It's hard to believe/understand in Reincarnation and Karma when?!?!

[Isimsiz Biri]

sorry to interrupt but I thought there might be something subtle and interesting here which I missed . How does he answer himself here?

 

You better meditate on how he can answer himself.

[Isimsiz Biri]

I was attracted by the opening topic of this thread and, after reading half a dozen or so of the first replies, I zoomed here to the end to find out where things had got in "real time". Surprisingly, the plane seems to been hi-jacked and flown off to some bizarre, militant, martial arts state. Is it all right if I by-pass the Kung-Foo movie above and try to get back to the airport I thought we were flying into when I boarded ? (i.e. views on reincarnation)

 

If so, I thought I would throw in a short section of the transcript I came across on reincarnation, given by a Non-Duality teacher, Wayne Liquorman. Previously I had been a Buddhist for over twenty years. After my original introduction to the idea of karma and reincarnation I had been so 'blown away' by this idea's apparent simplicity that made it possible for almost anyone to grasp it,... yet, whose subtlety of concept also combined an extraordinary ability to answer 'logically', all the existential questions that I had been unable to satisfy at the time, (I was in my late twenties).

 

Time flowed by. I eventually found myself unable to make further personal connection with the form that the Tibetan Buddhist group which I had been drawn to, had evolved into in the West. There seemed huge gaps between what was preached, and what was practiced. (Does this sound a familiar story to anyone ?). I found myself once again looking for answers 'outside the box',.... that same secure box of Buddhist cosmology which I had once believed held all the answers one could possibly wish for.

 

The way the plot developed then, for me, was that I was swept off my feet again, but this time by the sweet, pure logic seductions of Non-Duality teachings. At first their take on certain ideas like Karma and reincarnation, (which I had once believed impregnable in their perfection),.... hit me like the full body blow of blasphemy would a devout 'Born Again Christian'.

 

Gradually, I got over this hurdle of apparent blasphemy and became more able to hear what was being said without all my unsuspected emotional baggage flying up in arm-flapping protest. Anyway, I'll throw the transcript in here now, just to see if it holds any relevance or interest to anyone on this forum :

 

*

 

*

 

 

{Q} : Can we talk a bit about reincarnation ?

 

{Wayne} : Okay. It’s fine with me.

 

{Q} : I keep hearing different comments on that subject, and somebody mentioned that you had said there is no such thing as reincarnation.

 

{Wayne} : I’ve been misquoted AGAIN ! (Laughter) No, what I said is, that there is no one to reincarnate. There is no separate individual that reincarnates; because there is no separate individual who was incarnated in the first place. So, if you’re not incarnated in the first place, it is very difficult for you to RE-incarnate. All there is is Consciousness, which expresses through these myriad forms. These myriad forms are created and destroyed in incredibly rapid succession, and in amazing diversity. So you can say that this Consciousness incarnates and reincarnates, and reincarnates, and reincarnates… and every instant it is doing that. A thousand fold, a million fold; not only in human form, but in forms of all kinds of objects, both sentient and not.

 

{Q} : What about Samsara and, you know, getting off the wheel ? Is that just a concept ?

 

{Wayne} : Yes. And if it appeals to you, fine, because what I just said to you was also just a concept. That description is conceptual, a pointer towards ‘That Which Is’.

 

Now, the pointer that I like the most, personally, is Ramesh’s description of the Universe. He wrote : “The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in which each is only the reflection of all the others, in a fantastic interrelated harmony without end.”

 

I’ll repeat that, because I like it so much. (laughter)

 

The universe is uncaused,

Like a net of jewels

In which each – each jewel –

Is only the reflection

Of all the others.

 

Nothing has any independent existence. Each is only the reflection of everything else,…

 

In a fantastic interrelated harmony

Without end.

 

Which is a very poetic and wonderful and beautiful way of saying : “It Is.”

 

{Q} : So, could you say that everything exists only as relationship ?

 

{Wayne} : Yes. You could certainly put it that way.

 

 

 

 

Interesting post.

 

I agree about Wayne's following words:

 

{Wayne} : I’ve been misquoted AGAIN ! (Laughter) No, what I said is, that there is no one to reincarnate. There is no separate individual that reincarnates; because there is no separate individual who was incarnated in the first place. So, if you’re not incarnated in the first place, it is very difficult for you to RE-incarnate. All there is is Consciousness, which expresses through these myriad forms. These myriad forms are created and destroyed in incredibly rapid succession, and in amazing diversity. So you can say that this Consciousness incarnates and reincarnates, and reincarnates, and reincarnates… and every instant it is doing that. A thousand fold, a million fold; not only in human form, but in forms of all kinds of objects, both sentient and not.

I would like to add that that Consiousness is nobody but God Almighty. God Almighty's creation is described very well. I liked it.

The second point :

“The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in which each is only the reflection of all the others, in a fantastic interrelated harmony without end.”

I also agree with that last sentence limited to God's creations only. I would not be surprised if I heard Ramesh S. Balsekar has been affected somehow by Sufism.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Isimsiz Biri

[Isimsiz Biri]

No need to apologise for interrupting. I t hink that for chat rooms like this to have any beneficial effect whatsoever for participants, then they will do so when they best approximate a genuine social interchange between 'live' people. This forum, of course, is NOT a 'live' interchange. It is a modern day, technological similitude of a social exchange that's sometimes called "virtual reality". Here we can chat, but no one ever sees, or actually 'knows' anyone else. So we don't get anything like the same degree of benefit that comes from a genuine , face-to-face meeting and dialogue with friends,... the way things used to be twenty years ago, say, down at the local pub, (in England).

 

What about the pubs of England? No more face-to-face meeting and dialogue with friends?

[Isimsiz Biri]

Reading the most recent posts it looked like old Isimsiz Biri had probably said everything he wanted to say on the topic, (Judging both by his closing words, "Does not matter", and by the fact that a week had gone by since he said that.)

 

 

I am 44 years old, I do not know whether it makes me old.

[ThisLife]

 

 

 

44, by my reckoning, makes you a spring chicken with still a few charming bits of egg casing clinging to your new feathers, (I am 62 now.) A less than pleasing experience every morning when I first get up and face this wrinkly old geezer, (myself), in the bathroom mirror.

 

I simply used the term 'old Isimsiz Biri' as a term of comfortable familiarity, as in "Well, well, my old friend". I'm also aware that this is more than a tad incorrect, since you and I had never clapped eyes on each other, or even traded internet words up to that point in time. I guess I was just horsing around a bit with another person whom I'd also never clapped eyes on, but who seemed to feel that unplanned interruptions were NOT OK,...(unless they were his own.)

 

The whole thing is really a bit of a laugh really, isn't it ? Like a modern day party game where everyone wears a blindfold and sits in separate rooms so they can never see who they're communicating with. The rules of the game are that each player has to each talk deep philosophy with the others, completely without any contact whatsoever other than by 'mysterious and profound' illuminated words which will appear in front of each combattant. Each player also has a device which allows him to translate finger taps into that same arcane set of symbols and which have the power to fly unerringly around the world, straight to our opponent's device and cause him/her to gnash his teeth and pull his/her hair out, (assuming he is still young enough to have any)

 

As for my comment about pubs in England being places for worthwhile social contact twenty years ago, it's not that the dialogue there has changed now, in our 21st century. It's just that, at an ever-accelerating pace pubs are closing down all over the country. Like Bob Dylan told us, the times they are a' changing. There's so much entertainment available to us at the click of a button,... computer games, DVDs, CDs, wide screen, surround sound Televisions with a gazillion channels,.... chatting with your mates down at the local has as much chance of competing with technology as someone turning up at a Play Station 4 Convention, carrying an old Snakes and Ladders game and a pair of dice.

 

But, as pleasant as this brief, introductory chat undoubtedly is, we mustn't neglect our duty to the game !

 

You said in your previous post :

 

“The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in which each is only the reflection of all the others, in a fantastic interrelated harmony without end.”

I also agree with that last sentence limited to God's creations only

Well,...I'm afraid I, personally, would have serious difficulties trying to get that lead balloon to fly. If all there is, is Consciousness, (which can be seen as synonymous with God, if you prefer),.... then how can there logically be anything which is NOT God's creation ? We've already started out with the interesting notion that God is all there is. So, where does this Not-God' come from ? Where does he hang his hat if God made the very ground he stands on and every last fibre of his Satanic black silk trilby itself ?

You're up against a serious flaw in logic here.

Could it not be that rather, our human abilities are so seriously inflated beyond belief that we actually believe that our minds are capable of understanding the whys and hows of the universe's existence ? Our egos are so monstrously swelled up that it rarely crosses our minds that just possibly, what we are actually seeing when we look at some act and decide it is an evil, Non-Godly act,... is simply the projection of our own mind, (which we first convince ourself and then tell others, is in reality "God's words, His Thoughts") just to hopefully add power to our words and make us feel we are in close with God,... one of his trusted lieutenants. A man on the inside.

More peculiar human mind games, IMHO.. Sad, but repeated tirelessly since men first came out of their caves, rubbed two sticks together to make fire,.... and then had time to sit down and think about what to do until the pubs opened. (This was before the days of computer games and wide screen tellies.).

Thus was organised religion born.

Edited November 23, 2013 by ThisLife

[Z3N]

The Tao is a living spiritual presence that animates us, surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds all the energy and matter in the universe together and its source goes beyond the quantum vacuum of space-time.

 

In essence the Tao is the soul of all living things throughout the cosmos and does not discriminate between this and that, it is “what is”, and it exists everywhere in everything as its function is the living unifying, animating force with its principle being “the way” Tao.

 

Reincarnation is a fact and the way of the universe, it does not matter if you believe it or not. The every fact that the particles animating in your body are trillions of years old should indicate to most intelligent life forms that there is a transformative reincarnating force that is throughout the cosmos.

 

Because of humans lacking the soul evolution and spiritual awareness needed to attain this information in your overall consciousness of this species, which in fact is the every evolutionary hurdle of this human species in this currant time on this planet in this solar system.

 

Its all about awareness !!!!

 

Please lets stimulate more discussion.....

 

 

 

 

Tao wu shin

Edited November 24, 2013 by Z3N

[ThisLife]

[1] The Tao is a living spiritual presence that animates us, surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds all the energy and matter in the universe together

 

[2] ... the Tao is the soul of all living things throughout the cosmos

 

[3] Reincarnation is a fact and the way of the universe,

.

[4] ... humans lacking the soul evolution and spiritual awareness needed to attain this information in your overall consciousness ...in fact is the every evolutionary hurdle of this human species

 

[5] Its all about awareness !!!!

 

I found your post very interesting. To accentuate the first impression it made on me I have above stripped away a lot of its packaging to kind of expose the framework that the whole structure was supported on. What was left was a list of five seemingly absolute and unquestionable truths. Two about the Tao, one about reincarnation, and the remaining two explaining the nature of existence.

 

I wish I had the same confidence regarding the very few answers I've been able to find in my search for truth and meaning in this life.

 

And yet, from the little I know about Taoism, I do know that the very first line of Taoism's most sacred book, (The Tao Te Ching), is : "The Tao which can be spoke is not the eternal Tao".

 

If that is true, where does this leave your five unquestionable truths listed above, then ?

 

Please don't take my questioning the wrong way. No offence, or questioning of your sincerity was in any way intended. It just seems to me that, from my own life's experiences, every time that I have felt that I have have attained an answer to some question,... inevitably I have been well satisfied with my success and completely ignored the other side of the 'coin' of my hard-won answer. That is,... that answers are the end of questioning. I guess I thought that that was self-evidently a side effect of no importance. In fact, if anything, it was something to congratulate myself on,... one more question dealt with. Put a line through it and bring on the next !!

 

Personally, for quite a while now I have found myself wondering whether spiritual attainment is, as so often claimed, a static state that comes as a reward for diligent practice, loyalty, virtue, and all the other spiritual attributes we are familiar with. We usually see them listed and applied to whomever happens to be our spiritually 'most-admired-man', Buddha, Lao Tzu, Christ, etc.

 

Or whether it may, or may not arise, UNRELATED to any spiritual path or belief system we may have.

 

I'm afraid I have a tedious inclination to going on and on and on. And moreover, as I said earlier, my stock of personal realisations and reliable experiences is extremely low. But I have long been searching for answers, and have great respect for what seemed to me at the time, certain jewels I found along my particular path. To cut to the chase I'll just add two quotes by Wayne Liquorman, again below. For me, he not only expresses these things with far better clarity than I ever could,.... but of far more importance, he actually claims to have experience of what he is talking about. Any words I could add would simply be second-hand repetitions of someone else's experiences.

 

But, since you did ask for discussion,... to me these ideas certainly started up a lively internal questioning in my own mind when I first read them. Perhaps they will for others.

 

 

*

*

 

[1]

 

 

In terms of established spiritual traditions Taoism is most to my tastes. The history of Taoism is unique in that a viable religion never developed around it. As a result, its non-dual essence remained intact. And it remains so to this day.

 

All the rest of them have turned into major corporations. They are concerned with perpetuating themselves, as is any corporate structure. So none of them do much for me, which is not to say that they aren’t useful for lots of people. Lots of people find great solace, great comfort and great value in them. I’m just not one of them.

 

 

*

*

 

[2]

 

[Q] Do Non-Duality teachings believe in affirmative prayer ?

 

[Wayne] : Non-Duality teachings don’t believe or disbelieve in anything, because there is no Non-Duality doctrine. There is no principle it claims is true. It is a series of pointers that always point you back to find the truth for yourself. All of the statements in Non-Duality are simply pointers. You are encouraged to question them all, and to test them all.

 

[Q] : Self–enquiry then ?

 

[Wayne] I even hesitate to call it self-enquiry. I prefer to talk about it as simple curiosity. By calling it ‘self-enquiry’, we’ve labelled it; you then think you know what it is, and can say, “Okay, I’ve been there, done that, got the Arunachala T-shirt. Now I’m on to the next thing.” It’s not self-enquiry in that way. It is a simple curiosity about the nature of ‘What Is’.

 

[Q] : By accepting ‘What Is’ ?

 

[Wayne] : Acceptance of ‘What Is’ may come. It may not come. It is not about practicing acceptance of ‘What Is’.

 

[Q] So it’s simply the mind of enquiry itself, that’s important ?

 

[Wayne] Absolutely. But, even when you come up with an answer and you say, “Aha, I am indeed not the author of my actions, I’ve concluded by investigation that I do not exist,” Non-Duality teachings says that that knowledge, which you now have, because it’s quantified as knowledge, is limited. It has been stripped from the Understanding and is now a representation. As a representation it is ultimately an obstacle, because once you know something, the enquiry is dead; such knowledge is the booby prize. All that qualifies you to do is give satsang, write learned treatises, and hold forth in online chat rooms about how things truly are.

 

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2013 by ThisLife

[Z3N]

This is where the work of Lao Tzu’s art, brings a smile upon my face. Indeed this is a truth of a profound paradox and is as to why it is the first line in the Tao Te Ching. This is so because as soon as you start to objectify the Tao within the means of self, because you identify that you are subject to it, you murder the oneness into a trillion little pieces, Tao. Which then creates more confusion and disillusion, employing nothing but cellar brain activity in turn deluding the mind, shrinking the awareness and loss of connection is inevitable, because knowing has nothing to do with real knowledge, if you follow.

This isn't as easy as it might seem because to break out of this hurdle is difficult due to a number of variables imposed upon the human mind. The mind will always move when conditioned by mental constructs imposed by the brain, which is then rushing off into the future or past events in a neurological conundrum of psychological content, in association with the self.

This is common to the critical mass of human population today and has been so for a long time. You humans haven’t mastered the mind yet and fail to realise that the self is in fact an illusion.

Contact with the Living animating force always occurs in the present moment and unfolds as “the way” Tao and is witness by awareness, then consciousness, then dismantled by the brain, then reorganised into an illusion, which is then imposed upon the mind inflating the self. Human brain functions and perception of reality work entirely backwards to your senses.

The mind is our tool to the Taoist, and we endeavour it so as to allow us to detach from the incessant thinking and psychological conditioning of mental chatter that comes from the mind. We apply ourselves to master the mind, and not let the mind master us. This is Tao wu shin, the way of no-mind.

Practice living in the moment, in the here and “now”, and don't stress about the future, present or the past and then naturally over time by forgetting entirely on the self (basically assassinating the self) at the end of each day and only then, will you start to expand your awareness which then expands consciousness thus expanding brain function and then in turn the mind. Which of course is all Tao.

I'm sure I haven't answered all of your questions but there is plenty of time.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Z3N

[Isimsiz Biri]

44, by my reckoning, makes you a spring chicken with still a few charming bits of egg casing clinging to your new feathers, (I am 62 now.) A less than pleasing experience every morning when I first get up and face this wrinkly old geezer, (myself), in the bathroom mirror.

 

I simply used the term 'old Isimsiz Biri' as a term of comfortable familiarity, as in "Well, well, my old friend". I'm also aware that this is more than a tad incorrect, since you and I had never clapped eyes on each other, or even traded internet words up to that point in time. I guess I was just horsing around a bit with another person whom I'd also never clapped eyes on, but who seemed to feel that unplanned interruptions were NOT OK,...(unless they were his own.)

 

Sorry. I just forgot to answer this post. I apologize.

 

Your usage of English is excellent and you summarized it very well. I was not offended by the word "old" at all. Please forgive my English as it is not my native language.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Isimsiz Biri

[Isimsiz Biri]

The whole thing is really a bit of a laugh really, isn't it ? Like a modern day party game where everyone wears a blindfold and sits in separate rooms so they can never see who they're communicating with. The rules of the game are that each player has to each talk deep philosophy with the others, completely without any contact whatsoever other than by 'mysterious and profound' illuminated words which will appear in front of each combattant. Each player also has a device which allows him to translate finger taps into that same arcane set of symbols and which have the power to fly unerringly around the world, straight to our opponent's device and cause him/her to gnash his teeth and pull his/her hair out, (assuming he is still young enough to have any)

 

As for my comment about pubs in England being places for worthwhile social contact twenty years ago, it's not that the dialogue there has changed now, in our 21st century. It's just that, at an ever-accelerating pace pubs are closing down all over the country. Like Bob Dylan told us, the times they are a' changing. There's so much entertainment available to us at the click of a button,... computer games, DVDs, CDs, wide screen, surround sound Televisions with a gazillion channels,.... chatting with your mates down at the local has as much chance of competing with technology as someone turning up at a Play Station 4 Convention, carrying an old Snakes and Ladders game and a pair of dice.

 

You summarized the age of computers very well. Allow me to contribute from the bestseller novel of "Shibumi" (not exact words since I read in my native language) "The computers make a foolish person to look like clever"

[Isimsiz Biri]

 

But, as pleasant as this brief, introductory chat undoubtedly is, we mustn't neglect our duty to the game !

 

You said in your previous post :

 

“The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in which each is only the reflection of all the others, in a fantastic interrelated harmony without end.”

I also agree with that last sentence limited to God's creations only

Well,...I'm afraid I, personally, would have serious difficulties trying to get that lead balloon to fly. If all there is, is Consciousness, (which can be seen as synonymous with God, if you prefer),.... then how can there logically be anything which is NOT God's creation ? We've already started out with the interesting notion that God is all there is. So, where does this Not-God' come from ? Where does he hang his hat if God made the very ground he stands on and every last fibre of his Satanic black silk trilby itself ?

You're up against a serious flaw in logic here.

Could it not be that rather, our human abilities are so seriously inflated beyond belief that we actually believe that our minds are capable of understanding the whys and hows of the universe's existence ? Our egos are so monstrously swelled up that it rarely crosses our minds that just possibly, what we are actually seeing when we look at some act and decide it is an evil, Non-Godly act,... is simply the projection of our own mind, (which we first convince ourself and then tell others, is in reality "God's words, His Thoughts") just to hopefully add power to our words and make us feel we are in close with God,... one of his trusted lieutenants. A man on the inside.

More peculiar human mind games, IMHO.. Sad, but repeated tirelessly since men first came out of their caves, rubbed two sticks together to make fire,.... and then had time to sit down and think about what to do until the pubs opened. (This was before the days of computer games and wide screen tellies.).

Thus was organised religion born.

Ok, let us start with the main course.

I see there is a misunderstanding of my words, partly due to my lack of explanation, partly due to cultural differences.

I tried to say that your sentence about net of jewels explain the realms that been created God Almighty, however it does not form a model for the Divine Realms (Realms that have become one with God) and God Almighty. I tried to point out the difference between Creator and Created. Thus, I did not mean anything as "Not Created" or "Not God" I smile writing these lines as your claim does not fit me at all.

About your question Satan, please be informed that it was not created as Satan. It had been the highest Archangel, Ramza. It failed about its test about Nafs, it was cursed and it became Satan.

You mentioned a point about to decide about an act whether it is evil or not. The procedure is rather simple but not the process. "Where does this act stand in reference to Holy Quran?" It is easy to say but not so easy to apply. If it is not explicitly mentioned in Holy Quran, could we find it in Sunnah, the acts of Prophet Muhammad? If not, then we have to make a new decision in the light of Holy Quran, Sunnah, our minds, our hearts and our conscience.

You have an interesting notion of man's evolution from caves to pubs. I could not understand how did you locate the "organized religion" in that template, but I am afraid you are referring to Christianity by organized religion. I mentioned in other threads, but let me repeat once more, the Monasticism applied in Christendom is not, repeat, is not order of God Almighty. Thus, all the churchs including Vatican as economic, politic, social and financial institutions are inventions of mankind.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Isimsiz Biri

[ThisLife]

Hiya Isimsiz,

 

Don't worry too much about the misunderstanding,... my feeling is that that is actually the 'norm' in almost all human relationships. As for cultural differences, just as they do with food, they often add a rather exciting spice and interest to relationships.

 

But unfortunately I feel that there just isn't enough common ground shared between our belief systems to allow for much of an exchange of ideas between us. From extracts like this in your post : (1) About your question Satan, please be informed that it was not created as Satan. It had been the highest Archangel, Ramza. It failed about its test about Nafs, it was cursed and it became Satan, or (2) we have to make a new decision in the light of Holy Quran. ....... it is quite clear that you feel absolutely certain that your particular belief system has all the answers.

 

For me, this feels quite similar to meetings I've had with Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons as they try to peddle their certainties door-to-door. They are clearly happy with their beliefs, but it is NOT a discussion that happens with them. Just an endless repeating of a deeply entrenched beliefs.

 

I know this is virtually impossible to see when one is a staunch believer. I have been in that position myself during the many years I was a Buddhist. The world and difficult questions became so simple,... there was just 'Us', (the ones with the correct point of view and the perfect answers), and the 'rest', who needed our compassion and saving, (if they had enough good karma to hear)

 

If you cannot see that Islam is an organized religion, (I,e, having a hierarchy of priests, doctrine, dogma, lists of encouraged good behaviour and forbidden bad behaviour, criterion for heaven and criterion for hell, etc, etc),....then it is clearly quite impossible to have a "discussion" about anything outside that closed loop.

 

Unfortunately, I have far too much of a tendency to go on, and on, and on. So perhaps the best thing I can do is contribute some thoughts on this subject by a teacher who strikes up a chord of resonance for me with almost everything he says. Moreover, he writes and speaks far more eloquently than I do :

 

 

Wayne Liquorman wrote :

 

"My ultimate feeling about teachers and their teachings is summed up in the fact that none of them are telling the truth, so it’s not a matter of reconciling one teaching with another to determine which one is the truth. None of them is the truth. The truth cannot be spoken. The truth cannot be known in its entirety. It can only be known in its aspect.

 

I hope to be clear on the fact that what I say is not a refutation or a rebuttal to what another teacher may say. Each of us has our own set of pointers, and they may be quite different one to the other. Often it is impossible for these contrasting pointers to be integrated. They may ultimately be pointing to the same destination, but each may point around opposite sides of the mountain, and it is not easy to walk in two directions at once. Different teachings are suited to different seekers. My sole discomfort is with teachings that claim to be the only Truth or suggest that competing teachings are wrong or dangerous. I am offended by the absence of a fundamental humility in such a stand. Every Teaching is simply a collection of conceptual pointers – nothing more."

Edited December 14, 2013 by ThisLife

[Isimsiz Biri]

Hiya Isimsiz,

 

Don't worry too much about the misunderstanding,... my feeling is that that is actually the 'norm' in almost all human relationships. As for cultural differences, just as they do with food, they often add a rather exciting spice and interest to relationships.

 

But unfortunately I feel that there just isn't enough common ground shared between our belief systems to allow for much of an exchange of ideas between us. From extracts like this in your post : (1) About your question Satan, please be informed that it was not created as Satan. It had been the highest Archangel, Ramza. It failed about its test about Nafs, it was cursed and it became Satan, or (2) we have to make a new decision in the light of Holy Quran. ....... it is quite clear that you feel absolutely certain that your particular belief system has all the answers.

 

For me, this feels quite similar to meetings I've had with Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons as they try to peddle their certainties door-to-door. They are clearly happy with their beliefs, but it is NOT a discussion that happens with them. Just an endless repeating of a deeply entrenched beliefs.

 

I know this is virtually impossible to see when one is a staunch believer. I have been in that position myself during the many years I was a Buddhist. The world and difficult questions became so simple,... there was just 'Us', (the ones with the correct point of view and the perfect answers), and the 'rest', who needed our compassion and saving, (if they had enough good karma to hear)

 

If you cannot see that Islam is an organized religion, (I,e, having a hierarchy of priests, doctrine, dogma, lists of encouraged good behaviour and forbidden bad behaviour, criterion for heaven and criterion for hell, etc, etc),....then it is clearly quite impossible to have a "discussion" about anything outside that closed loop.

 

Unfortunately, I have far too much of a tendency to go on, and on, and on. So perhaps the best thing I can do is contribute some thoughts on this subject by a teacher who strikes up a chord of resonance for me with almost everything he says. Moreover, he writes and speaks far more eloquently than I do :

 

 

Wayne Liquorman wrote :

 

"My ultimate feeling about teachers and their teachings is summed up in the fact that none of them are telling the truth, so it’s not a matter of reconciling one teaching with another to determine which one is the truth. None of them is the truth. The truth cannot be spoken. The truth cannot be known in its entirety. It can only be known in its aspect.

 

I hope to be clear on the fact that what I say is not a refutation or a rebuttal to what another teacher may say. Each of us has our own set of pointers, and they may be quite different one to the other. Often it is impossible for these contrasting pointers to be integrated. They may ultimately be pointing to the same destination, but each may point around opposite sides of the mountain, and it is not easy to walk in two directions at once. Different teachings are suited to different seekers. My sole discomfort is with teachings that claim to be the only Truth or suggest that competing teachings are wrong or dangerous. I am offended by the absence of a fundamental humility in such a stand. Every Teaching is simply a collection of conceptual pointers – nothing more."

 

A typical Sharia level discussion. This will go nowhere. You better continue to stand against organized religion.

 

Islam is different than Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses or Buddhism because Holy Quran has not been altered at all. So your criticism about organized religion considering others is not valid for Islam. Monasticism does not exist in Islam. Of course there is definition of good and bad. But also, there is a mystical tradition in Islam, not for common people, but for a few selected people. We call it Sufism.

 

I see your Buddhist past also was in Sharia level. Sorry for that. I copied one of my previous posts to explain you the four levels of Sufism.

 

In Sufism, there are four levels:

 

Shari’a (exoteric path), tariqa (esoteric path), haqiqa (mystical truth) and marifa (final mystical knowledge, unio mystica).

Please refer to following link: http://en.wikipedia....The_four_stages

 

Shari’a is Islamic law as revealed in the Qur'an and Sunna.[1] The first step in Sufism is following every aspect of the law perfectly. The purpose of this is to prove their love for God, by rigorous self-discipline and constant attention to their conduct.

 

Tariqa in Arabic means "path" and it denotes a Sufi brotherhood or order.[3] The orders are governed by shaykhs, spiritual leaders that mentor Sufis. Shaykhs are identified by the signs of God's grace that are evident, such as the ability to perform miracles.[4] They take on people, usually male, that are committed to the Sufi lifestyle and want to progress further in their spiritual education.

 

Haqiqa is a difficult concept to translate. The book Islamic Philosophical Theology defines it as "what is real, genuine, authentic, what is true in and of itself by dint of metaphysical or cosmic status",^[6] which is a valid definition but one that does not explain haqiqa's role in Sufism. Haqiqa may be best defined as the knowledge that comes from communion with God, knowledge gained only after the tariqa is undertaken.

 

Marifat (Arabic: المعرفة‎), which literally means knowledge, is the term used by Sufi Muslims to describe mystical intuitive knowledge of spiritual truth reached through ecstatic experiences, rather than revealed or rationally acquired.

 

1. Sharia (sacred laws)

2. Tariqa (sacred path)

3. Haqiqa (divine reality)

4. Marifa (gnosis or certain knowledge of God)

 

According to Prophetic tradition (hadith):

. Sharia consists of the words of the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace,

. Tariqa consists of the actions of the Prophet,

. Haqiqa consists of the state of the Prophet, and

. Marifa consists of the secrets of the Prophet.

 

These four ways are very closely linked together and cannot be separated one from the other.

 

The Kalima (the sacred mantra of Islamic faith, La ilaha illallah) has four meanings according to these four ways.

 

According to Sharia the meaning is:

"There is nothing in the world that can be worshipped with certainty except Allah."

 

According to Tariqa the meaning is:

"There is none that can do a thing except Allah."

 

According to Haqiqa the meaning is:

"There is none who is sought after except Allah."

 

According to Marifa the meaning is:

"There is nothing existent except Allah."

 

 

From sufistic point of view: Sharia is the divine and sacred law of Islam. It makes one distinguish between right and wrong, between forbidden and permissible actions. Tariqa is the beautification of the Sharia' whereby whatever one has understood in Sharia' is made firm in one's heart under strict spiritual discipline. In this stage one has to have complete trust in God and also have lots of patience in whatever condition God keeps him in. This is the stage where one's soul is cleansed to receive God's divine attributes.

 

Haqiqa is the zenith of Spiritual Perfection. In this stage the attributes of God, the Most Perfect begins to manifest itself in one's self. Marifa is the goal to recognise our creator (God), or to become God-conscious in every state and action. In this state, there is no "time-space". Here only purity exists and only the pure can come close to God. In this state the seeker does not forget that he (or she) is still a servant and no matter how high he may progress spiritually he still remains the created and God the Creator. This state cannot be expressed through our very limited human faculties.

[ThisLife]

*

 

Q.E.D.

 

 

Thank you for your very thorough explanation. I wish you every happiness with your path.

Edited December 15, 2013 by ThisLife