A Curious Notion
From Time Spent Among Sufis, by Fritz Heidelberger:
• This method, of putting Sufi ideas into the terminology (culture-bound, etc.,) of the twentieth century is nowadays standard among Sufi theoreticians.
Okay, just a little more:
We see in the first quote, and also the textual note from Heidelberger, the idea of religious perspectives being discussed according to a more modern, secular lexicon. In the citation concerning Nuri, we see mention of a special clairvoyance. Putting the two together, a question arises.
Typically when we "test" a religion for credibility, we do so according to ancient expectations. That is, we give credit where credit is due and accept things at the face value put before us. But that might be the error:
• Why do we not modify the language to reflect our expectations?
While the onus for this goes largely on the religious, we might pause to consider the atheistic who, when examining religion, seek an objective point upon which the religion might gain credibility:
• Assertion: Nuri, a great Sufi, could read people's thoughts.
• Response: There is no objective evidence of clairvoyance.
• Problem: That Nuri could "read someone's thoughts" is not entirely problematic.
Christopher Walken, for all you movie buffs, gave a review of observational methods regarding a person's motivation in the Tarantino-scripted True Romance. The eyes, the posture, the breathing ... the father of a friend of mine became a motivational speaker; among his lecture materials was information on how to watch someone's eyes to tell when they are being forthright, honestly attempting to recall, outright lying, or attempting to construct a lie, among others. Trained fighters can listen to one another's breathing to anticipate what comes next; within fencing, boxing, and martial arts are a limited number of variations. What of human thought patterns? Are we truly unconnected and thoroughly unique?
Modern psychology has done much to explain phenomena once attributed to gods, devils, ghosts, and demons. While many religious folk fail to consider their faith according to the modern era, this does not mean that such considerations are impossible.
Thus, Nuri is asserted to read thoughts. I cannot provide a physical model to describe how one event in the Universe manifests itself elsewhere, such as would be required for one person's brain to perceive what its standard complement of senses cannot. However, I don't expect a physical model is entirely necessary; I don't think Nuri was actually "reading thoughts".
Rather it seems possible that Nuri, through self-discipline, learned to recognize what we would in later eras designate "psychological patterns", "pathological behavior", and other odd, clinical terms. It seems that if one looks for the tics and twitches and watches the eyes, and if one guesses correctly what portion of the limited standard human psychology is afoot, one can appear nearly clairvoyant. Con men in the modern day rely on this kind of psychological manipulation. These ideas exist in various forms in various religious ideals, as well.
Hence, according to the superstitions of the times, Nuri's profound perspicacity might merely be an early recording of human psychology, minus the scientific discipline and the discipline-derived terminology.
So what I propose in general is a re-examination of religious texts; treat them for a moment with the faith of history, and then seek in the Universe reasonable explanations of phenomena. Remember that a modern chiropractor, taken to Jesus' day, may have seemed a divine healer.
The idea makes religion at once infinitely more complex and infinitely simpler. Simpler because one might find within the examination data that construes a trend or pattern that can establish something about the source of a given document and its intended meaning. More complex because in addition to separating out myth from superstitious mistake, we must then enter the labyrinth of the human consciousness in order to figure out what all the components mean.
Nonetheless, even I have spent years attempting to understand, for instance, the Bible. And even I have let the Christians tell me what it says so that I might thus judge it. But it only now occurs to me amid my own harping about the allowing of others to set the terms of debate that I still take part in this massive forfeiture of perspective. I shall not do so any longer.
The vocabulary for various processes did not exist then. Of course the texts might describe something "real" in the sense that this is the only way someone may have experienced it. Some of it may even be hallucinatory--a good deal of it probably is. But the symbols are still important nonetheless, as they are even after considering the inaccuracies of the oral tradition.
Because the symbols can translate somehow into real terms.
I don't expect any particular religious body to be thrilled with the idea; for those of us who wish to know, though, the old religions might still have one or two useful gifts to give.
But even I, in writing and speaking of mythical, psychological, and symbolic interpretations of old texts, have overlooked any real method.
Is there a method to be found? In what context can an objective test of any religious precept be tested? Did Christ walk on water? I don't see it as impossible that people could think this happened. Ray Bradbury does a bang-up Ascent in Graveyard for Lunatics.
None of the ancient texts can truly said to be false; I have seen no evidence that we know how to read them in order to test them.
Notes:
° this: Technically, any odd Sufi notion. Specifically, in this case, it is the confusing appearance and possible multi-presence of the Sufi.
thanx,
Tiassa
From Time Spent Among Sufis, by Fritz Heidelberger:
Good Mr. Heidelberger continues:If you think that this° is odd, well, so do many people think you are odd in believing that man has an immortal soul. Hundreds of millions of people, in India, believe that human beings are reincarnated. Almost as many think that people can turn into Buddhas. A So do not use your culture-bound attitudes to label others as unusual in their thoughts. (Anonymous Sufi, quoted by Heidelberger)
• This method, of putting Sufi ideas into the terminology (culture-bound, etc.,) of the twentieth century is nowadays standard among Sufi theoreticians.
Okay, just a little more:
Today I propose that we all are erroneous in a certain aspect when examining religion. It has struck me that there is a certain kind of objective examination which has not taken place.Nuri, the great Central Asian Sufi born in Baghdad who died in 908 AD, was called Jasus al-Qalb (Spy of the Heart) because he could read anyone's thoughts, a function which he developed through great self-discipline.
We see in the first quote, and also the textual note from Heidelberger, the idea of religious perspectives being discussed according to a more modern, secular lexicon. In the citation concerning Nuri, we see mention of a special clairvoyance. Putting the two together, a question arises.
Typically when we "test" a religion for credibility, we do so according to ancient expectations. That is, we give credit where credit is due and accept things at the face value put before us. But that might be the error:
• Why do we not modify the language to reflect our expectations?
While the onus for this goes largely on the religious, we might pause to consider the atheistic who, when examining religion, seek an objective point upon which the religion might gain credibility:
• Assertion: Nuri, a great Sufi, could read people's thoughts.
• Response: There is no objective evidence of clairvoyance.
• Problem: That Nuri could "read someone's thoughts" is not entirely problematic.
Christopher Walken, for all you movie buffs, gave a review of observational methods regarding a person's motivation in the Tarantino-scripted True Romance. The eyes, the posture, the breathing ... the father of a friend of mine became a motivational speaker; among his lecture materials was information on how to watch someone's eyes to tell when they are being forthright, honestly attempting to recall, outright lying, or attempting to construct a lie, among others. Trained fighters can listen to one another's breathing to anticipate what comes next; within fencing, boxing, and martial arts are a limited number of variations. What of human thought patterns? Are we truly unconnected and thoroughly unique?
Modern psychology has done much to explain phenomena once attributed to gods, devils, ghosts, and demons. While many religious folk fail to consider their faith according to the modern era, this does not mean that such considerations are impossible.
Thus, Nuri is asserted to read thoughts. I cannot provide a physical model to describe how one event in the Universe manifests itself elsewhere, such as would be required for one person's brain to perceive what its standard complement of senses cannot. However, I don't expect a physical model is entirely necessary; I don't think Nuri was actually "reading thoughts".
Rather it seems possible that Nuri, through self-discipline, learned to recognize what we would in later eras designate "psychological patterns", "pathological behavior", and other odd, clinical terms. It seems that if one looks for the tics and twitches and watches the eyes, and if one guesses correctly what portion of the limited standard human psychology is afoot, one can appear nearly clairvoyant. Con men in the modern day rely on this kind of psychological manipulation. These ideas exist in various forms in various religious ideals, as well.
Hence, according to the superstitions of the times, Nuri's profound perspicacity might merely be an early recording of human psychology, minus the scientific discipline and the discipline-derived terminology.
So what I propose in general is a re-examination of religious texts; treat them for a moment with the faith of history, and then seek in the Universe reasonable explanations of phenomena. Remember that a modern chiropractor, taken to Jesus' day, may have seemed a divine healer.
The idea makes religion at once infinitely more complex and infinitely simpler. Simpler because one might find within the examination data that construes a trend or pattern that can establish something about the source of a given document and its intended meaning. More complex because in addition to separating out myth from superstitious mistake, we must then enter the labyrinth of the human consciousness in order to figure out what all the components mean.
Nonetheless, even I have spent years attempting to understand, for instance, the Bible. And even I have let the Christians tell me what it says so that I might thus judge it. But it only now occurs to me amid my own harping about the allowing of others to set the terms of debate that I still take part in this massive forfeiture of perspective. I shall not do so any longer.
The vocabulary for various processes did not exist then. Of course the texts might describe something "real" in the sense that this is the only way someone may have experienced it. Some of it may even be hallucinatory--a good deal of it probably is. But the symbols are still important nonetheless, as they are even after considering the inaccuracies of the oral tradition.
Because the symbols can translate somehow into real terms.
I don't expect any particular religious body to be thrilled with the idea; for those of us who wish to know, though, the old religions might still have one or two useful gifts to give.
But even I, in writing and speaking of mythical, psychological, and symbolic interpretations of old texts, have overlooked any real method.
Is there a method to be found? In what context can an objective test of any religious precept be tested? Did Christ walk on water? I don't see it as impossible that people could think this happened. Ray Bradbury does a bang-up Ascent in Graveyard for Lunatics.
None of the ancient texts can truly said to be false; I have seen no evidence that we know how to read them in order to test them.
Notes:
° this: Technically, any odd Sufi notion. Specifically, in this case, it is the confusing appearance and possible multi-presence of the Sufi.
thanx,
Tiassa