for a Jnani as his perception to reality is awake and alive

[Apech]

It's possible I missed the point. Were you trying to point out that Sufism is distinct from Islam?

 

Partly yes.

[goldisheavy]

Partly yes.

 

OK, unless you want to reveal more, I will have to content myself with this information.

[Vajrasattva]

I lost you here. What is secret smile? A particular Taoist technique similar to the ones taught by Mantak Chia or Michael Winn? In that case, it is a technique, an activity and if you want to call it Mudra, then something that gives Bliss. But none of these are applicable to a Jnani - bliss, desire for bliss, activity, technique etc. etc. If it did, he is not a Jnani but an aspirant hopeful of Jnana. Jnana Yoga, though referred to as such, has no connection with Yoga the physical or energy techniques or Yoga as in unifying with something distinct such as a God figure (which means classic Yoga dualistic). There is no striving or practice for a Jnani as his perception to reality is awake and alive

 

 

My bad it was from "raja Yoga".

 

Iam not speaking about Winn & Mantak technique.

[Apech]

OK, unless you want to reveal more, I will have to content myself with this information.

 

 

Well I suppose we could start a Boethian (sp?) joining faith and reason thread/ or a Plotinus 'flight of the alone to the Alone' kind of a thing?

 

Sufism is embedded in Islam ... and like many (all?) mystical traditions they seem to reflect the culture which they inhabit ... but it is very much a sort of in Islam and not of Islam kind of a relationship ... hence Dr. Nurbakhsh's rather dismissive answer to that question 'is it God?'. I see mystical thinking as inherently radical but keeps its head down because it knows no masters and more importantly does not want to master others.

 

I don't want to get into the Islam is nasty thing because I think that's a bit daft ... but I agree with your argument that you cannot use Sufism to defend Islam because its so not mainstream. The other thing you cannot do, IMHO is to create your own kind of New Age universalized version of Islam which is not in accord with the mainstream and say well ... that's real Islam, the other stuff is not ... when millions and millions follow the other stuff and almost no-one agrees with your own interpretation.

 

With regard to the 'no words' the world is crazy stuff ... well I think its easy to misunderstand this as saying don't bother to think and so on. That is not what is being said at all.

[center888]

But there are a lot of posers and those posers may even genuinely think they have awakened kundalini and so teach. Nope...not even close.

So how does one know that his/her kundalini is really awakened?

Edited January 8, 2010 by center888

[heavenlygong]

Edited January 8, 2010 by heavenlygong

[markern]

Edited January 8, 2010 by markern

[heavenlygong]

If you look through the zen or tibetan of indian history of recognized enlightened masters you will find plenty of unrefined speech and behaviour.

 

 

You forget to notice that I am speaking of Kundalini Yoga teachers, not of mind-only systems like Vipassana etc. where body is not a concern nor all its faculties. This is not true for a Kundalini yogi at all! The ones who have undergone a holistic journey and not of Tibetan or Zen masters. I think I clarified that and if I did not, I am now. Also, a lot of the non-refined treatment was on purpose many a time, masking their fully blossomed finesse and communication skills.

Edited January 8, 2010 by heavenlygong

[markern]

You forget to notice that I am speaking of Kundalini Yoga teachers, not of mind-only systems like Vipassana etc. where body is not a concern nor all its faculties. This is not true for a Kundalini yogi at all! The ones who have undergone a holistic journey and not of Tibetan or Zen masters. I think I clarified that and if I did not, I am now. Also, a lot of the non-refined treatment was on purpose many a time, masking their fully blossomed finesse and communication skills.

 

I explicitly inlcuded Indian enlightened masters in what I said and Ingrams discussion of enlightenment models covers all sorts of beliefs from all sorts of traditions and just those that are floating arround in spiritual circles about what enlightenment is. You are of course aware that all sorts of people in all sorts of systems belive their masters, living and dead, have reached all sorts of levels of perfection while that is clearly not the case. If you want to belive it strongly enough, and people really do, they are able to justify anything no matter how absurd. Depsite the fact that there is a documentary wich clearly showed Sai Baba pulling the gold watches he cliams to manifest out of thin air out of his sleeve and bringing forth numerous people who claim to have been molested by him as children a guy on this forum still was able to say that he was sure Sai Baba actually could manifest whatever he wanted he just choose to come of as fake in the eyes of some people. When you are giving rationalizations at that level you are in big trouble. Then we could just say Santiago is hiding is fully blossomed finesse and communication skills for example. Any critical examination of the teacher becomes impossible no matter what they do.

 

As for Kundalini yogis having any higher levels of perferction than other levels? Really? As far as I have seen they come out possibly worst of any of the traditions in terms of mad and abusive teachers, Yogai Bajan being an excellent example.

 

As for mind only tradition not reaching the same levels. The tibetan tradition has at least as powerfull energy practices as the indain and taist traditions and they have been able to compare the results of these with the mind only techniques for a couple of thousands of years in reat detail and have found they give nothing else in addition other than a fair bit of extra energy and health benefits and speed in the case of a certain percentage of people. I have also met a man who reached first level of enlightenment doing vipassana and then lost it again, which is not that uncommon in the begining, and then got back to exactly the same place following a taoist body transformation systems. No difference what so ever.

[heavenlygong]

I explicitly inlcuded Indian enlightened masters in what I said and Ingrams discussion of enlightenment models covers all sorts of beliefs from all sorts of traditions and just those that are floating arround in spiritual circles about what enlightenment is. You are of course aware that all sorts of people in all sorts of systems belive their masters, living and dead, have reached all sorts of levels of perfection while that is clearly not the case. If you want to belive it strongly enough, and people really do, they are able to justify anything no matter how absurd. Depsite the fact that there is a documentary wich clearly showed Sai Baba pulling the gold watches he cliams to manifest out of thin air out of his sleeve and bringing forth numerous people who claim to have been molested by him as children a guy on this forum still was able to say that he was sure Sai Baba actually could manifest whatever he wanted he just choose to come of as fake in the eyes of some people. When you are giving rationalizations at that level you are in big trouble. Then we could just say Santiago is hiding is fully blossomed finesse and communication skills for example. Any critical examination of the teacher becomes impossible no matter what they do.

 

As for Kundalini yogis having any higher levels of perferction than other levels? Really? As far as I have seen they come out possibly worst of any of the traditions in terms of mad and abusive teachers, Yogai Bajan being an excellent example.

 

As for mind only tradition not reaching the same levels. The tibetan tradition has at least as powerfull energy practices as the indain and taist traditions and they have been able to compare the results of these with the mind only techniques for a couple of thousands of years in reat detail and have found they give nothing else in addition other than a fair bit of extra energy and health benefits and speed in the case of a certain percentage of people. I have also met a man who reached first level of enlightenment doing vipassana and then lost it again, which is not that uncommon in the begining, and then got back to exactly the same place following a taoist body transformation systems. No difference what so ever.

 

You still don't get it do you?

 

Where does Vipassana or mind-only methods focus on blossoming all their nadis or psychic faculties? Where do they strive for super long lives? Where do they strive for physical beauty and health? A Kundalini yogi does - all these are a part and parcel of what he calls enlightenment. And not every Kundalini Yogi is realized or perfected and Yogi Bhajan is the worst example to quote here. Please read my post here carefully and ask me if you still fail to understand what I was saying. I did not indicate anywhere if a Kundalini Yogi's realization is inferior or superior to others, but only said it is better to stick to one system for the sake of relevance and for the sake of a disciplined discussion that does not run haywire into every known and unknwon territory. Again, ask me if you still don't get what I am trying to say instead of wasting both our times by assuming things, okay?