We do not say something is true because it is logical, we say that it is logical because it is true; we perceive a greater truth beyond logic since we have the intuition of it intellectually –Intellection being a kind of seeing and not a conclusion–but it is necessary for us to refer to logic as soon as we wish to explain something, unless we express ourselves by means of a symbol, but the symbol is a suggestion aiming at intuition, not an explanation addressing itself to thought.
March 20, 2015
Leave a Comment
“Yet here you are not to fall. into the clumsy error of supposing that the things which are beyond the grasp of reason are necessarily unreasonable things. Immediate feeling, so far as it is true, does not oppose but transcends and completes the highest results of thought. It contains within itself the sum of all the processes through which thought would pass in the act of attaining the same goal: supposing thought to have reached–as it has not–the high pitch at which it was capable of thinking its way all along this road.”
The Principle is Reality in contrast to all that appears as real but which is not reality in the ultimate sense. The Principle is the Absolute compared to which all is relative. It is Infinite while all else is finite. The Principle is One and Unique while manifestation is multiplicity. It is the Supreme Substance compared to which all else is accident. It is the Essence to which all things are juxtaposed as form. It is at once Beyond Being and Being while the order of multiplicity is comprised of existents. It alone is while all else becomes, for It alone is eternal in the ultimate sense while all that is externalized partakes of change. It is the Origin but also the End, the alpha and the omega. It is Emptiness if the world is envisaged as fullness and Fullness if the relative is perceived in the light of its ontological poverty and essential nothingness. 7 These are all manners of speaking of the Ultimate Reality which can be known but not by man as such. It can only be known through the sun of the Divine Self residing at the center of the human soul. But all these ways of describing or referring to the Principle possess meaning and are efficacious as points of reference and support for that knowledge of the Real that in its realized aspect always terminates in the Ineffable and in that silence which is the “reflection”or “shadow”of the non-manifested aspect of the Principle upon the plane of manifestation. From that unitary point of view, the Principle or the Source is seen as not only the Inward but also the Outward, 8 not only the One but also the essential reality of the many which is but the reflection of the One. At the top of that mountain of unitive knowledge there resides but the One; discrimination between the Real and the unreal terminates in the awareness of the non-dual nature of the Real, the awareness which is the heart of gnosis and which represents not human knowledge but God’s knowledge of Himself, the consciousness which is the goal of the path of knowledge and the essence of scientia sacra. 9
— Seyyed Hossein Nasr (SCIENTIA SACRA)
9 This is the view of the Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism and of the transcendent Unity of Being (waḥdat al-wujūd) in Sufism which, because of the myopia of a reason divorced from the sanctifying rays of the Intellect, have been often mistaken for pantheism. See Nasr, Three Muslim Sages (Cambridge, Mass., 1964), pp. 104-108; also Titus Burckhardt, Introduction to Sufi Doctrine (London, 1976), pp. 28-30.
March 15, 2015
Leave a Comment
So they rode till they came to a lake that was a fair water and broad.
And in the middle Arthur was aware of an arm clothed in white
samite. that held a fair sword in that hand.
“Lo.” Said Merlin. “yonder is the sword that I spoke of
So with that they saw a damsel going upon the Lake.
“What damsel is that?” said Arthur
“That is the Lady of the Lake ” said Merlin.
“There is a great rock, and therein is as fair as a palace as any on earth, and richly beseen.
And this damsel will come to you anon, and then speak ye fair to her, that she may give you that sword.”
So anon came this damsel to Arthur and saluted him, and he her again.
“Damsel” said Arthur, “What sword is that yonder that the arm holdeth above the water?
I would were it mine, for I have no sword.”
“Sir Arthur.” said the damsel, “that sword is mine, and if you will give me a gift
when I ask it of you , ye shall have it.”
“By my faith,” said Arthur, “I will give you what gift ye will ask.”
March 11, 2015
This pre-eminence of the Creative Feminine as epiphany of divine Beauty was expressed in admirable paradoxes she was apprehended on the metaphysical plane of eternal birth and on the plane of second birth, the birth which by modeling the mystic’s being on this preeminent Image, causes the supreme secret of spiritual life to flower within him. Sometimes Ibn ‘Arabi seizes upon simple lexicographical or grammatical facts, which for him are not inoffensive matters of language but disclose a higher metaphysical reality, and treats them with the methods of a highly personal philology, which may well baffle a philologist but are eminently suited to the detection of symbols.
In a hadith of the prophet, he notes a grave breach of grammatical convention: in disregard of a fundamental rule of agreement the feminine outweighs the masculine in the sentence. This is the point of departure for remarks which were to be amplified by the commentators. Ibn ‘Arabi points out that in Arabic all terms indicating origin and cause are feminine. Thus we may assume that if the sentence attributed to the Prophet is grammatically incorrect, it is because the Prophet wished to suggest that the Feminine is the origin of all things. And indeed the origin or source of anything is designated in Arabic by the word umm, “mother.” This is the most striking case in which a lexicographical fact discloses a higher metaphysical reality.
–Henry Corbin (Alone with the Alone)
March 10, 2015
Leave a Comment
Uniterian Universalism, the supposed place of the open mjnd. I believe in the principles of UUism… Sadly not sure our local church does. After incident after incident and a concensus that not only do we face prejudice there, neither of us are learning…..anything. The church’s mantra of “we are doing better than we were ten years ago” is no longer cutting it. I really don’t want to wait another five years in a church where its unacceptable to have beliefs..or more accurately to mention them.
Am I done with UUism? Maybe. Done with our church? Probably.
However I think it is dishonest to blindly continue in an environment of hostility or one which correctly or incorrectly I find puerile.
Having being given hostility by voicing a contrary position… I post the following words:
Despite the insistence of uninformed (largely online) Humanists there are holes in the “theory of evolution”. As this extract discusses. But the how dare someone have a different idea…amongst supposed….and I do mean supposed free thinkers.
#hypocrisy #closedminds #horsetheyrodeinon
“This exposition shows that the theory of evolution is impossible. In reality, despite appearances, no one any longer believes in it. . . . Evolution is a sort of dogma whose priests no longer believe in it, though they uphold it for the sake of their flock.”Though undeniably exaggerated in its manner of expression—that is, as regards its sweeping implications of hypocrisy on the part of the “priests”in question—this judgment, coming where it does, is significant in more than one respect. There is no doubt that many scientists have transferred their religious instincts from religion to evolutionism, with the result that their attitude towards evolution is sectarian rather than scientific.
The French biologist Professor Louis
Bounoure quotes Yves Delage, a former Sorbonne Professor of Zoology: “I readily admit that no species has ever been known to engender another, and that there is no absolutely definite evi dence that such a thing has ever taken place. None the less, I believe evolution to be just as certain as if it had been object ively proved.”
Bounoure comments: “In short, what science asks of us here is an act of faith, and it is in fact under the guise of a sort of revealed truth that the idea of evolution is generally put forward.” He quotes, however, from a present day Sorbonne Professor of Palaeontology, Jean Piveteau, the admission that the science of facts as regards evolution “cannot accept any of the different theories which seek to explain evolution. It even finds itself in opposition with each one of these theories. There is something here which is both disappointing and disquieting.”
Darwin’s theory owed its success mainly to a widespread conviction that the nineteenth-century European represented the highest human possibility yet reached. This conviction was like a special receptacle made in advance for the theory of man’s sub-human ancestry, a theory which was hailed without question by humanists as a scientific corroboration of their belief in “progress.”It was in vain that a staunch minority of scientists, during the last hundred years, persistently maintained that the theory of evolution has no scientific basis and that it runs contrary to many known facts, and it was in vain that they pleaded for a more rigorously scientific attitude towards the whole question. To criticize evolutionism, however soundly, was about as effective as trying to stem a tidal wave. But the wave now shows some signs of having spent itself, and more and more scientists are re-examining this theory objectively, with the result that not a few of those who were once evolu tionists have now rejected it altogether. One of these is the already quoted Bounoure; another, Douglas Dewar, writes: “It is high time that biologists and geologists came into line with astronomers, physicists, and chemists and admitted that the world and the universe are utterly mysterious and all attempts to explain them [by scientific research] have been baffled”; and having divided evolutionists into ten main groups (with some subdivisions) according to their various opinions as to what animal formed the last link in the chain of man’s supposedly “pre-human”ancestry, opinions which are all purely conjectural5 and mutually contradictory, he says: “In 1921 Reinke wrote: ‘The only statement, consistent with her dignity, that science can make [with regard to this question] is to say that she knows nothing about the origin of man.’Today this statement is as true as it was when Reinke made it.”
THE PAST IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRESENT & THE RHYTHMS OF TIME
Martin Lings (24 January 1909 – 12 May 2005), also known as Abu Bakr Siraj ad-Din, was an English writer and scholar, a student of Frithjof Schuon and a Shakespearean scholar. He is best known as the author of a very popular and positively reviewed biography, Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources, first published in 1983 and still in print.
1. The inherent worth and dignity of every person
2. Justice, equity and compassion in human relations
3. Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth
4. A free and responsible search for truth and meaning
5. The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process
6. The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all
7. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part
January 19, 2015
What I like about the following passage is that it speak very much of my nearest and dearest and her philosophy. Yet, as far as I am aware she has never read this passage. What I like about such passages is it is written by someone who knows that which they write of. It is also a window into many perspectives, so from a purely just wanting to learn stance, this is an interesting exploration of tradition. As such with an open mind, I think any one of any spiritual or not background when facing the big questions in life…can enjoy the passage…
THE FRUITS OF ACTION AND DETACHMENT: SINCERITY IN ACTION AND CHIVALRY
All actions bear fruit of one kind or another whether we are aware of those fruits or not. To every action there is a reaction, and this principle j not only a law of classical physics but also holds true morally and cosmically. That is what the traditions that came from India call the law of karma. Our good acts bear positive fruit even if not immediately, and our evil acts have negative consequences that boomerang upon us sooner or later. The great moralist Persian poet who lived in the thirteenth century, after whom Ralph Waldo Emerson named one of his most famous poems, that is, Sa‘di, said:
Do a goodly act and cast it into the Tigris River,
For God will recompense thee in the desert.
The spiritual person who seeks the Garden, however, performs an jet of goodness not for the sake of recompense but because of goodness tself, leaving the rest in the Hands of God. To be able to have the cor¬rect spiritual attitude toward action, one must become detached from 3e fruits of action. Detachment is a cardinal virtue required before :ne advances on the path. One must act for the sake of the Truth and a total detachment from the fruits of the act. This is of course much more easily said than done. There is a famous story in the Mathnawi of Rumi that epitomizes the correct spiritual attitude toward selfless and detached action. It begins with the verse:
Learn from ‘All sincerity in action,
Know that the Lion of God is untainted by blemish.
In a battle ‘Ali confronted a powerful enemy and after a fierce fight was able to throw the enemy to the ground and sit on his chest with his sword drawn. At this moment the enemy warrior spat in ‘Ali’s face, whereupon ‘Ali immediately disengaged himself and abstained from delivering a blow with his sword. The enemy warrior, who was an idol worshipper, had never seen such an event. He became agitated and asked ‘Ali why he had not killed him. The response of ‘Ali, which in the verses of the Mathnawi constitutes one of the masterpieces of Sufi poetry, was that ‘Ali was fighting at first for the preservation of the Truth, but once the enemy warrior spat in his face ‘Ali became angry, and he would never react on the basis of anger and certainly not get into a battle or slay someone for personal or selfish reasons. In Rumi’s words,
Said he, “I wield the sword for the sake of the Truth,
I am the servant of the Truth not the functionary of the body.
I am the lion of the Truth, not the lion of passions,
My action does witness bear to my religion.”
‘Ali is said to have been the founder of spiritual chivalry (futuwwah
in Arabic and jawanmardi in Persian), and this story bears witness to what constitutes the very essence of chivalry, namely, sincere and de¬tached action devoted to a noble cause. Chivalry combines action with selflessness, actions devoid of worldly motifs or tainted by vices such as anger, covetousness, lust for power, or thirst for revenge. It is far from accidental that in Islam orders of chivalry became integrated into cer¬tain schools of Sufism and that within the Sufi tradition it is expected that those who aspire to march upon the path to the Garden of Truth possess the virtue of chivalry.
There is much talk of jihad today, both in the West and among cer¬tain Muslim extremists, most of whom are unaware of their own tradi¬tion. The word jihad means not war but exertion in the path of God. And then there is, according to a well-known saying of the Prophet, the inner or greater jihad, which is the constant battle of the followers of the spiritual path to correct the imperfections of their soul and make it worthy of inhabiting the Garden. This is the highest form of inner action. There is also the lesser jihad, which can include war to defend oneself, one’s family, one’s nation, and one’s religion. From the spiritual point of view, however, even this kind of jihad must be selfless, detached, and not caused by anger or hatred. The fact that this story about‘Ali takes place on a battlefield, as does the great Hindu classic the Bhagavad Gita, demonstrates that selfless and detached action must extend to even that most trying and violent form of human action that is war.
Detachment from the fruits of one’s actions is not unrelated to the Chinese doctrine of wu-wei, that is, to act without acting.Our ordinary actions plunge our souls into the cosmic chain of actions and reactions, or the chain of karma, as the Hindus would say. But that is because of our attachment to the fruits of our actions and the loss of the contem¬plative spirit, which reduces the soul to a substance that identifies itself solely with acts rather than with being, with preference for action over contemplation. But to act without acting requires also
that one die before dying, as asserted in the famous Prophetic tradition, “Die before you die.” It means to detach our will from our passions and impetus toward external actions and surrender it to God. The sage acts without acting like a lamp that illuminates its surroundings by simply existing.
The sage contemplates and lives in the dimension of inwardness and by virtue of that interiority has a sympatheia with the inner reality of other beings and then acts upon them in the deepest sense without external action. The sage demonstrates in his or her reality the precedence of
being over all external accidents and the priority of contemplation over action. But the sage nevertheless does act, and his or her acts are selfless, detached, and based upon sincerity, goodness, compassion, and truthfulness.