Are we infinite consciousness?

[313_Waiter]

I hear some Sufis and conspiracy thinkers like David lcke saying that we are infinite consciousness.

What does it mean? Does it have any truth from Shiite Imami perspective?

JazakAllah

[Ashvazdanghe]

clearly Shias are refuting this but Sufi-wahabi @eThErEaL will approve it to oppose any Shia belief.

[313_Waiter]

Could the Hadith of us being the microcosm to a macrocosm that is the universe be related to this?

Quote

Your sickness is from you, but you do not perceive it and your remedy is within you, but you do not sense it. You presume you are a small entity, but within you is enfolded the entire Universe - Imam Ali

Could these concepts be related to string theory?

 

[eThErEaL]

5 hours ago, Ejaz said:

I hear some Sufis and conspiracy thinkers like David lcke saying that we are infinite consciousness.

What does it mean? Does it have any truth from Shiite Imami perspective?

JazakAllah

I don’t know who David Icke is.  But if I take the statement “we are infinite consciousness” then this is like the Imams saying “we are the names of God”.  Please note:

when the Imams said “we”, they did not talk about themselves as individuals.  This would be shirk.  The “we” Is on behalf of the entire creation.  The whole creation (including themselves) are nothing but the names of God.  Each name of God is a degree in conscious awareness.  
 

Secondly, “he who knows himself, knows His Lord”,,,,  this Hadith means that we need to know our Self beyond our individuality. Once we know our Self we know God.

[Flying_Eagle]

9 hours ago, Ejaz said:

I hear some Sufis and conspiracy thinkers like David lcke saying that we are infinite consciousness.

What does it mean? Does it have any truth from Shiite Imami perspective?

JazakAllah

What is infinite consciousness define?

[eThErEaL]

10 hours ago, Flying_Eagle said:

What is infinite consciousness define?

Consciousness is neither infinite nor finite.  What is consciousness?  It is the answer to the question: "who am I?"

[313_Waiter]

10 hours ago, Flying_Eagle said:

What is infinite consciousness define?

I think it relates to everything, however small having its own consciousness and all of it being interconnected as one Big consciousness.

I could be wrong, maybe the correct term is universal consciousness

[Flying_Eagle]

8 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Consciousness is neither infinite nor finite.  What is consciousness?  It is the answer to the question: "who am I?"

You made it problematic. Anything which exists is either finite or infinite. Consciousness depends on one's urge. Some are more conscious then others but God is conscious of all. All other are restrained to absolute consciousness because they are created and not eternal like God. The beauty of eternity lies in magnanimity of Allah (عزّ وجلّ), a momin never gets bored because God's everlasting personality cannot be fully comprehended by Him, his curiosity has no end, and God's incomprehensiblity never fades. A momin will always ask and God will always answer. Hence, new stages be achieved but Momin can't be all aware and all knowing but always depending on God. 

[eThErEaL]

1 hour ago, Flying_Eagle said:

Anything which exists is either finite or infinite.

I am referring to non-conceptual infinitude.  A truly non-conceptual infinitude is beyond the distinctions of “infinitude” vs “finitude”.  Consciousness itself is beyond distinctions.  It is even beyond “beyond distinction”.  In other words, it cannot be objectified or concpetualized in any way whatsoever.

Quote

 

Consciousness depends on one's urge.

urge?  I lost you.

Quote

Some are more conscious then others but God is conscious of all.

Only the mind which draws distinctions and comparisons distinguishes and therefore attempts to limit the Absolutely One Consciousness (that which is utterly indistinguishable).  The moment you make it distinct it become limited.

Quote

All other are restrained to absolute consciousness because they are created and not eternal like God. The beauty of eternity lies in magnanimity of Allah (عزّ وجلّ), a momin never gets bored because God's everlasting personality cannot be fully comprehended by Him, his curiosity has no end, and God's incomprehensiblity never fades. A momin will always ask and God will always answer. Hence, new stages be achieved but Momin can't be all aware and all knowing but always depending on God. 

Brother/ Sister,  you have obviously misunderstood what I was saying.  I didn’t mean to imply that each of us are Gods.  

Edited February 5, 2020 by eThErEaL

[Flying_Eagle]

3 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

I am referring to non-conceptual infinitude.  A truly non-conceptual infinitude is beyond the distinctions of “infinitude” vs “finitude”.  Consciousness itself is beyond distinctions.  It is even beyond “beyond distinction”.  In other words, it cannot be objectified or concpetualized in any way whatsoever.

First of all, a good philosopher should obey the sunnah of Prophet (PBUHHP), his words should be easier and his sentences should not invalidate other sentences. You said in last sentence "it cannot be objectified or conceptualized". Yet you are defining the concept which you think cannot be conceptualized. Concept is meaningful if it makes sense, if what you say cannot be defined then its fantasy. 

13 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

urge?  I lost you

Replace it with curiosity or desire to get knowledge or marifah.

 

15 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Only the mind which draws distinctions and comparisons distinguishes and therefore attempts to limit the Absolutely One Consciousness (that which is utterly indistinguishable).  The moment you make it distinct it become limited.

Don't confuse distinction with complete awareness. God is your creator and you are his creation. You both are distinct but you cannot know God fully but God knows you totally. So, though you know he is distinct, you don't know completely about him.

 

25 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Brother/ Sister,  you have obviously misunderstood what I was saying.  I didn’t mean to imply that each of us are Gods.

I wrote here for OP about my opinion. Sorry for misunderstanding brother.

[eThErEaL]

3 hours ago, Flying_Eagle said:

First of all, a good philosopher should obey the sunnah of Prophet (PBUHHP),

I will try my best inshallah.  Let us leave aside the ad hominem comments so we can focus.  My intention is not to win an argument or to score points, I don’t really care if I am perceived to be an idiot on this forum.  All I care right now is that we all understand what I am about to say (inshallah).  So I am being serious and would like us to focus.  Focusing is important here because I would like you to notice your experience.  I am not really making an argument here but rather I am asking you to notice the way you experience things.  What I am saying cannot be verified via logical reasoning, it can only be verified in your direct experience.  So here goes:

Quote

his words should be easier and his sentences should not invalidate other sentences.

So, the point I am making is the distinction between concept (Mafhoom) and reality or the reality to which the concept refers (Misdaq).  For example: it is one thing to conceive of the taste of bread, but it is another thing to directly experience the very taste of bread at the moment of actually and really tasting it.  The latter cannot, in itself, be put to words or concepts for it is by definition, non-conceptual and cannot be labelled (it is the pure experience of tasting).  Even to say “it is the pure experience of tasting” is a concept that is not the referent itself.  But we allow ourselves to accept the error in our language for we say this knowing that it is inherently limited.  
 

Yes, we cannot talk / discuss or conceive  about God per se.  God per se (or God in Himself) is what in theological language is referred to as “Dhat” (Essence).  
 

Has it not been clear by now that what I am talking about is what is in our traditions?  If it is not clear let me know why not please.  
 

 

Quote

You said in last sentence "it cannot be objectified or conceptualized". Yet you are defining the concept which you think cannot be conceptualized. Concept is meaningful if it makes sense, if what you say cannot be defined then its fantasy. 

Yes.  The reality of consciousness (or the referent of the concept of “consciousness”), as a lived experience in the present moment, cannot be conceptualized.  
 

does this makes sense?

 

Quote

Replace it with curiosity or desire to get knowledge or marifah.

I am not personally attacking anyone here when I use the words ignorant (just a disclaimer):

To identify oneself as someone who Wants something, whether it is food, sex, or marifa, is a symptom of ignorance.  Only in ignorance will it be seen that “Marifa” is something to “get”, or that it is something “some people have” and “other people don’t have”.   The one who is ignorant is ignorant of who he really is.  He mistakes himself for a person when in fact he is not a person or an individual.  Who is he really? The answer is the same for us all.  Who am I?  Who are you?  

“man arafa nafashu faqad arafa rabbahu”
“He who knows his Self, knows His Lord.”

Quote

 

Don't confuse distinction with complete awareness. God is your creator and you are his creation. You both are distinct but you cannot know God fully but God knows you totally. So, though you know he is distinct, you don't know completely about him.

What I am saying is that I don’t know God at all.  I don’t know Him as separate, nor do I know Him as distinct.  I don’t know Him as infinite and nor do I know Him as finite.  I don’t know Him as universal, nor do I know Him as particular.  I don’t know God!  None of us do.  Someone of us think we do, but in fact none of us know God at all!  It absolutely and completely suffices that God knows everything for He is Consciousness.  

 

Quote

 wrote here for OP about my opinion. Sorry for misunderstanding brother.

 

Edited February 5, 2020 by eThErEaL

[Flying_Eagle]

4 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

So, the point I am making is the distinction between concept (Mafhoom) and reality or the reality to which the concept refers (Misdaq).  For example: it is one thing to conceive of the taste of bread, but it is another thing to directly experience the very taste of bread at the moment of actually and really tasting it.  The latter cannot, in itself, be put to words or concepts for it is by definition, non-conceptual and cannot be labelled (it is the pure experience of tasting).  Even to say “it is the pure experience of tasting” is a concept that is not the referent itself.  But we allow ourselves to accept the error in our language for we say this knowing that it is inherently limited.  

I read your words carefully, I will try to tell it again to confirm that I understood it. You meant to say that "saying that such and such thing is sweet" does not really tell "what kind of sweet it is" you meant that "description and experience are different if I correctly understood. 

You are true to an extent but I think you miss something is that Allah (عزّ وجلّ) is capable of defining everything but reaching to a thing's absolute knowledge is a matter of debate. For example: - if you say that honey is sweet, I will know how honey taste. So, your words created a taste in my brain. Even in my dreams I have eaten things and felt its taste. But what makes honey of particular sweetness require you to spend centuries and even after that you won't be able to understand just like this Earth which is single body having 300 times less mass than Sun but still you have not exhausted discovering it. If you think that God is unable to define himself, you have limited him. 

Also He is able to teach us about his being but we are too weak to understand him totally because he is eternal and we are created.

4 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

What I am saying is that I don’t know God at all.  I don’t know Him as separate, nor do I know Him as distinct.  I don’t know Him as infinite and nor do I know Him as finite.  I don’t know Him as universal, nor do I know Him as particular.  I don’t know God!  None of us do.  Someone of us think we do, but in fact none of us know God at all!  It absolutely and completely suffices that God knows everything for He is Consciousness.  

Lolz I know God that He is King of kings but about his power, I am unable to define. If you say you don’t know, then your words I am afraid are not clear representative of your experience because God give you life, you know he is creator, he gives you food, he is sustainer. You know his some beautiful names but you don't know all of his names. 

4 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

My intention is not to win an argument or to score points, I don’t really care if I am perceived to be an idiot on this forum

I think we can learn from each other and I enjoyed your replies. With expression comes knowledge and withholding expression creates doubts leading to destruction.

Edited February 5, 2020 by Flying_Eagle

[hasanhh]

On 2/4/2020 at 2:13 AM, Ejaz said:

I hear some Sufis and conspiracy thinkers like David lcke saying that we are infinite consciousness.

What does it mean? Does it have any truth from Shiite Imami perspective?

JazakAllah

Similar to FlyingEagle . . . 

When people say such things they are trying to show-off for themselves and pretending they know more than you do, like they are aware of some hidden knowledge.

[eThErEaL]

4 hours ago, Flying_Eagle said:

I read your words carefully, I will try to tell it again to confirm that I understood it. You meant to say that "saying that such and such thing is sweet" does not really tell "what kind of sweet it is" you meant that "description and experience are different if I correctly understood. 

What I am talking about is the distinction between, for example,

Being happy vs conceiving of happiness.  

Burning in fire vs Thinking about fire.  

Having an orgasm vs The idea of an orgasm.  

In other words, This distinction is between reality as such (reality in and of itself) vs the mere idea of reality.   

This is one of the most important things to understand in Islamic Philosophy and Mantiq (Logic).. it is the difference between mafhoom and misdaq.

For example, in Shiite theology they employ this distinction to explain how God has numerous attributes and is still One.  The Shiite theologians explain that the names of God are many because they are many with respect to them being conceived of in our mind (I.e. with respect to mafhoom or conception they are many), but with respect to their referent (their reality) they are One and the same.  So, how can God be "Merciful" and "Just" while at the same time being One?  This is because "Merciful" and "Just" are distinct in conception but one in reality (I.e. they are one with respect to what they both refer to).

So, I am just pointing out a foundational distinction that is employed in Logic and Philosophy.  Failure to understand the crucial difference between the two leads to a lot of fallacies and confusion.   In Islamic Philosophy they call this distinction the distinction between Ilm Al-Hudhuri (Knowledge of Presence) vs Ilm Al-Husuli (Acquired or Conceptual Knowledge).

Quote

if you say that honey is sweet, I will know how honey taste.

You will know how honey tastes like.  But how will you know it?  You will know it at the level of conception.  But will you know it at the level of tasting (dhawq)?  And the answer is obviously, no.  Again, there is a distinction that needs to be drawn here, between the mere idea of taste vs tasting itself.  

Quote

So, your words created a taste in my brain.

The conception of taste. not taste itself. With respect to conception, there is always an unbridgeable gap between the knower and the known (or between the subject and the object).  What one knows through a mere conception (via Ilm Al-Husuli) will never ever be united with the knower.  But what one knows through direct presence (via Ilm Al-Hudhuri) is indistinguishably united with the knower.  In being happy (there is no distinction between you and your happiness).  But in merely conceiving of happiness, there is a gap or a distinction between you as the knower of happiness and the known (namely happiness).  In being happy, happiness is directly precensed, in just conceiving of happiness, happiness is separate from the you.     

Quote

Even in my dreams I have eaten things and felt its taste.

In tasting you are one with what you taste.  The taster, the taste, and the tasted are seamlessly united into a part-less whole.    

Quote

But what makes honey of particular sweetness require you to spend centuries and even after that you won't be able to understand just like this Earth which is single body having 300 times less mass than Sun but still you have not exhausted discovering it. If you think that God is unable to define himself, you have limited him. 

So, the point of what I am saying is that the only way to truly know anything is through Ilm Al-Hudhuri.  Not Ilm Al-Husuli.

Quote

Also He is able to teach us about his being but we are too weak to understand him totally because he is eternal and we are created.

Through conception it is impossible to know Him in any positive way.  Only God knows God.  If you can know God in any positive way, then you know God only inasmuch as God knows Himself through you.  (if this was confusing, just keep it aside for now).

Edited February 6, 2020 by eThErEaL

[eThErEaL]

On 2/4/2020 at 2:13 AM, Ejaz said:

I hear some Sufis and conspiracy thinkers like David lcke saying that we are infinite consciousness.

What does it mean? Does it have any truth from Shiite Imami perspective?

JazakAllah

Carefully listen to this lecture...

 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by eThErEaL

[Flying_Eagle]

8 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

What I am talking about is the distinction between, for example,

Being happy vs conceiving of happiness.  

Burning in fire vs Thinking about fire.  

Having an orgasm vs The idea of an orgasm.  

In other words, This distinction is between reality as such (reality in and of itself) vs the mere idea of reality.   

This is one of the most important things to understand in Islamic Philosophy and Mantiq (Logic).. it is the difference between mafhoom and misdaq.

For example, in Shiite theology they employ this distinction to explain how God has numerous attributes and is still One.  The Shiite theologians explain that the names of God are many because they are many with respect to them being conceived of in our mind (I.e. with respect to mafhoom or conception they are many), but with respect to their referent (their reality) they are One and the same.  So, how can God be "Merciful" and "Just" while at the same time being One?  This is because "Merciful" and "Just" are distinct in conception but one in reality (I.e. they are one with respect to what they both refer to).

So, I am just pointing out a foundational distinction that is employed in Logic and Philosophy.  Failure to understand the crucial difference between the two leads to a lot of fallacies and confusion.   In Islamic Philosophy they call this distinction the distinction between Ilm Al-Hudhuri (Knowledge of Presence) vs Ilm Al-Husuli (Acquired or Conceptual Knowledge).

You will know how honey tastes like.  But how will you know it?  You will know it at the level of conception.  But will you know it at the level of tasting (dhawq)?  And the answer is obviously, no.  Again, there is a distinction that needs to be drawn here, between the mere idea of taste vs tasting itself.  

The conception of taste. not taste itself. With respect to conception, there is always an unbridgeable gap between the knower and the known (or between the subject and the object).  What one knows through a mere conception (via Ilm Al-Husuli) will never ever be united with the knower.  But what one knows through direct presence (via Ilm Al-Hudhuri) is indistinguishably united with the knower.  In being happy (there is no distinction between you and your happiness).  But in merely conceiving of happiness, there is a gap or a distinction between you as the knower of happiness and the known (namely happiness).  In being happy, happiness is directly precensed, in just conceiving of happiness, happiness is separate from the you.     

In tasting you are one with what you taste.  The taster, the taste, and the tasted are seamlessly united into a part-less whole.    

So, the point of what I am saying is that the only way to truly know anything is through Ilm Al-Hudhuri.  Not Ilm Al-Husuli.

Through conception it is impossible to know Him in any positive way.  Only God knows God.  If you can know God in any positive way, then you know God only inasmuch as God knows Himself through you.  (if this was confusing, just keep it aside for now).

I understand that presence of honey in mouth is different from saying that "it taste like sweet". But both the words and experience aren't separate from each other. Honey is leader and words are its representative. Just like God is leader and Prophets or Imams are its representative. You know from words what honey is like right but knowing doesnt mean you know it completely. Thus, because of Ilmul Hudhuri and Ilmul Husul being different, you cannot say they don’t connect. Concept is valid only if you witnessed its presence through a proof, without it such a concept is a guess, fantasy or lie. don’t say, you don't know what is mercy and you don't know what is meant by all-merciful.

[eThErEaL]

13 hours ago, Flying_Eagle said:

I understand that presence of honey in mouth is different from saying that "it taste like sweet". But both the words and experience aren't separate from each other. Honey is leader and words are its representative. Just like God is leader and Prophets or Imams are its representative. You know from words what honey is like right but knowing doesnt mean you know it completely. Thus, because of Ilmul Hudhuri and Ilmul Husul being different, you cannot say they don’t connect. Concept is valid only if you witnessed its presence through a proof, without it such a concept is a guess, fantasy or lie. don’t say, you don't know what is mercy and you don't know what is meant by all-merciful.

When you and I say or think  "the taste of honey", this is a concept (or a cluster of concepts) that refers to the experience / its reality.  

I think that we both agree with this.  Wouldn't you say?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by eThErEaL

[Flying_Eagle]

7 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

When you and I say or think  "the taste of honey", this is a concept (or a cluster of concepts) that refers to the experience / its reality.  

I think that we both agree with this.  Wouldn't you say?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brother, I agree that words and experience are different but you should also agree that they are connected.

When I say "I tasted honey", did not these words tell you what honey is, in your brain. Words aren't separate from experience. When I say God is merciful, don’t you know how merciful he is? 

Don't tell me brother, you don't agree on this.

Edited February 7, 2020 by Flying_Eagle

[eThErEaL]

4 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

Brother, I agree that words and experience are different but you should also agree that they are connected.

To clarify: “A word” is spoken or written and is therefore not the same as a concept (which is a thought or idea).  But I won’t belabor this point as it doesn’t interfere with the main discussion at hand... or so I believe.

You are asking me: Is the concept “connected” to the reality of lived experience?  In order to answer this question we need to know what the nature of lived experience is.  As we already discussed and as you would agree by now, lived experience, in and of itself, is a seamless whole and cannot be objectified (since it is not itself a thought or a concept).  Therefore, as a lived reality, experience is, in and of itself, indistinguishable.  in and of itself, the reality of lived experience is not an experience of this or that.  In actual fact, in lived experience, there are not even any distinctions left to be made between ”different experiences”.  There is just Oneness.  

So, to answer your question, are thoughts or concepts connected to this utterly indistinguishable experience as a lived  reality?  My answer is that you cannot separate thoughts from the reality of this lived experience anymore than you can separate the waves of the ocean from the ocean water itself.   since lived experience is indistinguishable, it cannot be distinguished from thoughts.  

This is precisely why concepts / thoughts are themselves nothing if not part of the seamless whole of lived experience. 

 

 

 

[Flying_Eagle]

1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

To clarify: “A word” is spoken or written and is therefore not the same as a concept (which is a thought or idea).  But I won’t belabor this point as it doesn’t interfere with the main discussion at hand... or so I believe.

You are asking me: Is the concept “connected” to the reality of lived experience?  In order to answer this question we need to know what the nature of lived experience is.  As we already discussed and as you would agree by now, lived experience, in and of itself, is a seamless whole and cannot be objectified (since it is not itself a thought or a concept).  Therefore, as a lived reality, experience is, in and of itself, indistinguishable.  in and of itself, the reality of lived experience is not an experience of this or that.  In actual fact, in lived experience, there are not even any distinctions left to be made between ”different experiences”.  There is just Oneness.  

So, to answer your question, are thoughts or concepts connected to this utterly indistinguishable experience as a lived  reality?  My answer is that you cannot separate thoughts from the reality of this lived experience anymore than you can separate the waves of the ocean from the ocean water itself.   since lived experience is indistinguishable, it cannot be distinguished from thoughts.  

This is precisely why concepts / thoughts are themselves nothing if not part of the seamless whole of lived experience

Do you mean by "living experience indistinguishable from thoughts", is meant, we cannot communicate it to others as how we felt or others cannot know how we feel it. If it would have been the case, we wouldn't have been able to understand this discussion because we would not have been able to express our opinions. But you understand me that I differ from you and I understand that what you are saying goes against this experience, yet you deny that God cannot be understood. That's doesn't make sense.

 

[eThErEaL]

7 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

Do you mean by "living experience indistinguishable from thoughts", is meant, we cannot communicate it to others as how we felt or others cannot know how we feel it.

Thoughts / concepts, which are expressed by words, are in reality not separate from the lived experience just as waves are not separate from the body of water (or ocean).  Words are possible because of thoughts and thoughts are ossicle because of experience.  

 

 

7 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

 

 

 

If it would have been the case, we wouldn't have been able to understand this discussion because we would not have been able to express our opinions. But you understand me that I differ from you and I understand that what you are saying goes against this experience, yet you deny that God cannot be understood. That's doesn't make sense.

 

 

[Flying_Eagle]

@eThErEaL 

we are one specie and granted one fitrah with similar faculties that's why we can communicate and understand each other, God has created us upon the fitrah of Tauheed, its because of that we can understand him but cannot define limits of his greatness. If thoughts wouldn't been able to br shared in words and expressions, you wouldn't know what hunger of a poor feels or other has headache.

[Flying_Eagle]

4 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Thoughts / concepts, which are expressed by words, are in reality not separate from the lived experience just as waves are not separate from the body of water (or ocean).  Words are possible because of thoughts and thoughts are ossicle because of experience.

So we have agreement that through word merciful we know about the being, but we don't know about how great his mercy is?

[Cool]

On 2/4/2020 at 12:13 PM, Ejaz said:

I hear some Sufis and conspiracy thinkers like David lcke saying that we are infinite consciousness.

What does it mean? Does it have any truth from Shiite Imami perspective?

JazakAllah

Salam,

In the words of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) (from his famous manajaat):

Mowlaya ya Mowla

Ant Al-Baqi wa ana al-fani

Wa hal yarhamul faniyya illal-Baqi

In the words of Qur'an e Samit:

Surah Ar-Rahman, Verse 26-27:
كُلُّ مَنْ عَلَيْهَا فَانٍ

وَيَبْقَىٰ وَجْهُ رَبِّكَ ذُو الْجَلَالِ وَالْإِكْرَامِ

So we are not infinite until or unless we identify ourselves as "wajhullah".

If we are infinite consciousness, just have a look what is happening here:

Surah Ya Seen, Verse 51:
وَنُفِخَ فِي الصُّورِ فَإِذَا هُم مِّنَ الْأَجْدَاثِ إِلَىٰ رَبِّهِمْ يَنسِلُونَ

And the trumpet shall be blown, when lo! from their graves they shall hasten on to their Lord.
(English - Shakir)

Surah Ya Seen, Verse 52:
قَالُوا يَا وَيْلَنَا مَن بَعَثَنَا مِن مَّرْقَدِنَا هَٰذَا مَا وَعَدَ الرَّحْمَٰنُ وَصَدَقَ الْمُرْسَلُونَ

They shall say: O woe to us! who has raised us up from our sleeping-place? This is what the Beneficent Allah promised and the apostles told the truth.
(English - Shakir)

Furthermore,

Surah Al-Infitar, Verse 4:
وَإِذَا الْقُبُورُ بُعْثِرَتْ

And when the graves are laid open,
(English - Shakir)

Surah Al-Infitar, Verse 5:
عَلِمَتْ نَفْسٌ مَّا قَدَّمَتْ وَأَخَّرَتْ

Every soul shall know what it has sent before and held back.
(English - Shakir)

Wassalam.

Edited February 7, 2020 by Cool

[eThErEaL]

2 hours ago, Flying_Eagle said:

@eThErEaL 

we are one specie and granted one fitrah with similar faculties that's why we can communicate and understand each other,

It seems like you are more interested in talking about whether or not people can communicate with each other.  I don’t mind indulging in this topic.  But just to let you know, this is not really the topic of what I originally posted.  Perhaps you believe this to be helpful to our overall discussion (could very well be).

So, as for this seamless, lived, and indistinguishable experience, it is One.  It is our One essence.  It is not mine or yours.  It is because of this One Lived Experience that our individual minds have thoughts that can not only be communicated or articulated through words and speech but are also able to be “telepathically” shared. Communication between people are not really occurring through speech and bodily gestures.  Speech and bodily gestures are merely the manifestation of thoughts that are telepathically shared.  Words don’t precede thoughts but thoughts precede words (ontologically speaking).  Thoughts are shared telepathically because they are all waves of the One and therefore are not disconnected or separate from the One.  Thoughts arise and subside, from the One and back into the One.   
 

 

Quote

 

God has created us upon the fitrah of Tauheed, its because of that we can understand him but cannot define limits of his greatness. If thoughts wouldn't been able to br shared in words and expressions, you wouldn't know what hunger of a poor feels or other has headache.

 

2 hours ago, Flying_Eagle said:

So we have agreement that through word merciful we know about the being, but we don't know about how great his mercy is?

When do we not know about the Being of God?  We ARE That!

That is ultimately our essential nature (if only we come to terms with who we really are).  This is why I mentioned before that consciousness is the answer to the question:  “Who am I?”)

Edited February 7, 2020 by eThErEaL

[Flying_Eagle]

2 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

So, as for this seamless, lived, and indistinguishable experience, it is One.  It is our One essence.  It is not mine or yours.  It is because of this One Lived Experience that our individual minds have thoughts that can not only be communicated or articulated through words and speech but are also able to be “telepathically” shared. Communication between people are not really occurring through speech and bodily gestures.  Speech and bodily gestures are merely the manifestation of thoughts that are telepathically shared.  Words don’t precede thoughts but thoughts precede words (ontologically speaking).  Thoughts are shared telepathically because they are all waves of the One and therefore are not disconnected or separate from the One.  Thoughts arise and subside, from the One and back into the One.   

Perhaps ur influenced by philosophy of kabbalah.

2 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

It seems like you are more interested in talking about whether or not people can communicate with each other.  I don’t mind indulging in this topic.  But just to let you know, this is not really the topic of what I originally posted.  Perhaps you believe this to be helpful to our overall discussion (could very well be).

No, this was answer to your statement wherein you said that you don't know God. 

[eThErEaL]

53 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

Perhaps ur influenced by philosophy of kabbalah.

I am somewhat familiar with a number of mystical traditions, but Kabbalah is not one of them!  But why the unnecessary speculation anyway?  

53 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

No, this was answer to your statement wherein you said that you don't know God. 

Yes, I as an entity or an object or an individual don’t know God at all.  However, it suffices that God (who is our essential, indistinguishable Self) knows Itself.  

[eThErEaL]

12 hours ago, Cool said:

Salam,

In the words of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) (from his famous manajaat):

Mowlaya ya Mowla

Ant Al-Baqi wa ana al-fani

Wa hal yarhamul faniyya illal-Baqi

In the words of Qur'an e Samit:

Surah Ar-Rahman, Verse 26-27:
كُلُّ مَنْ عَلَيْهَا فَانٍ

وَيَبْقَىٰ وَجْهُ رَبِّكَ ذُو الْجَلَالِ وَالْإِكْرَامِ

So we are not infinite until or unless we identify ourselves as "wajhullah".

If we are infinite consciousness, just have a look what is happening here:

Surah Ya Seen, Verse 51:
وَنُفِخَ فِي الصُّورِ فَإِذَا هُم مِّنَ الْأَجْدَاثِ إِلَىٰ رَبِّهِمْ يَنسِلُونَ

And the trumpet shall be blown, when lo! from their graves they shall hasten on to their Lord.
(English - Shakir)

Surah Ya Seen, Verse 52:
قَالُوا يَا وَيْلَنَا مَن بَعَثَنَا مِن مَّرْقَدِنَا هَٰذَا مَا وَعَدَ الرَّحْمَٰنُ وَصَدَقَ الْمُرْسَلُونَ

They shall say: O woe to us! who has raised us up from our sleeping-place? This is what the Beneficent Allah promised and the apostles told the truth.
(English - Shakir)

Furthermore,

Surah Al-Infitar, Verse 4:
وَإِذَا الْقُبُورُ بُعْثِرَتْ

And when the graves are laid open,
(English - Shakir)

Surah Al-Infitar, Verse 5:
عَلِمَتْ نَفْسٌ مَّا قَدَّمَتْ وَأَخَّرَتْ

Every soul shall know what it has sent before and held back.
(English - Shakir)

Wassalam.

Salam brother,

mind explaining to us what you see is happening in those verses?

[Logic1234]

edit

 

Edited February 8, 2020 by Logic1234

[Logic1234]

On 2/4/2020 at 5:24 PM, eThErEaL said:

But if I take the statement “we are infinite consciousness” then this is like the Imams saying “we are the names of God”.  Please note:

when the Imams said “we”, they did not talk about themselves as individuals.  This would be shirk.  The “we” Is on behalf of the entire creation.  The whole creation (including themselves) are nothing but the names of God.  Each name of God is a degree in conscious awareness.

Salamun Alaikum Brother! 

Here is the hadith:
 

Quote

Muhammad Bin Yaqoub, from Al Husayn Bin Muhammad Al Ashary, and Muhammad Bin Yahya, together from Ahmad Bin Is’haq, from Sa’dan Bin Muslim, from Muawiya Bin Amaar, (It has been narrated) from Abu Abdullah (عليه السلام) having said regarding the Words of Allah Mighty and Majestic: And for Allah are the most Beautiful Names, therefore supplicate by these [7:180]: ‘By Allah! We are the most Beautiful Names without which Allah does not Accept from the servants, except by having recognised us.

 

 

[eThErEaL]

3 minutes ago, Logic1234 said:

Salamun Alaikum Brother! 

Here is the hadith:
 

 

wa Alaykum Salam brother!
Yes.  Thanks for sharing.  

Edited February 8, 2020 by eThErEaL

[Flying_Eagle]

13 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Yes, I as an entity or an object or an individual don’t know God at all.  However, it suffices that God (who is our essential, indistinguishable Self) knows Itself.  

You don’t know at all what is meant by all merciful but you agreed that thoughts, words and experience are indistinguishable and each of them tell about other. It means you don’t know mercy and therefore you don't know all merciful. In other words, you aren't born. In other words, I'm talking to air so I am going to bang my head on to wall, after this argument with "invisible man". 

"The End".

Edited February 8, 2020 by Flying_Eagle

[Logic1234]

On 2/4/2020 at 12:13 PM, Ejaz said:

I hear some Sufis and conspiracy thinkers like David lcke saying that we are infinite consciousness.

Salamun Alaikum Brother! 

I don't think it is correct to say "WE" (collectively, as human beings) are infinite consciousness. There exist level of consciousness among us, some of us are people of the right (ashaab al-yameen), some are people of the left (ashaab ash-shimaal) & some are muqarraboon. Saying "we" are infinite consciousness is like saying none of us is "ghafil" and it is not correct.  

[eThErEaL]

4 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

Salamun Alaikum Brother! 

I don't think it is correct to say "WE" (collectively, as human beings) are infinite consciousness. There exist level of consciousness among us, some of us are people of the right (ashaab al-yameen), some are people of the left (ashaab ash-shimaal) & some are muqarraboon. Saying "we" are infinite consciousness is like saying none of us is "ghafil" and it is not correct.  

I am clearly not doing a good job explaining this:  my apologies.

”We” is not a collective of individuals.  “we” is literally the names of God.  

From the point of view of Haqiqah or from the point of view of the Engendering Command (Al-Amr At-Takwiniyyah) there are no “things” or entities” or “individuals” or “persons”.  There are just the names/ attributes of God.  Even a Ghafil/ a Heedless individual is nothing but a “Muslim” (in this specific sense) who has submitted to God (after all: God says, there is nothing in the heavens and the Earth that is not submitted or that doesn’t glorify God).  Etc etc.

So there are ignorant and heedless people of course.  And I am one of them!
 

But, the point of saying what I said is that the Imams are not speaking as individuals or persons.  It is like God is speaking, not “them”.  If one thinks that an individual person (or a group of persons) are themselves the Names of God, then this is obviously Shirk.  And unfortunately, this is what the common lay person in Shiaism understands by such an expression.... And this is Precisely the SAME ERROR that the layperson in Christianity makes!

 

Edited February 8, 2020 by eThErEaL

[eThErEaL]

6 hours ago, Flying_Eagle said:

You don’t know at all what is meant by all merciful but you agreed that thoughts, words and experience are indistinguishable and each of them tell about other. It means you don’t know mercy and therefore you don't know all merciful. In other words, you aren't born. In other words, I'm talking to air so I am going to bang my head on to wall, after this argument with "invisible man". 

"The End".

 

I am sorry. I think we are not understanding each other.  It is probably my fault.

Edited February 8, 2020 by eThErEaL