KAP

[Tao99]

... the masters I have worked with would consider spending time on this forum a waste of time and a lot of bullshit.

 

Really? Interesting. So why do you 'masters' come here then? To pitch products I guess.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Tao99

[C T]

ShaktiMama,

 

I read your last post as nothing but one long justification and a statement to defend your partner's inadequacies by diverting attention to his less-than-profound attributes, and also speaking on behalf of your students as though they were robots (ref. their lack of participation here in lieu of....). I am sorry to say this.

 

I have no arguments with you or Santi, and i am sure the guys here who attest favorably to his disposition and character are pretty sound people, so that says a lot, but the reason i am speaking out is because there does not appear to be any congruence, or rapport, that he is able to demonstrate here. It does not matter what he knows or what he brings to how many tables -- this guy cant even speak in a respectful manner, and so many times all he does is either defend, or hide behind Glenn Morris, or his Tok Guru or whatever, when he is asked to verify something. Yet he speaks as though his experience is infallible. That says plenty about someone, in my opinion.

 

I dont care about other so-called 'Buddhist' master's lack of patience and the inability to tolerate BS. As far as i am concerned, this man you quoted needs more work still. And so does Santi, btw. Some of his outbursts coupled with lack of finesse and the use of explicit terms and foul language is a big no-no for a teacher, any teacher, and reflects poorly on the teachings. It does not matter if he is a nice guy or not - when you come onto a forum assuming the role of a teacher, you better show that you respect yourself in terms of how the role is expressed, and not so much because others need this respect. That is the main issue, in my mind. Take it or leave it. Does not make any difference to me whatever. If he can take it on board, he will be an even better teacher. Thats all.

[Vajrasattva]

GIH is apparently against meditation, the foundation of all spiritual growth paths, and all organizations that are against meditation are of the most fundamentalist nature, and by fundamentalist I mean the destructive, negative aspect of fundamentalism. He's really just a mental jerk off with a high IQ. He states he is FOR wisdom, but one who is wise would work on his health in order to feel better rather than on trying to be wise.

 

I wasn't too thrilled to see Santi uttering Islamic fundamentalist epithets like 'peace be upon him' either. Taoist teachers are so rare ... on this forum.

 

 

peace be on to all

[ShaktiMama]

ShaktiMama,

 

I read your last post as nothing but one long justification and a statement to defend your partner's inadequacies by diverting attention to his less-than-profound attributes, and also speaking on behalf of your students as though they were robots (ref. their lack of participation here in lieu of....). I am sorry to say this.

 

I have no arguments with you or Santi, and i am sure the guys here who attest favorably to his disposition and character are pretty sound people, so that says a lot, but the reason i am speaking out is because there does not appear to be any congruence, or rapport, that he is able to demonstrate here. It does not matter what he knows or what he brings to how many tables -- this guy cant even speak in a respectful manner, and so many times all he does is either defend, or hide behind Glenn Morris, or his Tok Guru or whatever, when he is asked to verify something. Yet he speaks as though his experience is infallible. That says plenty about someone, in my opinion.

 

I dont care about other so-called 'Buddhist' master's lack of patience and the inability to tolerate BS. As far as i am concerned, this man you quoted needs more work still. And so does Santi, btw. Some of his outbursts coupled with lack of finesse and the use of explicit terms and foul language is a big no-no for a teacher, any teacher, and reflects poorly on the teachings. It does not matter if he is a nice guy or not - when you come onto a forum assuming the role of a teacher, you better show that you respect yourself in terms of how the role is expressed, and not so much because others need this respect. That is the main issue, in my mind. Take it or leave it. Does not make any difference to me whatever. If he can take it on board, he will be an even better teacher. Thats all.

 

 

eh...*shrugs* we defend those we love, don't we

 

this board is all expressions of opinion..including how we expect our teachers to prove themselves as worthy of our attention....as if we have any right to control that or anything....

 

if you don't like a teacher...don't read what they write....

[Vajrasattva]

Vajra, our forum software is somewhat broken, so there is a chance I am not answering something unintentionally (as opposed to those times when I refuse to answer intentionally).

Doubt is always good. I am sure, by the way. And the reason I am sure is precisely because I doubt what I do every 10 minutes. I keep an eye on myself.

Ha, you can call me a bigot, but I am not one. A bigot is someone who dislikes something for superficial reasons. I don't like the doctrine of Islam. I think the doctrine of Islam is too harsh, is not conducive to spiritual growth (actually I think Islamic doctrine destroys any chance of spiritual growth), Islam sticks its nose into areas that are unrelated to spirituality, such as government, and I consider Mohammed, the leader of Islam to be a very bad role model for the modern world. In the modern world Mohammed would be a pedophile, a sex offender on a sex list, and in jail.

 

Tell me how many religious leaders have done all this:

 

- Stoned those they don't agree with.

- Conquered countries.

- Supervised unmitigated slaughter of people

- Kept slaves and were neutral to slave-keeping (as in, didn't oppose it)

- Allowed men to rape the prisoners (well, "take them as wives, ahem, ahem").

- Fucked a 9 year old girl.

 

That's quite a list. How many religions can claim this?

 

Jesus: stopped stoning from happening.

Mohammed: happily stoned many people.

 

Jesus: love thy enemy

Mohammed: fuck your enemy hard

 

Buddha: left monarchy and had no slaves

Mohammed: was a monarch and kept slaves

 

Buddha: homeless

Mohammed: warlord

 

Chuang Tzu: government official

Lao Tzu: librarian

Jesus: carpenter

Mohammed: warlord

Buddha: quit being a prince, became a wondering ascetic, later monk

 

Nice eh?

 

As you can see Islam stands out on many ways. In bad ways. And Islamic doctrine of Jihad has inner and outer aspects. The inner aspect is the battle with oneself, self-annihilation in God, Fanaa. But there is also an outer aspect. The outer aspect of Jihad is to convert all people to Islam, and if they refuse, to kill them all.

 

Jihad, both inner and outer aspects of it, are violent. On the inner level Jihad is spiritual violence. On the outer level it is physical violence.

And I am just myself, sans labels. I like it better that way.

I can respect that. Just be aware that while Sufism has a decent wisdom component to it, Islam is a very bad burden that Sufism is burdened by. Sufism is both a blessing and a curse. Sufism is a blessing because it makes Muslims better than they would be otherwise. Sufism is a curse because it is a vehicle for converting people into Islam, which is bad for the reasons I outlined above.

 

again i do not think you know or understand everything about muhammad but hey that is ok i respect that. i do not see muhammad that way. i would if i where you is go spend time with actual descendants of Muhammad to know what he was and is really like. I too once like you had a negativity towards islam till i met real masters from that path. I leave no stone unturned.

 

you can not honestly say you know muhammad nor what he did or how we was. you just simply know a distortion.

[C T]

eh...*shrugs* we defend those we love, don't we

 

this board is all expressions of opinion..including how we expect our teachers to prove themselves as worthy of our attention....as if we have any right to control that or anything....

 

if you don't like a teacher...don't read what they write....

yeah... *shrugs* whatever..

 

It is when you can defend those you dont love that your true character shines - havent your vast experience taught you that already?

[ShaktiMama]

Really? Interesting. So why do you 'masters' come here then? To pitch products I guess.

 

if you are calling me a master...you need your head examined. I have never once made that claim...search my posts...you will find me even often denying that I am enlightened although people will accuse me of claiming that too....

 

i like talking to people..that's why I am here. there is so much bullshit out there about kundalini so I like to help people understand it better.

 

I get so many pms asking for help...

 

people who want help are too afraid to ask openly because the environment here is so hostile to that which doesn't fit into a particular box of beliefs

[Vajrasattva]

yeah... *shrugs* whatever..

 

It is when you can defend those you dont love that your true character shines - havent your vast experience taught you that already?

 

 

well lets not go to far there buddy....you should see your own posts in terms of energy aswell.

 

 

as for the source I wil make it simple.

 

Its very simple.

 

You will find the "source" in your heart with in & with out yourself & inside of all things and beyond all things.

 

There are many pathways to do this. And there are many Ways to achieve the awareness of "source" and also the

 

"Becoming" or the Immersing/Dissolving in to it.

 

It is however the fastest way for You to realize it when you work with the BODY / MIND & SPIRIT together as one.

 

It does not have a form yet it can be in any form. It is also beyond the concept of form & Formless.

It has its own Consciousness & Intelligence. It is both Linear & Circular yet also beyond these 2 concepts.

 

It is All knowing. It is all things and it is beyond All things. It is the Creator of All things Seen & Unseen.

 

from it comes all. to it goes All that is manifested.

 

It has had many names yet its best name is the one no one knows. It reserves that single name for itself.

 

even this does not do a fair job of explaining it cause i think its something that is best experienced then talked about.

 

peace

s

Edited January 6, 2010 by Vajrasattva

[ShaktiMama]

yeah... *shrugs* whatever..

 

It is when you can defend those you dont love that your true character shines - havent your vast experience taught you that already?

 

so who do you think needs defending here...that can't defend themselves...point them out to me...but then you just told me it is not a good thing to speak out for my students...because they are just mindless robots in my eyes...

 

otherwise you are going to have to fly out to Colorado and follow me around at my job as a nurse and a case manager where I work as a patient advocate. Sometimes I represent and seek justice for the most unloveable people.

 

make up my mind so i know what pleases you best so I can write about it because I am not a mind reader...Ok?

[C T]

well lets not go to far there buddy....you should see your own posts in terms of energy aswell.

as for the source I wil make it simple.

 

Its very simple.

 

You will find the "source" in your heart with in & with out yourself & inside of all things and beyond all things.

 

There are many pathways to do this. And there are many Ways to achieve the awareness of "source" and also the

 

"Becoming" or the Immersing/Dissolving in to it.

 

It is however the fastest You to realize it when you work with the BODY / MIND & SPIRIT together as one.

 

It does not have a form yet it can be in any form. It is also beyond the concept of form & Formless.

It has its own Consciousness & Intelligence. It is both Linear & Circular yet also beyond these 2 concepts.

 

It is All knowing. It is all things and it is beyond All things. It is the Creator of All things Seen & Unseen.

 

from it comes all. to it goes All that is manifested.

 

It has had many names yet its best name is the one no one knows. It reserves that single name for itself.

 

even this does not do a fair job of explaining it cause i think its something that is best experienced then talked about.

 

peace

s

Thanks for sharing that Santi. Nice to see a decent post from you once in a while!

And where does Shakti fit into this "Creator" theory may i further ask?

 

No hurry with the reply. I know you can be a busy man at times.

[goldisheavy]

you can not honestly say you know muhammad nor what he did or how we was. you just simply know a distortion.

 

So you agree that Koran and hadiths form a giant distortion?

[Cookie Monster]

.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Ocean Form

[Vajrasattva]

So you agree that Koran and hadiths form a giant distortion?

 

 

to be honest i have a hard time trusting that what is being "shown" now is "ISLAM" cause what I know of islam is much different. The Sufi way & Understanding of the Qu'ran & Muhammad is VERY esoteric. And Allegory.

 

I seriously prefer the SUFI understanding of it and does make it a very good "path".

 

I think the folks that poisoned muhammad may have also had some handy work in distorting things for sure.

[goldisheavy]

to be honest i have a hard time trusting that what is being "shown" now is "ISLAM" cause what I know of islam is much different. The Sufi way & Understanding of the Qu'ran & Muhammad is VERY esoteric. And Allegory.

 

I seriously prefer the SUFI understanding of it and does make it a very good "path".

 

I think the folks that poisoned muhammad may have also had some handy work in distorting things for sure.

 

Ah, interesting. So you do think the Koran and the hadiths are distorted. This means that Islam is a bad religion, since the correct doctrine is privately held by Sufis, while the publicly available Koran and hadiths are distorted. That means that Islam is not fit for public consumption and is only OK as an esoteric/private path.

 

Sufis do not own Islam and they do not make up the majority of Muslims.

[goldisheavy]

Vajrasattva,

 

Please check out this debate on Islam:

 

http://fora.tv/2009/12/01/Moderate_Islam_W...or_Western_Myth

 

These debaters are not bigots or fools. They are two very beautiful, compassionate, kind, intelligent people. Please Vajrasattva, can you watch the full debate?

 

I am strongly against the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan. But I will never agree that Islam is a good doctrine. I am against the wars because I do not think we need to solve our problems with physical violence. At the same time, I think we need to lose our foolish political correctness and talk honestly about Islam. The less we can discuss Islam, the more we will end up fighting in the long run. And if you think our current level of fighting is bad, wait till what happens if we keep our mouths shut.

 

I think religion in general is pretty dubious.

[Sunya]

The topic of Islam, not Santiago (who I think is a good guy), is interesting to say the least. Nowadays in the West the common approach is to be politically correct by striving to be objective and to view all cultures and religions as super-cool and beautiful, while I think this is a good academic approach it isn't very conducive to figuring out whether or not a religion is beneficial and progressive for the human spirit. Islam right now is a touchy subject, but since it's the world's largest growing religion we must take a critical look at it and whether or not it's beneficial. This is our task as human beings, not to be all accepting but to be critical by questioning values in a respectful manner. That's at least how I feel. So while Islam does have a beautiful culture, the religion is quite detrimental on many points. First, like all religions that get stuck like this, to Islam the Koran is the Holy word and is unquestionable, it's taken literally, and questioning is impossible. Second, not like all religions, Islam is a whole way of life; the Koran gives plans for a whole system of government and law. This would be great if everyone was Muslim, but that isn't happening. Thirdly, the core of Muslim philosophy is superbly dualistic and not mystical at all, where a nondual relationship with God is seen as heretic and delusional, and was met in the past with execution (ex: Mansur al Hallaj). The practice of Islam leads to a mentality of slavery, the relationship of master to slave, and the necessity of fearing God (as opposed to Sufis who love God and want to merge with Him) For these reasons I agree with Gold about Islam, but I don't agree with him judging Santiago as a Muslim... since Sufism is not Islam as far as I'm concerned.

Edited January 7, 2010 by mikaelz

[goldisheavy]

The topic of Islam, not Santiago (who I think is a good guy), is interesting to say the least. Nowadays in the West the common approach is to be politically correct by striving to be objective and to view all cultures and religions as super-cool and beautiful, while I think this is a good academic approach it isn't very conducive to figuring out whether or not a religion is beneficial and progressive for the human spirit. Islam right now is a touchy subject, but since it's the world's largest growing religion we must take a critical look at it and whether or not it's beneficial. This is our task as human beings, not to be all accepting but to be critical by questioning values in a respectful manner. That's at least how I feel. So while Islam does have a beautiful culture, the religion is quite detrimental on many points. First, like all religions that get stuck like this, to Islam the Koran is the Holy word and is unquestionable, it's taken literally, and questioning is impossible. Second, not like all religions, Islam is a whole way of life; the Koran gives plans for a whole system of government and law. This would be great if everyone was Muslim, but that isn't happening. Thirdly, the core of Muslim philosophy is superbly dualistic and not mystical at all, where a nondual relationship with God is seen as heretic and delusional, and was met in the past with execution (ex: Mansur al Hallaj). The practice of Islam leads to a mentality of slavery, the relationship of master to slave, and the necessity of fearing God (as opposed to Sufis who love God and want to merge with Him) For these reasons I agree with Gold about Islam, but I don't agree with him judging Santiago as a Muslim... since Sufism is not Islam as far as I'm concerned.

 

I like a lot of what you're saying here. I am constantly updating my opinions. Currently Vajrasattva has gone up in my mind by many notches. So I don't think Vajra is a bad guy, or I don't think he's as bad as I thought he was.

 

I think that Sufism is like a bridge. It's a bridge between Islam and non-Islam. However, like all bridges, it can be crossed both ways. You can take the Sufi bridge from non-Islam to Islam, and this is bad. Or you can take the Sufi bridge from Islam to non-Islam, which is good.

 

I appreciate Vajra's opinion that Koran and hadiths might be corrupted, but let's be realistic. What are the chances of Muslims agreeing that Koran and hadiths are corrupted? The prospect of that seems, shall we say, slim (more like zero percent). Personally I have some respect and maybe even some love for at least some individual Sufis. Nonetheless, Sufis do not own Islam in the real world. Sure, sure you can always say Sufis have the real Islam, but we must deal with the facts as they currently stand. Is it possible that Sufis will eventually own the Islam in the future? Maybe. But I don't think we can say that today Sufis define what Islam is.

 

Islam is an all-embracing ideology that encompasses all spheres of life, including financial and government spheres. Buddha has never made statements about who should marry who, or who inherits what, and so on. Neither have Jesus or Lao Tzu. You can argue that Jews have Talmud which does make such statements, and I will say that orthodox and Hasidic Jews are definitely backward. But a lot of Jews were smart and realized that Judaism needs to keep up with the times and have created "Reformed Judaism." That's important, because there is no such thing as "Reformed Islam" currently. So at least a lot of Jews have moved into the 21st century, and I am certain that no Reform Jew takes Talmud seriously or dreams of replacing the USA Constitution with Talmud. This is unlike Muslims, who dream of one day replacing the USA Constitution with Sharia. And finally how many Jews are there? Very few. But Islam is the world's fastest growing religion with a lot of adherents.

 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3835

 

So, while we could say that Orthodox Judaism is backward and stupid, I do not feel threatened by it. I do feel threatened by Islam. I am not scared of Islam. I simply worry that Islam seeks to attack values that I hold very dear, and I am going to protect those values.

 

Vajrasattva is of course pretty important in all this, because he calls himself a Muslim, but not only that, he also acts as a teacher. So what he says and does is going to decide a lot of things. I don't know if he even realizes that.

 

I think I would feel a little better if Vajra stopped calling himself a Muslim and just called himself a Sufi. That's because I don't think Sufis define Islam in the real world as it currently presents itself.

Edited January 7, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Apech]

 

I think that Sufism is like a bridge. It's a bridge between Islam and non-Islam. However, like all bridges, it can be crossed both ways. You can take the Sufi bridge from non-Islam to Islam, and this is bad. Or you can take the Sufi bridge from Islam to non-Islam, which is good.

 

 

 

 

I'm interested in this idea of Sufism within Islam. I've posted this link before but I really think its worth watching this interview - Dr. Nurbakhsh (despite his medical and academic qualifications clearly distances himself from science and also at one point distances himself from the 'church'.) I think that certainly his view places Sufism as distinct.

 

 

 

Last interview Dr. Nurbakhsh

 

This is part of his CV:

 

"After obtaining his Psychiatric degree from the Sorbonne, Dr. Nurbakhsh was appointed professor of psychiatry at the Tehran University school of medicine, a position which he held until he retired, along with that of director of the Iranian Medical Council, president of the Iranian Association of Psychiatrists, and head of the Ruzbeh Psychiatric Hospital. He was also an honorary member of the American Psychiatrists' Association.

He produced 37 scientific works in the field of psychiatry, as author, editor and translator, along with many articles in scientific journals and a compendium of instructional brochures for the use of researchers, professors and students.

Throughout his life Dr. Nurbakhsh wrote extensively on Iranian gnosis and Islamic Sufism. Besides publication of his prolific writings, including biographies of the masters of the path and the principles of the Nimatullahi Sufi Order, he also sponsored numerous international conferences and seminars, the papers of which have been compiled in three compendia in English."

[markern]

I like a lot of what you're saying here. I am constantly updating my opinions. Currently Vajrasattva has gone up in my mind by many notches. So I don't think Vajra is a bad guy, or I don't think he's as bad as I thought he was.

 

I think that Sufism is like a bridge. It's a bridge between Islam and non-Islam. However, like all bridges, it can be crossed both ways. You can take the Sufi bridge from non-Islam to Islam, and this is bad. Or you can take the Sufi bridge from Islam to non-Islam, which is good.

 

I appreciate Vajra's opinion that Koran and hadiths might be corrupted, but let's be realistic. What are the chances of Muslims agreeing that Koran and hadiths are corrupted? The prospect of that seems, shall we say, slim (more like zero percent). Personally I have some respect and maybe even some love for at least some individual Sufis. Nonetheless, Sufis do not own Islam in the real world. Sure, sure you can always say Sufis have the real Islam, but we must deal with the facts as they currently stand. Is it possible that Sufis will eventually own the Islam in the future? Maybe. But I don't think we can say that today Sufis define what Islam is.

 

Islam is an all-embracing ideology that encompasses all spheres of life, including financial and government spheres. Buddha has never made statements about who should marry who, or who inherits what, and so on. Neither have Jesus or Lao Tzu. You can argue that Jews have Talmud which does make such statements, and I will say that orthodox and Hasidic Jews are definitely backward. But a lot of Jews were smart and realized that Judaism needs to keep up with the times and have created "Reformed Judaism." That's important, because there is no such thing as "Reformed Islam" currently. So at least a lot of Jews have moved into the 21st century, and I am certain that no Reform Jew takes Talmud seriously or dreams of replacing the USA Constitution with Talmud. This is unlike Muslims, who dream of one day replacing the USA Constitution with Sharia. And finally how many Jews are there? Very few. But Islam is the world's fastest growing religion with a lot of adherents.

 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3835

 

So, while we could say that Orthodox Judaism is backward and stupid, I do not feel threatened by it. I do feel threatened by Islam. I am not scared of Islam. I simply worry that Islam seeks to attack values that I hold very dear, and I am going to protect those values.

 

Vajrasattva is of course pretty important in all this, because he calls himself a Muslim, but not only that, he also acts as a teacher. So what he says and does is going to decide a lot of things. I don't know if he even realizes that.

 

I think I would feel a little better if Vajra stopped calling himself a Muslim and just called himself a Sufi. That's because I don't think Sufis define Islam in the real world as it currently presents itself.

 

What made you change your mind about Santiago?

[Vajrasattva]

 

Vajrasattva is of course pretty important in all this, because he calls himself a Muslim, but not only that, he also acts as a teacher. So what he says and does is going to decide a lot of things. I don't know if he even realizes that.

 

I think I would feel a little better if Vajra stopped calling himself a Muslim and just called himself a Sufi. That's because I don't think Sufis define Islam in the real world as it currently presents itself.

 

 

A Muslim means "one who submits (to God)"

 

To me GOD is the SOURCE of ALL.

 

GOD is not a MAN not a DEVA or "ARCHANGEL"

 

GOD is BEYOND all of that yet also with in it.

 

Some call it TAO,

 

Some Call it Maha Shiva

 

Some call it KuntZangpo

 

Some call it Nirmanakaya

 

Some Call it the Primordial Self or Mind.

 

Some call it ALLAH

 

Some Call it ELO, EA, ELA, ILA

 

Some call it "HU"

 

I know why its called ALLAH in the Sufi tradition and it goes BACK WAY BACK WAY WAY WAY BACK pre islam on this planet as Muhammad started & Before man on this planet. ALLAH is not what you think in terms of a name that means "ALLAH" or a , Moon Deity etc. It is if you will a "Acronym" or a "CODE" for a much deeper understanding or its (the DIVINE's) Highest Attributes.

 

And in this respect yes I am a MUSLIM. I follow the will and surrender whole heartedly to the Divine Source of ALL.

It is something deep in our DNA & in our HEART. It is not RELIGIOUS infact its very scientific.

 

I suggest one research the origins of Creation that have been purposefully left out of the Bible but slightly hinted in some of its books & in the Quran.

 

I will touch more on this later must go run errands with wife,

 

Peace

 

S

[Kameel]

What made you change your mind about Santiago?

Knowledgeable mind is very cunning...it goes on making excuses to remain the same. Observe what happens next Markern.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Kameel

[goldisheavy]

What made you change your mind about Santiago?

 

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.

 

A Muslim means "one who submits (to God)"

 

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.

Edited January 7, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Tao99]

To me GOD is the SOURCE of ALL.

 

Some call it TAO,

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.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Tao99

[goldisheavy]

I'm interested in this idea of Sufism within Islam. I've posted this link before but I really think its worth watching this interview - Dr. Nurbakhsh (despite his medical and academic qualifications clearly distances himself from science and also at one point distances himself from the 'church'.) I think that certainly his view places Sufism as distinct.

Last interview Dr. Nurbakhsh

 

This is part of his CV:

 

"After obtaining his Psychiatric degree from the Sorbonne, Dr. Nurbakhsh was appointed professor of psychiatry at the Tehran University school of medicine, a position which he held until he retired, along with that of director of the Iranian Medical Council, president of the Iranian Association of Psychiatrists, and head of the Ruzbeh Psychiatric Hospital. He was also an honorary member of the American Psychiatrists' Association.

He produced 37 scientific works in the field of psychiatry, as author, editor and translator, along with many articles in scientific journals and a compendium of instructional brochures for the use of researchers, professors and students.

Throughout his life Dr. Nurbakhsh wrote extensively on Iranian gnosis and Islamic Sufism. Besides publication of his prolific writings, including biographies of the masters of the path and the principles of the Nimatullahi Sufi Order, he also sponsored numerous international conferences and seminars, the papers of which have been compiled in three compendia in English."

 

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.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Actually the Koran doesn't say much. Later Muslim scholars and judges (Uh muftis and qadis I think their called?) formulated their own opinions based on hadiths (much of which were fabricated) to apply to practical life. There was also no way of government one can coin Islam, the controversy of hierarchy is what led to all the factions that later developed (sunnis and their Caliphs or the shi'ites and their imams).

 

Fearing God is one of the main pillars of Islam from what I know.

 

And the Buddha did leave interesting discourses on ways of life (like how a good wife should act and treat her husband) and how a King should govern, what one should eat, etc....

Edited January 7, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes