Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, IbnMariam said:

Wa alaykum as-salam,

I'm confused, why are you posting this video then?

I don't see why this is problematic. 

----------------------------

Like I said, I found what you quoted last time convincing in favour of what you're arguing, but I am still sceptical and considering the possibility that the words of the Ahlulbayt are properly interpreted differently to how you've suggested. The reason for this is I have yet to see any problem in several of the popular arguments, in that seem logically sound and valid, even if try to deconstruct them. I can't shake the conviction that these arguments do genuinely show that our independent existence is impossible, meaning we can't exist if God doesn't exist.

I would EXPECT you to find meaning in those arguments.

the point have been making is that you find meaning or value in those arguments only because your heart is receptive to Iman.  But if your heart wasn't receptive to iman then you would probably not see any meaning whatsoever in those arguments and you would possibly even reject God and laugh at those arguments.

Many people would still not be convinced by any of these arguments.  Are they logical?  Yes.  But it isn't useless to the ones who have no prior faith whatsoever.  

I am making a subtle epistemological point here.  I am not trying to make you reject these arguments if you find value in them.  And although I an not trying to make you reject these arguments I would also like to encourage you to see these arguments for what they are (the fact that they are merely conceptual expressions of something that is fundamentally unseen and unexpressed and which can only be witnessed through our heart).  

When the old woman was asked by the Prophet (S) why she believes in God, she replied by saying that the in the same way the spindle she was using cannot rotate without her, so also the spheres and the rotation of the day and night and the waxing and waning of the moon could not come into effect without a Mover.  The Prophet (S) turned to his companions and told them that they should have the faith of the old woman.  

This story is profound.  What exactly did the Prophet find so impressive and praiseworthy about awhat she said?  Was it her argument?  No!  It was simply her faith!  Her faith enabled her to produce that argument in a spontaneous manner (it flowed from her heart and through her heart she weaved her thoughts together and articulated her speech).  The argument was rather simple and not logical!  It was pretty simplistic and unsophisticated!  And yet no one can deny that there is beauty in her expressed words.  Why?  Because the beauty came from her strong faith and the divine presence in her heart, not from the mere logical conceptualizing of the argument.  

 

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Quisant said:

I see you have discovered "Deepak Chopra"

Not Deepak Chopra, but here are few paragraphs from "Sri Aurobindo's" book

"Our view of the divine government of the world or of the secret of its action is either incurably anthropomorphic or else incurably mechanical; both the anthropomorphism and mechanism have their elements of truth, but they are only a side, an aspect, and the real truth is that the world is governed by the One in all and over all who is infinite in his consciousness and it is according to the law and logic of an infinite consciousness that we ought to understand the significance and building and movement of the universe.

If we regard this aspect of the one Reality and put it in close connection with other aspects, we can get a complete view of the relation between the eternal Self-Existence and the dynamics of the Consciousness-Force by which it manifests the universe. If we place ourselves in a silent Self-Existence immobile, static, inactive, it will appear that a conceptive Consciousness-Force, Maya, able to effectuate all its conceptions, a dynamic consort of the Self of silence, is doing everything; it takes its stand on the fixed unmoving eternal status and casts the spiritual substance of being into all manner of forms and movements to which its passivity consents or in which it takes its impartial pleasure, its immobile delight of creative and mobile existence.

Whether this be a real or an illusory existence, that must be its substance and significance. Consciousness is at play with Being, Force of Nature does what it wills with Existence and makes it the stuff of her creations, but secretly the consent of the Being must be there at every step to make this possible. There is an evident truth in this perception of things; it is what we see happening everywhere in us and around us; it is the truth of the universe and must answer to a fundamental truth-aspect of the Absolute. But when we step back from the outer dynamics appearance of things, not of the Spirit, we find that this Consciousness-Force, Maya, Shakti, is itself the power of the Being, the Self-Existent, the Ishwara. The being is Lord of her and of all things, we see him doing everything in his own sovereignty as the creator and ruler of his own manifestation; or, if he stands back and allows freedom of action to the forces of Nature and her creatures, his sovereignty is still innate in the permission, at every step his tacit sanction, "Let it be so", tathastu, is there implicit; for otherwise nothing could be done or happen.

Being and its Consciousness-Force, Spirit and Nature cannot be fundamentally dual: What Nature does, is really done by Spirit. This too is a truth that becomes evident when we go behind the veil and feel the presence of a living Reality which is everything and determines everything, is the All-powerful and All-ruler, this too is a fundamental truth-aspect of the Absolute."   

@eThErEaL, Brother, I would like to have your comments on that.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

I would EXPECT you to find meaning in those arguments.

the point have been making is that you find meaning or value in those arguments only because your heart is receptive to Iman.  But if your heart wasn't receptive to iman then you would probably not see any meaning whatsoever in those arguments and you would possibly even reject God and laugh at those arguments.

 

You really din't think this one through. Do you or do you not  realize what you are implying  here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, S.M.H.A. said:

You really din't think this one through. Do you or do you not  realize what you are implying  here?

Maybe I do, or maybe I don't.  I will only know once you tell me what you think the implications are.  I will not know what is one your mind if you don't tell me.  

In any case, I am not interested in discussing anything with you because your behavior is a bit rude I find.  So I will be ignoring you. :)

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Salsabeel said:

Not Deepak Chopra, but here are few paragraphs from "Sri Aurobindo's" book

"Our view of the divine government of the world or of the secret of its action is either incurably anthropomorphic or else incurably mechanical; both the anthropomorphism and mechanism have their elements of truth, but they are only a side, an aspect, and the real truth is that the world is governed by the One in all and over all who is infinite in his consciousness and it is according to the law and logic of an infinite consciousness that we ought to understand the significance and building and movement of the universe.

If we regard this aspect of the one Reality and put it in close connection with other aspects, we can get a complete view of the relation between the eternal Self-Existence and the dynamics of the Consciousness-Force by which it manifests the universe. If we place ourselves in a silent Self-Existence immobile, static, inactive, it will appear that a conceptive Consciousness-Force, Maya, able to effectuate all its conceptions, a dynamic consort of the Self of silence, is doing everything; it takes its stand on the fixed unmoving eternal status and casts the spiritual substance of being into all manner of forms and movements to which its passivity consents or in which it takes its impartial pleasure, its immobile delight of creative and mobile existence.

Whether this be a real or an illusory existence, that must be its substance and significance. Consciousness is at play with Being, Force of Nature does what it wills with Existence and makes it the stuff of her creations, but secretly the consent of the Being must be there at every step to make this possible. There is an evident truth in this perception of things; it is what we see happening everywhere in us and around us; it is the truth of the universe and must answer to a fundamental truth-aspect of the Absolute. But when we step back from the outer dynamics appearance of things, not of the Spirit, we find that this Consciousness-Force, Maya, Shakti, is itself the power of the Being, the Self-Existent, the Ishwara. The being is Lord of her and of all things, we see him doing everything in his own sovereignty as the creator and ruler of his own manifestation; or, if he stands back and allows freedom of action to the forces of Nature and her creatures, his sovereignty is still innate in the permission, at every step his tacit sanction, "Let it be so", tathastu, is there implicit; for otherwise nothing could be done or happen.

Being and its Consciousness-Force, Spirit and Nature cannot be fundamentally dual: What Nature does, is really done by Spirit. This too is a truth that becomes evident when we go behind the veil and feel the presence of a living Reality which is everything and determines everything, is the All-powerful and All-ruler, this too is a fundamental truth-aspect of the Absolute."   

@eThErEaL, Brother, I would like to have your comments on that.
 

Yes, that makes sense.  

Mashallah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2017 at 9:24 AM, Salsabeel said:

Yes existence is ever mobile. Its mobility is its perfection. For instance, an Ever-Living being, which never cease to exist, which never die and continue to live is a perfect living being. 

Perfection is the measurement of intensity of existence. It looks static to you because Gods existence is always greatest in intensity.

  

 

 

I wouldn't say that wujud is mobile (let alone ever mobile).  Anything that changes from one state to another is imperfect.  

You can say that the locus of manifestation of wujud is ever mobile but not wujud.  

Quisant means by existence something other than what you mean by existence.  Quisant is not referring to wujud but to phenomena.  And he is right that phenomena is ever mobile and that god isnt! :)  

sure God is the motionless mover but He isn't himself moving.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Maybe I do, or maybe I don't.  I will only know once you tell me what you think the implications are.  I will not know what is one your mind if you don't tell me.  

In any case, I am not interested in discussing anything with you because your behavior is a bit rude I find.  So I will be ignoring you. :)

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235050966-how-do-you-know-god-exists/

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235051040-atheism-everywhere/

 

Above threads and the above quoted comments in this thread. Were cause for concern about who you really are. If you want to utilize the strategy to blame so you are not questioned on what you claim to be and what you are actually writing.

You will not be given this opportunity to clarify your comments again, As you have the freedom to write, I will respond to what I think you mean to propagate.

Good Luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, S.M.H.A. said:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235050966-how-do-you-know-god-exists/

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235051040-atheism-everywhere/

 

Above threads and the above quoted comments in this thread. Were cause for concern about who you really are. If you want to utilize the strategy to blame so you are not questioned on what you claim to be and what you are actually writing.

You will not be given this opportunity to clarify your comments again, As you have the freedom to write, I will respond to what I think you mean to propagate.

Good Luck!

what does it matter to you about WHO I AM? do you know know who you are?  I don't even need or want to clarify anything for you.

please leave me alone. :)

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

wouldn't say that wujud is mobile (let alone ever mobile).  Anything that changes from one state to another is imperfect.  

Thanks for your valued comments. I am trying to learn from you brother. 

I remember the sermon of Imam Ali (a.s) in nehjul balagha. 

"He is a Being, but not through phenomenon of coming into being. He exists but not from non-existence. He is with everything but not in physical nearness. He is different from everything but not in physical separation. He acts but without connotation of movements and instruments. He sees even when there is none to be looked at from among His creation. He is only One, such that there is none with whom He may keep company or whom He may miss in his absence."

Perhaps I misunderstood Quisant and thought that by "ever-mobile" he means continuity or continued survival. 

:) I hope that Quisant would be shaking his head while reading these lines.

I feel no shame in accepting the fact that I struggle a lot in understanding english & specially technical terminologies.

And I hope that you will continue to help me, the way you are helping. I really appreciate that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Salsabeel said:

Thanks for your valued comments. I am trying to learn from you brother. 

I remember the sermon of Imam Ali (a.s) in nehjul balagha. 

"He is a Being, but not through phenomenon of coming into being. He exists but not from non-existence. He is with everything but not in physical nearness. He is different from everything but not in physical separation. He acts but without connotation of movements and instruments. He sees even when there is none to be looked at from among His creation. He is only One, such that there is none with whom He may keep company or whom He may miss in his absence."

Perhaps I misunderstood Quisant and thought that by "ever-mobile" he means continuity or continued survival. 

:) I hope that Quisant would be shaking his head while reading these lines.

I feel no shame in accepting the fact that I struggle a lot in understanding english & specially technical terminologies.

And I hope that you will continue to help me, the way you are helping. I really appreciate that.

So quisant would like to say that reality is nothing but flux (or movement or change).  

And we would want to say that reality is not reducible to phenomenal experience because phenomenal experience"exists within" consciousness or awareness.  And that itself is not changing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

So quisant would like to say that reality is nothing but flux (or movement or change).  

And we would want to say that reality is not reducible to phenomenal experience because phenomenal experience"exists within" consciousness or awareness.  And that itself is not changing.  

My experience of existence is that everything is in flux or as the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus put it ‘everything flows’, you cannot step twice into the same stream.

I, my body and my thoughts, are in constant movement, I cannot even decide to stop thinking.

Defining ‘reality’ on the other hand is much more problematic, the Oxford Dictionary says: The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

I am happy to believe that Reality is that which, if you stop believing in it, does not go away. Things we make up often accommodate our wishes and desires, but reality is stubborn. Just because I believe there is a diamond in front of me doesn’t mean there really is one.

Religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables and paradoxes because there are no other ways communicating the reality to which they refer.

As it is written:

Fragments of the True Book are sometimes stumbled upon by lucky people: geeks, seers, lunatics, gold diggers, plain thinkers and visionaries but when they come to describe their experience to others they unfortunately cloak their wonder in too much vanity and importance so that the Book's Words remain Invisible.

ws.

*

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

True Book 

ذَٰلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لَا رَيْبَ ۛ فِيهِ ۛ هُدًى لِلْمُتَّقِينَ {2}

[Pickthal 2:2] This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt, a guidance unto those who ward off (evil).

الَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْغَيْبِ وَيُقِيمُونَ الصَّلَاةَ وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنْفِقُونَ {3}

[Pickthal 2:3] Who believe in the Unseen, and establish worship, and spend of that We have bestowed upon them;

 

Quote

Defining ‘reality’ on the other hand is much more problematic,

قَالَ رَبُّنَا الَّذِي أَعْطَىٰ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ خَلْقَهُ ثُمَّ هَدَىٰ {50}

[Pickthal 20:50] He said: Our Lord is He Who gave unto everything its nature, then guided it aright.

 

Quote

Religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables and paradoxes because there are no other ways communicating the reality to which they refer.

 

لْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ {2}

[Pickthal 1:2] Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds,

الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ {3}

[Pickthal 1:3] The Beneficent, the Merciful.

مَالِكِ يَوْمِ الدِّينِ {4}

[Pickthal 1:4] Master of the Day of Judgment,

إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وَإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ {5}

[Pickthal 1:5] Thee (alone) we worship; Thee (alone) we ask for help.

اهْدِنَا الصِّرَاطَ الْمُسْتَقِيمَ {6}

[Pickthal 1:6] Show us the straight path,

صِرَاطَ الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ غَيْرِ الْمَغْضُوبِ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا الضَّالِّينَ {7}

[Pickthal 1:7] The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.

*****

The basic statement(s)/realities that are explained are very simple and clear to a Truth seeker. Limited creation with limited thinking power believes in the unseen. After this acknowledgement of there is something that we can't comprehend. Fact that everything is guided, if we revisit - You and your surroundings- Current knowledge will testify that every cell or organism, plant, universe has been guided - has its internal guidance system including us humans. DNA/Elementary particles/soup  what evolve, Natural forces/Laws that govern these processes). Same way we have been guided for to life a fulfilling life and not be lost in our conduct and dealing with our selves and others around us.( We have rights on oursleves and others around us have rights).

Noting is lost in translation. Its all there to understand for people with intellect.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Quisant said:

My experience of existence is that everything is in flux or as the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus put it ‘everything flows’, you cannot step twice into the same stream.

 

I see the truth in Heraclitus' words.  But I also see the truth in Parmenides.  Both perspectives, in my view, are correct because each is one side of the same coin of Reality.   

How could what is perish? How could it have come to be? For if it came into being, it is not; nor is it if ever it is going to be. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and destruction unknown. (B 8.20–22)

Nor was [it] once, nor will [it] be, since [it] is, now, all together, / One, continuous; for what coming-to-be of it will you seek? / In what way, whence, did [it] grow? Neither from what-is-not shall I allow / You to say or think; for it is not to be said or thought / That [it] is not. And what need could have impelled it to grow / Later or sooner, if it began from nothing? Thus [it] must either be completely or not at all. (B 8.5–11)

[What exists] is now, all at once, one and continuous... Nor is it divisible, since it is all alike; nor is there any more or less of it in one place which might prevent it from holding together, but all is full of what is. (B 8.5–6, 8.22–24)

And it is all one to me / Where I am to begin; for I shall return there again. (B 5)

Quote

I, my body and my thoughts, are in constant movement, I cannot even decide to stop thinking.

Yes, my body, my thoughts, my affections or emotions are in constant flux.  But, who or what is the "I", or rather what is this Awareness of the flux?  You are probably already familiar with Vedanta and Non-duality.  What are your thoughts about it?

 

In Vedantic Non-Dual Tradition, we wouldn;t be able to make a separation between what is in flux and what is constant.  This is because there is no duality at all.  An analogy that the Vedantists use is that of the constantly moving waves and the ocean water itself.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

You are probably already familiar with Vedanta and Non-duality.  What are your thoughts about it?

I only have a novice's understanding of the Vedanta's schools of Philosophy, my thoughts would not be helpful to anyone. 

Thanks for the interesting post, I enjoyed reading your 'angle' on the matter.

All the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Are mosques in Pakistan mixed ? I mean do shia go without problem to sunni mosques and vice versa? Same here. I love mosques made of stones like this one:
    • Wa aleykumsalaam, Here is what our Aimmah has to say on this regard. 1 - محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى، عن ابن محبوب، عن جميل بن صالح، عن أبي عبيدة، عن أبي جعفر (عليه السلام) قال: إن ناسا أتوا رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) بعد ما أسلموا فقالوا: يا رسول الله أيؤخذ الرجل منا بما كان عمل في الجاهلية بعد إسلامه؟ فقال لهم رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله): من حسن إسلامه وصح يقين إيمانه لم يأخذه الله تبارك وتعالى بما عمل في الجاهلية ومن سخف إسلامه ولم يصح يقين إيمانه أخذه الله تبارك وتعالى بالأول والآخر. Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from ibn Mahbub from Jamil ibn Salih from abu ‘Ubaydah from abu Ja’far(as), who has said the following: “Certain people came to the Messenger of Allah after accepting Islam and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, will any of us, after accepting Islam, be held responsible for what he had done in the time of ignorance?’ The Messenger of Allah said, ‘Whoever is good in his Islam and corrects the certainty of his belief is not held responsible for his acts in the time of ignorance in the judgment of Allah, the Most Blessed, the Most High. Whoever’s Islam is nonsense and has not corrected the certainty of his belief will be held responsible in the judgment of Allah, the Most Blessed, the Most High, for his past and later deeds.’” Source: al-Kafi by Shaykh Kulayni, Vol 2, Pg 461, H 1.  Al-Mahaasin by Shaykh al-Barqi, Vol 1, Pg 250, H 264. Grading: Allamah Majlisi said hadeeth is "Saheeh" (Authentic) in his Mirat ul Uqool, Vol 11, Pg 383. Shaykh Bahbudi also grades this hadeeth as "Saheeh" (Authentic) in his Saheeh al-Kafi, Vol 1, Pg 132.   2 - علي بن إبر هيم، عن أبيه، عن القاسم بن محمد الجوهري، عن المنقري، عن فضيل بن عياض قال: سألت أبا عبد الله (عليه السلام)، عن الرجل يحسن في الاسلام أيؤاخذ بما عمل في الجاهلية؟ فقال: قال النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله): من أحسن في الاسلام لم يؤاخذ بما عمل في الجاهلية ومن أساء في الاسلام اخذ بالأول والآخر. Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from al-Qasim ibn Muhammad al- Jawhari from al-Minqari from Fudayl ibn al-‘Iyad who has said the following: “Once I asked abu ‘Abd Allah(as), ‘Will a man who is good in Islam be held responsible for his deeds in the time of ignorance?’ The Imam said, ‘The Holy Prophet has said, “Whoever is good in Islam will not be held responsible for his deeds in the times of ignorance and anyone who is not good in Islam will be held responsible for his acts of the past and those thereafter.’” Source: al-Kafi by Shaykh Kulayni, Vol 2, Pg 461, H 2.  Wa aleykumsalaam
    • should n't the sign be ">" instead of "=".
    • A bird in hand is better than two in a bush. 
    • So far you are winning. Try this:      
×