“Read! In the Name of your Lord, who created (all that exists); created man from a drop. Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous” (Qur’an 96:1-3).
This seems to say something about my earlier q's about the perspective on how the living entity relates to god
However there is also the caution to allow disbelievers in Islam their own form of worship.
Say: "Disbelievers! I do not worship what you worship nor do you worship what I worship. I shall never worship what you worship You have your own religion and I have mine." (109:1-6).
Does it say anything about the destinations of persons who are not worshipping god or gods differently? In the vedas theer are a myriad of destinations available, but they all come within the range of the material creation, ie temporary hells and heavens - if one wants the eternal realm than that requires the complete attraction to god through his service - and that's why it is advocated that it is not such an easy thing (one can make gradual advancement over many millions of lifetimes) so therefore there is a sliding scale represented in the vedas, like a ladder with diferent rungs of "noble" activities culminated in pure unmotivated devotional service to the personal form of god
“ (BTW -How do you relate to the concept of loving god? What do you make of rumi? ) ”
"Those who truly believe love God the most." 2:165
The worship of God in Islam is best accomplished through faith and charity.
"It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteous is the one who believes in Allah, and the Last Day, and the angels and the Book and the prophets and gives away wealth out of love for Him (God) to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask and sets slaves free and who is instant in prayer, and giveth the alms; and those who fulfil their promise when they promise, and the patient in adversity and affliction and in time of violence, these are they who are true..." 2:177
So charity etc is established as noble, and even as a symptom of one loving god, but is teher are more clearer scriptural quote that clearly establishes that charity etc is the topmost
In BG there is
: Arjuna inquired: Which are considered to be more perfect, those who are always properly engaged in Your devotional service or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?
BG 12.2: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Those who fix their minds on My personal form and are always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith are considered by Me to be most perfect.
and
For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.
BG 12.6-7: But those who worship Me, giving up all their activities unto Me and being devoted to Me without deviation, engaged in devotional service and always meditating upon Me, having fixed their minds upon Me, O son of Pṛthā — for them I am the swift deliverer from the ocean of birth and death.
which distinguishes between charity etc done for god and charity done for the sake of charity
further more there are character references so one can distinguish whether one is a cheap worshipper and a sincere one
One who is not envious but is a kind friend to all living entities, who does not think himself a proprietor and is free from false ego, who is equal in both happiness and distress, who is tolerant, always satisfied, self-controlled, and engaged in devotional service with determination, his mind and intelligence fixed on Me — such a devotee of Mine is very dear to Me.
BG 12.15: He for whom no one is put into difficulty and who is not disturbed by anyone, who is equipoised in happiness and distress, fear and anxiety, is very dear to Me.
BG 12.16: My devotee who is not dependent on the ordinary course of activities, who is pure, expert, without cares, free from all pains, and not striving for some result, is very dear to Me.
BG 12.17: One who neither rejoices nor grieves, who neither laments nor desires, and who renounces both auspicious and inauspicious things — such a devotee is very dear to Me.
BG 12.18-19: One who is equal to friends and enemies, who is equipoised in honor and dishonor, heat and cold, happiness and distress, fame and infamy, who is always free from contaminating association, always silent and satisfied with anything, who doesn't care for any residence, who is fixed in knowledge and who is engaged in devotional service — such a person is very dear to Me.
BG 12.20: Those who follow this imperishable path of devotional service and who completely engage themselves with faith, making Me the supreme goal, are very, very dear to Me.
What is the last day? What is the angle on angels? (or for that matter the natur e of living entities beside humans and gods (higher beings /lower beings)?
Rumi was a Sufi mystic.
Dervishes—the name given to initiates of Sufi orders—believe that love is a projection of the essence of God to the universe. They believe God desires to recognize beauty by looking at himself within the dynamics of nature. Divine love is not restricted to what the term "love of God" implies, it also includes human loves with a perspective that views everything a manifestation of God.
So what is the difference between the love of two persons and a person who loves god - also its not clear to me how the concept of love can be applied to god unless there is some "object of beloved" ie clear cut distinction between the person offering the love and the person receiving it - ie reciprocation betwen two persons - like for instance we can say " I love the sky" but it would maybe be more accurate to say we are in awe of the sky or something because the framework for love doesn't exist between teh sky and a person
Are the same concepts, or even the general thread of loving allah carried through to other strains of islam - is a muslim expected to "love" allah - in those exact words (Maybe I could be chasing red herings if the word for love in the original got saddled with this english translation )
The central doctrine of Sufism, sometimes called Wahdat or Unity, is the understanding of Tawhid: all phenomena are manifestations of a single reality, or Wujud (being), or al-Haq (Truth, God). The essence of being/Truth/God is devoid of every form and quality, and hence unmanifested, yet it is inseparable from every form and phenomenon either material or spiritual. It is often understood to imply that every phenomenon is an aspect of Truth and at the same time attribution of existence to it is false. The chief aim of all Sufis then is to let go of all notions of duality, therefore the individual self also, and realize the divine unity.
Any clues on the nature of that unity?
There is a similar notion in the vedas called simultaneous oneness and difference, like heat is simultaneously one with the fire (it is a direct effect of fire, ie its existence is contigent on the fire) yet it is different from the fire (ie it is distinct - you can qualify the heat and conceive of it as a seperate phenomena from the fire) - in other words there is no question of seperating the heat of the fire from the fire, but you can distinguish between the two on a conceptual level (seperate the cause from the effect)
So to say that the material beauty is somehow simulaneously one with yet different from the beauty of god, what does that mean to you(or maybe you don't work out of the sufi paradigm)
- inother words what constitues the reality of this world and what constitutes the illusion?
No, like I said God has no image in Islam, so I'm guessing dandruff is out.
Thats a good sign
“ Brahman is eternity - the realm of brahman is described as the brahmajyoti and its qualities are where the knower, the object of knowledge and knowledge itself are the same thing - in other words thyere is no concept of individuality - other places it is described as merging into a light. ”
Thats interesting. There is a verse in which a parable is used to describe God as light.
God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! (24:35)
The light of impersonal brahman is accepted as the effulgence from the body of god - inother words it is transcendental - what do you make of the light upon light thing from the koran?
“ Of the 5 types of liberation one is to enter the brahmajyoti, but this is refered to as the crocadile mouth of liberation - because there is no opportunity for the loving service of god in the brahmajyoti (its all homogenous) - even though the brahmajyoti is eternity - it is not an eternal abode for liberation because the living entity cannot eternally reside in an abode that is bereft of engagement - so the idea is that a living entity, upon attaining the brahmajyoti, falls down to the material world since they are einevitable attracted to the inferior atmsphere due to a lack of engagement. ”
Why are there 5 types of liberation (is this what is called as Mukti)?
they are different environments of liberation- the following is taken from a q/a thread on liberation at
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/bhaktiyoga/philosophy.htm
salokya--living on the same planet; sarsti--having the same opulence; samipya--to be a personal associate; sarupya--having the same bodily features; ekatvam--oneness; api--also; uta--even; diyama--nam--being offered; na--not; grhnanti--do accept; vina--without; mat--My; sevanam--devotional service; janah--pure devotees.
A pure devotee does not accept any kind of liberation--salokya, sarsti, samipya, sarupya or ekatva--even though they are offered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
and also
My devotees, who are always satisfied to be engaged in My loving service, are not interested even in the four principles (***remember the first one is rejected because it offers no opportunity for service - and service = love***) of liberation [salokya, sarupya, samipya and sarsti], although these are automatically achieved by their service. What then is to be said of such perishable happiness as elevation to the higher planetary systems?
Its kind of like when you order a meal at a restaurant you don't have to say "can I please have that on a plate" because it is atomatically assumed that a meal must come on a plate - similarly, for one who already achieves the devotional service of the LOrd there is no question of desiring liberation because one operates automatically on the platform of liberation - inother words whether a devotee is in a material heaven or hell, or even the eternal spiritual realm, it makes no difference - of course this is a very exulted position, and the genral rule, particularly for persons struggling with illusion like myself, is that they should develop the desire to attain the spiritual realm (since at the moment we tend to think there is more value in god's illusory energy) - but this information is given so we canknow what is the perfectional stage of religion.
God is defined as Truth in the Quran. The search for God (i.e. truth) is the pursuit of Knowledge (by the study of creation) which is incomplete unless it is utilised in Action (or the application of knowledge to make a better, more fulfilling life).
How does studying the creation of god lead to knowledge or convictionof god's existence? I was trying to raise this q earlier - inother words what is the applicaion of knowledge aspect in islam.
In the vedas there are three break downs of knowledge - sambandha, abhidea and praojana (a paradigm that can be applied to any field of knowledge), namely knowledge of relationships, application and the fruit of application (or in this sense the goal of life) - so the first is the theoretical knowledge taht one is constitutionally an eternal servant of god (despite whatever one has or will do under the pushings of illusion) - the application is devotional service to god (beginning with hearing and chanting and leading to serving) - and the goal is love of godhead
“ Maybe I explained that above, unless my weakness as an academic, namely the ability to render simple things incomprehensible, got the better of me. ”
Nah, I have it on good authority that I'm witless. Don't worry, I've lost touch with Hindu philosophy and there are so many concepts, I want to be sure I'm not confused.
Actually popular hinduism has degenerated to an orthapraxy rather than an orthodxy - inothewords there is no philosophical basis and it has become more an issue of put your flowers here put your incense there pay your obeisnaces here and put your coin in the box over there - in other words there is no phlosophy and it has become more an issue of doing the ritual correctly to determine one's religious success.
“ So if you are faced with two or more options, and all of them are technically within the folds of scriptural injunctions, how do you allocate one option as composed of superior value to another (even if it just for the sake of your own personal life)? ”
By consultation:
"(Believers are those) who run their affairs by consultation among themselves." (42:38)
"And consult them (O Prophet) in matters (of public concern)." (3:159)
ho do you consult? what if there is no one to consult?
“ Maybe we could saturate this thread in theistic discussion for a change ”
Good idea.
Ignoring Q was a good idea - it would great if there was an ignore option for threads - so you can ignore certain people on certain threads
In case you were curious he hasn't really got anything new to say
