Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


eThErEaL last won the day on April 22

eThErEaL had the most liked content!

About eThErEaL

  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/29/1987

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    North America
  • Religion
  • Mood

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

13,098 profile views
  1. Numbers are objects of awareness. anything that is an object of awareness is limited Therefore numbers are limited.
  2. So, ONLY those accredited from a Shia hawza are those whom you consider as ulema in Islam? Secondly, are ALL the “ulema” in denial that the Buddha is a Prophet of God? Thirdly, why must the truth or falsity of my assertion that the Buddha is a Prophet of God be the sole prerogative of the “ulema” when I have never claimed this to be any sort of essential pillar of faith in Islamic doctrine. In other words, I don’t consider one who holds his judgement on the Buddha as someone who is not a faithful Muslim. And as a matter of fact, I also wouldn’t consider one who denies that the Buddha is a Prophet of God as someone who is not a faithful Muslim. And that is what you ought to do! And neither should you boldly speak out against my assertion for it may be that I know something you don’t. (And God knows best) I can say for sure that the Buddha had a prophetic function and that he was a man from God - to me this is very obvious and I would be lying about something that I can clearly see. Alhamdulillah. I cannot assert this as a doctrine of Islam though. As I mentioned before, this is not the prerogative of the ulema. It is my call. You are right. I am not blindly speaking, I have studied Buddhism. And on a side note, in case you are interested, I recommend you to read this book by a group of Muslim scholars (who, for the record are those I consider to be among the ulema): http://www.islambuddhism.com/docs/CommonGround.pdf Thanking you ethereal
  3. What classifies one as among the Ulema? Is it those whom you consider as ulema? If so, then your argument is not logical. There is no evidence he was NOT a Nabi. Why do you arbitrary draw a line when the Qur’anic verses clearly state that there has not been a people except that a messenger was sent to them to speak to them in their own language. It is the same basis that you ultimately have faith (Iman) in Seyyidna Muhammad Mustafa(S) as a Prophet of God and His Book (Qur'an). Do you have faith in him and his Book because of the “ulema”? Do you have have faith in him and his Book because your parents said so?
  4. Can you elaborate on what needs elaboration?
  5. You don't have to believe what anyone says...including these words
  6. But you might need to explain why then you are saying God "caused" the universe. Since God is not bound to the "Hows" then why do you answer How do the Hows happen by God?
  7. When you go to sleep, don’t you magically appear in different places? Well, the entire world is imaginary. No need to create a distinction between the world when you are awake and the world when you sleep. The world is magical (all of it)... even if the dreamer doesn’t believe so.
  8. That is not what I asserted. I am not sure what you mean by “immaterial”. But I only believe in the ordinary, not fantastic or exotic ideas which are impossible to verify. Now, the most ordinary of all things is that which is the most self-evident and that which is absolutely ubiquitous. For me this is consciousness or awareness. Again, I am not talking about something exotic, if you think I am then throw that away. In fact, if you think the physical world (matter) is very ordinary, then I would beg to differ... because compared to awareness, matter sounds very exotic and very ethereal. I find the apparatus of knowledge (namely, consciousness), to be more evident, and more ordinary than matter which is an idea of which there is consciousness of! Mhmm I agree that we cannot define anything into existence. But having said that: Prove to me that you are conscious.
  9. 1) How can anything other than what there is an awareness of (what one can be conscious of) exists? In what way can something conceivably exist without being subject to awareness or knowing-ness in some way or another (either as a thought that is known, a feeling that is known, or a sensory perception that is known). The dichotomy between subject and object / mind and matter, is not only unfounded (I.e. not only cannot be proven) but is also, in the last analysis, nothing but a thought that is itself known or subject to awareness. 2) Now, space (along with its concomitants such as part and whole) is nothing but a thought, an idea that is known. Time (along with its concomitants such as "past", "present" and "future") is nothing but an idea or thought that is itself known. Matter is also nothing but an idea that one knows. Space in itself, time in itself, and matter in itself are nothing but thoughts. They don't exist apart from them being thoughts which are subject to some modality of awareness. Do not take my word for it, simply verify this for yourself. Therefore I only believe in awareness, knowing-ness, or consciousness. Nothing exists apart from this. Or you can say, whatever you can point to (whatever you can even conscientious of) is nothing but a modality of awareness.
  10. I have absolutely no qualms if you want to call that which cannot not be “the Universe, at bottom”, “Elvis Presley, at bottom”, “”My Dog, at bottom”, “Dirt, at bottom” or whatever you may feel like. You don’t seem to understand. I don’t care if “God” doesn’t exist. “God” could take a hike, He could die, He could be buried alive, He could be damned to His Own Hell. Why don’t you understand? You think I care about God? I care about that which cannot not be. Now, if you want to call this “Elvis Presley” , “Jesus”, Zues, or “The Universe at Bottom”, then it is perfectly fine! I think my above reply would suffice as a clarification. Anything which can conceivably not exist, is cannot be that which cannot not be. Now, if you mean by “the Universe at Bottom” that which can be conceived not to exist then it is not that which cannot not be! And if you mean by “the Universe at Bottom” that which cannot be conceived to not exist, then this is that which cannot not be! (duh) Will reply later to the rest of your post.
  11. a) in what way does it not reconcile with Islamic beliefs? I know you brought up Hell and the Prophets and the whole Theology. Am I right to assume that you are just not convinced ad are not in agreement with "my interpretation" of Islam. But is this disagreement based on an intuition you have, social conditioning, or reasoning. What makes an interpretation "correct" or legitimate? Would it be a feeling, an emotion or a thought? If one says, it should line up with Hadith and Qur'an (this is just begging the question) , then how should hadith and Qur'an be interpreted? For me, the basis is a tradition of scholars, a tradition of interpretation. Something consistent that is passed down from generation to generation, from teachers to students etc etc. Now, the tradition that I know exists which I am familiar with is the Islamic Intellectual Tradition best represented by figures such as Rumi, Mulla Sadra, Ibn Arabi, Qunawi, Sabzawari, Suhrwardi, Al-Ghazali etc etc. That is my answer ultimately. Apart from the Islamic tradition I believe in a broader sense of tradition, namely a universal teaching which is found in every religion. So there are universal elements found in the Advaita Vedanta tradition of Hinduism (like in the teachings of Shankaracharya), in the Mahayana School of Buddhism (like in the teachings of Nagarjuna), in Medieval Christian Mysticism (like in the teachings of Meister Eckhart). b) Now, are these various intellectual traditions that are found in Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism (which are part of a broader and more universal Tradition) practical and helpful? I would say not necessarily. It could be practical if you can assimilate this teaching in your daily Islamic practices thereby giving life to the various rites that you perform (such as fasting, praying, pilgrimage and charity).
  12. And to summarize your response: My answer is not compelling because you either find it too Hindu / Buddhist (and therefore un-Islamic) or because you find it to be impractical.... or Perhaps both, very un-Islamic and also highly impractical. Have I understood you correctly?.
  13. Hell or Paradise is determined by your understanding of who you are. You are your own Hell and you are your own Paradise. If you suffer due to your belief that you are a limited entity, then you are your own Hell. And if you are in peace due to your belief that as your essential Self you are unperturbed, unaffected, were not born, will not die, etc etc, then this itself is Paradise. The illusory self is defined in terms of it having a beginning (being born) and an end (dying). It is defined in terms of it being caused and it causing (or to say it in a more familiar way, it is defined precisely as “a doer” that wants results). To seek a reason for the illusory self implies to seek a cause. To say the illusory self is caused is precisely what is so illusory about the illusory self. Causality is precisley what we are saying is illusory because it is a fabrication of an illusory mind. Real causation does not exist. So you cannot ask “why is there (I.e. what is the cause of) a system of causation in the first place”. (God / Your Essentials Self) does not get anything out of something which does not really exist. Remember, there is no real creation. The creation that seems to exist, exists only in an illusory way. There is no causation for this apparently real creation, because it doesn’t really exist in the first place! Remember, there is nothing that is really “happening”, there is only God who simply IS. There is simply pure Bliss and Peace and Being.
  14. I believe I have responded to your questions in detail. You may have missed it perhaps. Just check it out again by scrolling up. Your true nature is God. That is what you are. God didn’t “send down” any Prophets or a book- this is all illusory or seemingly real. You cannot kill your real essential Self (only your apparent self can die). You are asking me What difference will it make? I ask you further: do you mean what difference does it make to your essential Self or what difference does it make to your appareny real self?
  • Create New...