From tariqas-digest-approval@europe.std.com Sun Jul 7 07:32:44 1996 Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 23:40:51 -0400 (EDT) From: tariqas-digest-approval@europe.std.com Reply-To: tariqas-digest@world.std.com To: tariqas-digest@world.std.com Subject: tariqas-digest V1 #45 tariqas-digest Wednesday, 3 July 1996 Volume 01 : Number 045 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jabriel@peoples.net Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 10:38:07 -0500 Subject: [none] ------------------------------ From: jabriel@peoples.net Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 10:48:06 -0500 Subject: [none] ------------------------------ From: "Michael J. Moore" Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 09:12:17 -0700 Subject: Re: The IDEA of nature maarof@pc.jaring.my wrote: > Salam to Tanzen and Michael > > Michael, you wrote: "The creation by it's very nature/definition must be > perceived as seperate from the creator. And anything > separate or apart from the creator must be flawed > because only the creator is perfect. This gives rise > to the notion of the 'Fallen Universe'. > > This reminds me what Asha wrote a few days ago about "complaining to God". > I wonder why one complains about anything? Is it about something unfulfil, > or one sees imperfection of things, or one sees oneself as an imperfect > creation, and thus complain this imperfection to the creator. > > But the word "creator" and "creation" might play a trick here. "A perfect > creator" and "imperfect creation" is a paradox, because it implies that > the creator is imperfect. > > The only way to "correct" this perception is to think that the creation > is perfect, but it is man's imperfection to see the perfect creation. > > salam > maarof Yes, this is all very tricky. There are a few points here. 1)Would you limit the creator to creating perfection? Could he not choose to create imperfection? Is there anything that the creator can not do? 2) Now if we see creation as perfect and man's perception as imperfect then we must ask Who created this imperfect man? I could go on, but that is enough. - -- Michael Moore see my face at http://home.aol.com/michaeljm8 ------------------------------ From: "Michael J. Moore" Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 10:07:20 -0700 Subject: Re: The IDEA of nature Hello 'only Carol', CWoodsong@aol.com wrote: > What happens within us cannot be 'forced' ... anything outside of TRUE NATURE > is false and "unnatural"... Ah, but how can anything be 'outside' of nature? Isn't everything allah's creation? Did allah create anything "unnatural"? Naturally, I think this 'un'whole idea of NATURE is a lot of hogwash. ;-) It is a fabrication, an invention, or dare I say, an inovation! Where does the Quran mention nature? - -- Michael Moore see my face at http://home.aol.com/michaeljm8 ------------------------------ From: "Michael J. Moore" Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 10:09:40 -0700 Subject: Babies without Personality Bob King wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, Michael Moore wrote: > > > Bob King wrote: > > > > > > I've never seen anyone successfully set aside a personality as if it > > > were a coat, > > > > Nor have I Bob but sleeping babies come pretty darn close! > > They are so angelic. > > Hmmm, not sure what you're getting at Michael, do say more! > > Bob I think that babies are born with very little in the way of a personality. (Moms may ignore this last statement, Your baby has a perfect little personality.) I only mean to say that babies have not established patterns of behavior based on prior experiences. The don't have a constant internal dialog. They are to a large degree still un-created pure potential. They only have little personalities that say, 'I need something' no... not even that, more like 'need on / need off'; they have not developed 'I' yet. I guess babies are people that have not put on a coat yet. - -- Michael Moore see my face at http://home.aol.com/michaeljm8 ------------------------------ From: CWoodsong@aol.com Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 14:44:12 -0400 Subject: Re: The IDEA of nature >Natural means the way, as in Tao. Spirituality means the easy way to the goal >(not that anything much is easy). > Natural means forcing something never works anyway. Weeds, gardeners say, >is just a plant out of place. Weeds aren't natural, though of course there >are times that it is a gardeners idea of "out of place" that is out of place >and so a good gardner learns from the persistence of weeds that it may be her >idea that is the weed. So a good gardner learns the easy way, the natural >way. > Sufis is just the easy way to the goal, so we call it natural. .... but, as >to the nature of IDEAS !!! > A thank you, Asha... something i can grok! ;) love, peace.. woodsong ------------------------------ From: CWoodsong@aol.com Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 14:45:12 -0400 Subject: Re: The IDEA of nature Hello, Michael! >Ah, but how can anything be 'outside' of nature? Isn't everything >allah's creation? Did allah create anything "unnatural"? >Naturally, I think this 'un'whole idea of NATURE is a lot of >hogwash. ;-) It is a fabrication, an invention, or dare I say, >an inovation! Where does the Quran mention nature? Asha's post may make more sense to you. To me "True Nature" is our "God Nature", but i don't know the Quran... or any other books, for that matter. :) ------------------------------ From: "Michael J. Moore" Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 13:07:35 -0700 Subject: Re: The IDEA of nature CWoodsong@aol.com wrote: > > Hello, Michael! > > >Ah, but how can anything be 'outside' of nature? Isn't everything > >allah's creation? Did allah create anything "unnatural"? > >Naturally, I think this 'un'whole idea of NATURE is a lot of > >hogwash. ;-) It is a fabrication, an invention, or dare I say, > >an inovation! Where does the Quran mention nature? > > Asha's post may make more sense to you. To me "True Nature" is our "God > Nature", but i don't know the Quran... or any other books, for that matter. > :) Indeed! It seems, if I understand correctly, that Asha as defined nature as 'the most straight path'. I like it. And as for reading the Quran, don't bother. At least not until You understand the life of the Prophet. Quran taken out of context will yeild the wrong meaning. Or so my shaykh tells me. But, my point was that the IDEA of nature is a relatively new invention. I could be wrong on this point and will ask those who really know history (myself being quite an amature) to give discourse on when the idea of 'a natural vs non-natural' world crept into our collective consciousness. I would imagine that it came with the advent 'science'. - -- Michael Moore http://home.aol.com/michaeljm8 ------------------------------ From: Frank Gaude Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 14:36:21 -0700 Subject: Re: The IDEA of nature Hello, folks! Michael J. Moore wrote: > > Hello 'only Carol', > > CWoodsong@aol.com wrote: > > > What happens within us cannot be 'forced' ... anything outside of TRUE NATURE > > is false and "unnatural"... > > Ah, but how can anything be 'outside' of nature? Isn't everything > allah's creation? Yes, everything we know and understand is Allah's creation, but what about the domain of the un-create... of course, we would not call such un-nature, or non-natural! It's simply an aspect of the unknowable. Words are of the intellect, but to know the whole, That love, requires more than reason, intelligence, i.e, the head, brain and mind; but, requires intuition, stillness, the heart, spirit. > Did allah create anything "unnatural"? Until we enter the land beyond pure land, past Ring of Fire, into Clear Light, how would we know? > Naturally, I think this 'un'whole idea of NATURE is a lot of > hogwash. ;-) You mean like a lot of horse feathers? > It is a fabrication, an invention, or dare I say, an inovation! There is not one thing I can think of that doesn't fall into these categories. >Where does the Quran mention nature? Well, indirectly, Ar-Rum (The Romans), verse 30, applies: Then set your face upright for religion in the right state--the nature made by Allah in which He has made men; there is no altering of Allah's creation; that is the right religion but most people do not know-- Another translation of the same verse: So keep yourself exclusively on the way, the creational law of God according to which He created man with the quality of choosing right or wrong. There is no altering of God's creation. This is the supreme law. But most men do not understand. >From these two Arabic-to-English translations one gets the feeling that the "unseen" is not too easy to put into words. And the Arabic used by Archangel Gabreil wouldn't be of much use in today's culture. Wonder if he knows... sure he knows modern American English! Say, you being a student of Gurdjieff, you likely have a short way to describe Ray of Creation and its meaning? I have been working on such for awhile now and dare not post it as it seems so long, and I don't have permission, yet. You have a short version? > -- > Michael Moore see my face at http://home.aol.com/michaeljm8 Man, I did see your face and upper body, and what an uptown dud you be! You trying out for a Hollywood part? But it's okay, being a Unix (Linux) person myself. O Lord, send Thy peace that our lives may become a divine vision, and in Thy light all darkness may vanish. tanzen ------------------------------ From: Frank Gaude Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 14:50:25 -0700 Subject: Re: The IDEA of nature Michael J. Moore wrote: > > maarof@pc.jaring.my wrote: > > > Salam to Tanzen and Michael > > > > Michael, you wrote: "The creation by it's very nature/definition must be > > perceived as seperate from the creator. And anything > > separate or apart from the creator must be flawed > > because only the creator is perfect. This gives rise > > to the notion of the 'Fallen Universe'. > > > > This reminds me what Asha wrote a few days ago about "complaining to God". > > I wonder why one complains about anything? Is it about something unfulfil, > > or one sees imperfection of things, or one sees oneself as an imperfect > > creation, and thus complain this imperfection to the creator. You complain to God for such is the only way to obtain relief. For, what else can alter our conditions? > > But the word "creator" and "creation" might play a trick here. "A perfect > > creator" and "imperfect creation" is a paradox, because it implies that > > the creator is imperfect. Simplyy points of view coming from seeing "small picture". > > The only way to "correct" this perception is to think that the creation > > is perfect, but it is man's imperfection to see the perfect creation. Pray, let us begin to see a "bigger picture". We have been given the tools to do it... > Yes, this is all very tricky. There are a few points here. > > 1)Would you limit the creator to creating perfection? Could he not choose to > create imperfection? Is there anything that the creator can not do? Perfection is just a word to point to Absolute... we have no idea what it is. Just words, words... is there any thing one can see with physical eyes that coudl be called "perfect". I know of nothing... if anyone does, please point it out so I can go out and see. By human definition God is IT, period. Anything and everything goes, depending upon from what level you be acting. > 2) Now if we see creation as perfect and man's perception as imperfect then > we must ask Who created this imperfect man? The whole is perfect, aspects of the whole seem incomplete, thus imperfect. With patience we find a bigger picture, and finally, The Picture... but how would this poor soul know? > I could go on, but that is enough. Yes, the horse has no remaining flesh... just feathers! O Lord, our Father and Mother, Cosmic Birther without gender, send Thy peace, that we Thy children on earth may all unite into one family, if it be Thy Will. Amin. tanzen ------------------------------ From: maarof@pc.jaring.my Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 06:11:23 +0800 Subject: Re: The IDEA of nature On Wed, 03 Jul 1996, "Michael J. Moore" wrote: > >Yes, this is all very tricky. There are a few points here. > >1)Would you limit the creator to creating perfection? Could he not choose to >create imperfection? Is there anything that the creator can not do? > >2) Now if we see creation as perfect and man's perception as imperfect then >we must ask Who created this imperfect man? > >I could go on, but that is enough. >-- >Michael Moore see my face at http://home.aol.com/michaeljm8 > Yes, it is very tricky and my brain is not up to this task, however... The nature of the creation might be imperfect, but, the creation is never imperfect. There is a difference: 1. creating something without knowing a flaw in it, and 2. creating something and purposely making it imperfect. The first one is an imperfect creation, and this is contrary to the idea of a perfect creator. But the second one, only the nature of creation is imperfect, the creation itself is perfect. I'll give myself a break and look again at that rugs you display :) salam maarof ------------------------------ From: "Michael J. Moore" Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 16:01:49 -0700 Subject: Re: The IDEA of nature > Say, you being a student of Gurdjieff, you likely have a short way to describe > Ray of Creation and its meaning? I have been working on such for awhile now and > dare not post it as it seems so long, and I don't have permission, yet. You have > a short version? Naw, I think the only short version would have to be a Vulcan mind meld. Even that would not work as I believe the meaning to be only acceptable to the emotional center. It should be grocked by the mental section of the emotional center. > > > -- > > Michael Moore see my face at http://home.aol.com/michaeljm8 > > Man, I did see your face and upper body, and what an uptown dud you be! You > trying out for a Hollywood part? But it's okay, being a Unix (Linux) person > myself. What you don't see in the picture is that I am completely naked below the belt. 8-) Not really. Actually the picture was taken in Monterey California just prior to attending my wife's 20 year highschool reunion. Perhaps me in a tie-dye would be a better representation. Does anybody else have pictures? If so, please attach and send to me if you care to share. It is always fun to see people! > - -- Michael Moore see my face at http://home.aol.com/michaeljm8 ------------------------------ From: maarof@pc.jaring.my Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 07:08:16 +0800 Subject: Re: My interpretation On Wed, 3 Jul 1996, Well333@turbonet.com (Jacquie Weller) wrote: >1. No, I do not have to do anything to get love. > Love is free, God freely gives love, God is love, > Love is God, and Love is God in me. Dear Lalla I read somewhere about a story of a sufi who fainted when someone mentioned the word "Allah" to him. That must an extreme love of The Beloved. I am still at the early stage of just learning the word "compassion" on this path of Love. Insha-Allah, I'll move and experience "the feeling of love toward the Beloved". Your words are beautiful to me. your brother maarof ------------------------------ From: maarof@pc.jaring.my Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 08:39:08 +0800 Subject: Re: The IDEA of nature On Wed, 03 Jul 1996, Frank Gaude wrote: >Perfection is just a word to point to Absolute... we have no idea what it is. >Just words, words... is there any thing one can see with physical eyes that >coudl be called "perfect". I know of nothing... if anyone does, please point it >out so I can go out and see. > Dear Tanzen The sun is at a perfect distance, so that life can exist here on Earth. The solitary moon is there, just perfect, for the tide to to form, and help to sustain life on our planet. So does the size of the Earth, to poduce the perfect affect of gravity. It seemed so natural, so perfect and so absent, that we hardly notice it. The idea of not noticing IT, is the "one" I'm pointing out. salam maarof ------------------------------ From: Steve Phillips Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 21:40:08 +0000 Subject: Re: Perfection maarof@pc.jaring.my wrote: > The nature of the creation might be imperfect, but, the creation is never > imperfect. There is a difference: > 1. creating something without knowing a flaw in it, and > 2. creating something and purposely making it imperfect. How do we know that there is any imperfection in creation? It seems that claiming something is imperfect is a value judgement, and I'm not sure I trust the human capacity for accuracy. Of course some things are not to our liking, and we think there are possible improvements that could be made, however, it does not mean that we are right. All of the molecules in the body of a child suffering from leukemia are perfect, just like the molecules in the body of a healthy child. Who knows how the diseased child looks to the creator? And beyond that, we think death and disease are terrible things (and they are, by our judgement), but who knows how they look "in reality". Since life is transient, but a phase of our existence, I don't see that we should take our own "judgements" to heart. Listening to the voice of god is wisdom. just thoughts. steve ------------------------------ From: Frank Gaude Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 19:11:19 -0700 Subject: Re: The IDEA of nature maarof@pc.jaring.my wrote: > > On Wed, 03 Jul 1996, Frank Gaude wrote: > > >Perfection is just a word to point to Absolute... we have no idea what it is. > >Just words, words... is there any thing one can see with physical eyes that > >could be called "perfect". I know of nothing... if anyone does, please point it > >out so I can go out and see. > The sun is at a perfect distance, so that life can exist here on Earth. Come on, dear maarof! The sun could be all "over the place" and still we would have life here on earth, just as we have. Perfection implies "no other"... But I do accept your understanding in this case of perfect, such is a good way of "seeing". I like it, I like it! > The solitary moon is there, just perfect, for the tide to form, and help to > sustain life on our planet. So does the size of the Earth, to produce the perfect > affect of gravity. The numbers could change somewhat in these cases but nothing else would. > It seemed so natural, so perfect and so absent, that we > hardly notice it. The idea of not noticing IT, is the "one" I'm pointing out. Yes. Now as we get sentient: perfection is everywhere: in a child's face, in a flower's design and aroma, in an old Beattle's song, in a Bach piece... but I think we both know that words are words... we see in something what our beings permit us to see, get out of something what is in it for us, individually and collectively. God, this place is perfectly beautiful. But this will pass... Peace, tanzen ------------------------------ From: Fred Rice Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 12:28:12 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: your mail Dear Jabriel, Assalamu alaikum, Recently, your posts to tariqas (and your email to me) have been blank! I hope you can fix your problem soon. :) Peace, Fariduddien On Wed, 3 Jul 1996 jabriel@peoples.net wrote: ------------------------------ From: Steve H Rose Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 23:25:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Personal and public discussions Assalamu alaikum. On Sun, 30 Jun 1996 maarof@pc.jaring.my wrote: > > > On Sat, 29 Jun 1996, Steve H Rose wrote: > [...] > >What we have formed here in tariqas is something of a community, with > >people who have at least a bit of familiarity with each other (or at least > >each other's words -- which may or may not be the same thing). Perhaps we > >should use the same consideration in sharing things in tariqas that we > >might have in sharing in public -- let's say in a dining room -- in our > >community (of friends, Insh'Allah). Some things are better shared in > >open, while some things might be better dealt with by holding the > >discussions privately. > > Salam to Habib > > I read your words and I find it against the spirit of the guideline for > tariqas-list i.e mainly sharing from the experience of the hearts. > > I agree, that there's a difference between personal chats and group chats, but > ... some of them i find really come from the heart. > > So, in light of being said here... I don't know whether this is a pesonal chat > or suitbale for the list. I appreciate this feedback. From my perspective, the most important thing is sharing from the experience of the hearts. ANY topic which members feel drawn to share, from their heart, is appropriate for this list. What I was sugggesting in the note you responded to was exercising some care in what is shared with the whole list. I guess I'm suggesting that people be aware of what is and is not appropriate to share at different times and places. It is similar to developing tact -- or adab -- both of which I'm working on. So, perhaps I'm partly talking to myself in making this suggestion! I don't know that acting with this awareness is necessarily contradictory to sharing from our hearts -- but I'm aware that it may seem so. I'm also aware that I may be totally contradicting myself here -- and, if so, it wouldn't be the first time! As I understand my own process in responding to tariqas messages, I tend to respond from the heart -- but I sometimes exercise a lot of care and thought as to how I word things. Insh'Allah, I try to only share when it would be useful (although many times I end up writing because I'm craving attention and love to hear myself talk). I think that the function of the mind is to assist, Insh'Allah, in achieving the goals of the heart. Anyway, I'll shut up now. Thanks for sharing! Yours, Habib ------------------------------ From: Well333@turbonet.com (Jacquie Weller) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 20:38:00 +0100 Subject: Re: your mail > >Dear Jabriel, Assalamu alaikum, > >Recently, your posts to tariqas (and your email to me) have been >blank! > >I hope you can fix your problem soon. :) > >Peace, > >Fariduddien > > > >On Wed, 3 Jul 1996 jabriel@peoples.net wrote: > > > ------------------------------ From: Steve H Rose Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 23:40:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Personal and public discussions Assalamu alaikum. On Sun, 30 Jun 1996 CWoodsong@aol.com wrote: [snip] > I think i've seen some of those medicine healers here. Brother Jabriel told > me just after i met him, and i will never forget... that we could let our > hair down, afterall, it's not like we're not related! And dear sister Kaffea > has opened a window to her heart through her loving posts about the beloved > husband of her daughter! I am honored and pleased to be a part of their > lives... They have CREATED commnuity here. We can talk all day about this > or that philosophy or idea, but where does that get us? I want to get to the > HEART level... > > If i have offended anyone by holding on over bumpy ground... or being too > intimate, i apologize... but i pray we can learn to understand and appreciate > one another here... afterall... if not here, where? Thank you very much, dear friend, for these beautiful words. I was wrong. The most important thing is the willingness of the members of this list to take a chance and share with one another. Thank you for helping me to see that. Yours, Habib ------------------------------ End of tariqas-digest V1 #45 ****************************