Syedana’s vision

The one and only free public forum for Bohras. The focus of this forum is the reform movement, the Dawoodi Bohra faith and, of course, the corrupt priesthood. But the discussion is in no way restricted to the Bohras alone.
qiyam
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#31

Unread post by qiyam » Thu Oct 10, 2002 3:27 pm

Dear Porus,
From your last post you still have adopted that reason is Aql...and in the Ismaili theology as you ascribe your definition..it is not. Aql is the receptive cognition of everything..including love. It is not a prerequisite that we understand or can even comprehend the facets of the concepts. We, based on our Aql (not reason), understand we are created by Allah. We have little concept in understand (imagine)Allah, yet we cannot..except what He has given us in metaphoric statements. This is comparable in example to love. We cannot is most instances define nor grasp it..other than simply as an emotion to be dealt with. But it is the Aql that allows us to recognise (cognotive) something as love...whether we understand it or not. It is thru further analysis that we define love in it various types...like your snow example.

Aql is more appropriately define as thought itself...not reason as you have adopted. And no...its is not a mystery...everything is apparent...but only to those that open their eyes. But this is what Allah describes as bringing the man from darkness into light. All humans have this ability to recognize Allah and Islam...it is removing the covers off their "eyes" for them to see what has always been there.

serendipity
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2002 4:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#32

Unread post by serendipity » Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:00 pm

Dear Br. Qiyam: Re "Buddhists have the same moral and manners upliftment and control as Ismailis profess...yet they don't believe in a supreme being of creation." This is a bit of a misnomer that has been spread for years about the Dharma. Of course there is a Supreme Being encountered in the Clear Light of the afterlife. However, if one is not able to "stay" in that Light because of karma and defilements (i.e., sin), he must depart to another "realm".

qiyam
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#33

Unread post by qiyam » Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:21 pm

Dear Serendipity,
Buddha was a man...who preach a method of life for spirtual upliftment, based on control of the body and your world around. He did not teach of a supreme being but a spirtual way of life.

Please see the following for a summary of buddhism:
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/5minbud.htm

Was salamualaykum

Muslim First
Posts: 6893
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 4:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#34

Unread post by Muslim First » Thu Oct 10, 2002 5:11 pm

How about original Post.

Does Syedana posess "vision far beyond the vision of Human being and beyond the boundary drawn by Human beings"?

To me it sounds his die-hard followers belive he posesses god-like qualities.

Any comments

qiyam
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#35

Unread post by qiyam » Thu Oct 10, 2002 5:19 pm

Dear MuslimFirst,
First you should think about what you quote versus what you commented. The words you quoted (and I quote them below) were and still today are very much applied to the Prophet as well:

“It is indeed our Moula (tus) who is revealing new shanaat everyday that lay above the reach and vision of man, far beyond boundaries drawn by human beings. May Allah Subhanahu grant our Moula a long and prosperous life. Ameen"

---you wrote that this kind of words raise Sayedna to the level of a demi-god. Would you say the same of the Prophet??

PS: just to curb you from the start...my intention was not meant to equate the Prophet to Sayedna.

Muslim First
Posts: 6893
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 4:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#36

Unread post by Muslim First » Thu Oct 10, 2002 7:13 pm

Dear br.qiyam

Prophet SAW always stopped sahab'a from praizing him or venerating him. Prophet lived a simple life. His residance was not called Mahel. He did not sit on Takht. Prophet did not have Pomp and Show. Prophet's children were not called Shahzadas and Shahzadis. Prophet did not sell titles. In prophets mosque front seats were not reserved and were not on sale. I can go on and on. (feel free to add to my list)

Why does not Syedana tell his follower to cut this XXXX out and treat him like a scholar and a leader. Don't you think he needs to study 'Sirat' of Prophet and perhaps of Imaam Ali RA and implement all that good stuff in his own life.

Perhaps you guys need to step back and stop treating him like a demi-god.

Wasalaam

qiyam
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#37

Unread post by qiyam » Thu Oct 10, 2002 8:42 pm

Dear MuslimFirst,
As you suggested let's stick to the topic...the praise of Sayenda by his followers, which is what you quoted and criticized. What goes on during milad un'nabi...in every muslim mosque, markaz, home...the hamd and praises of Rasullah. And to such not to do so is unislamic and not following the Prophet traditions. The told his followers in times of trouble say durood sharif (salawat). What is that!!! Oh Allah send peace and blessings on Muhammad and his progency as you did Ibrahim and his progency.

Perhaps you need to learn a little what a islam is and how the Prophet and Imams lived and practiced...before making half researched comments and criticizing others.

Humsafar
Posts: 2608
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2000 5:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#38

Unread post by Humsafar » Thu Oct 10, 2002 11:32 pm

There is a reason why mullahs want to include ishq (emotion) in the concept of Aql (reason). Their defence of this argument is ideological and has little to do with philosophy.

Mullahs use the hybrid concept of Aql (which includes emotion) to justify people's beleif in all kinds of irrationalities and religious mythology. Because pure Aql, they are aware, will question and negate the very foundations of religoin. Religion, especially the organised variety, has no defence against Aql.

But when Aql is presented as a mix of both reason and emotion, and when believers are told to use this Aql it becomes easier to make them believe and accept things which they normally would not in their daily life.

When mullah tells you to use Aql what infact he's telling you is do just the opposite. It's mullahspeak at its best.

porus
Posts: 3594
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#39

Unread post by porus » Fri Oct 11, 2002 1:09 am

I agree with you Humsafar. I am unable to fathom Qiyam's argument. Aql is "reason plus" which allows us to understand we are Allah's creation and yet we cannot understand Allah by the use of same faculty. Now, that is gobbledy gook!

Whatever it is that Qiyam refers to as Aql is not very evident in mankind at large. Those who have been able to know God have, to a man, confirmed that reason or reasoning faculty must be suspended in order to have experience of God.

Aql, in Ismaili Creation Myth, is the name given to first emanation, Aql Awwal. Apart from desribing a fascinating yet delusional myth, it has no significance for man in his day to day living. Its only use is to make followers admire how clever all this is because it comes from an infallibel Imam. And the myth is not clever at all, a poor adaptation from Plato, an attempt to Islamize without the Greek's rigor for logic.

Perhaps Qiyam can identify an instance of a Bohra having life-transforming experience after knowing about this Aql that he is talking about!!

Qiyam says that Aql is thought itself. Yet all traditions agree thought must be suspended to know God. Therefore, it is clear that cognisance is other than Aql. It is perhaps more primitive than the reptilian brain.

jinx
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 4:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#40

Unread post by jinx » Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:26 am

Aql, in Ismaili Creation Myth, is the name given to first emanation, Aql Awwal. Apart from desribing a fascinating yet delusional myth, it has no significance for man in his day to day living. Its only use is to make followers admire how clever all this is because it comes from an infallibel Imam. And the myth is not clever at all, a poor adaptation from Plato, an attempt to Islamize without the Greek's rigor for logic.

<B> You got that right br Porus. These are sort of thing that would impress general public. A person would not be able to answer such questions because there is no answer.

This is one of the teaching of would be Dai in Cairo. Play with words to confused people. You can refer to the Ismaili dawa manual to read more about this sort of tricks.

Complete waste of time. </B>

qiyam
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#41

Unread post by qiyam » Fri Oct 11, 2002 1:34 pm

This is cute. Mullahs (including one's like Qadi Nu'man, Sayedna Shirazi, Sayedna Sijistani, Imam Jafar Sadiq, Imam Baqir, etc) are trying to confuse you??? That's the weakest approach yet to your rebuttal.

Aql...not based on what the modern academics (which you seem to believe over eminent scholars like I have mentioned) is as Sis Jinx mention...the emination of thought. For you to think...this is Aql. For you to think of love...this is Aql.

And Br. Porus...your speaking out of context. When people don't say to know God you must suspended aql...you must suspended imagination. For it is thought which makes us cognitive of Allah to begin with.

Maybe before making cheap unsubstatiated shots at theology...you should be certain of what your talking about.

porus
Posts: 3594
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#42

Unread post by porus » Fri Oct 11, 2002 5:01 pm

Dear Qiyam,

Humans experience just one emotion. It has two sides like sides of a coin. The two sides are Fear and Love. Intense Fear at one end and Intense Love at the other end.

All other emotions are distinctions that humans make because one other faculty which also has two aspects. One is memory and the other is Reason, a faculty allowing logical thought. Together we may call this "Mind".

When mind and emotion are mixed, we can have imagination, intuition, planning, art, war and and everything.

All emotions can be plotted on an axis from fral to love. Name one say, shame, it is near fear. Another, say courage is love in face of fear and so on.

Humans are born with love and two fundamental fears, which are withholding of love. One is fear of falling and the other fear of loud noises. All the rest are learned.

What is left is perception. You percieve through five senses and then learn concepts with the aid of mind and emotion, both easily manipulated.

In this scheme of things, where does your Aql come in? Ismaili Aql itself is a product of imagination. Imagination is emotion + mind.

In this case, Jinx rightly pointed out, emotion is pleasure at controlling others and mind 's contribution is the controller's talent in manipulating emotions of his victims.

qiyam
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#43

Unread post by qiyam » Fri Oct 11, 2002 5:35 pm

Dear Br. Porus,
Again...what is your entire hypothesis basis on??? Your own statements conflict:

"Humans experience just one emotion"

then you say the one emotion has two parts love and fear

"When mind and emotion are mixed, we can have..."

There is only emotion is variation as you later admitted in your post...but we experience emotion base on thought...an emotion is a thought enacted.

Love is no different than hate...they're both emotions...none is better or worse than the other. A person can hate someone with the same intensity as one can love someone. Hate is not fear...fear itself is a form of emotion. Some fear closed spaces like elevators...this is a learned emotion of fear usually at a young age. Some people get estatic when they see chocolate..this is also learned.

Your analysis on emotion is incomplete..let alone correct. Love is also a learned emotion...just like every emotion is developed in the same manner. Some people love their father...some children who have divorce parents hate their father. Both are learned emotions related to a thing. We all are created with the ability to experience emotions...we humans classify what each one is based on our up bringing. I loves spinach...my brother hates it. It's the same house and same spinach.

An emotion is a expression of thought...through our mental and physical cognition (senses)...which is the Aql.

porus
Posts: 3594
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#44

Unread post by porus » Fri Oct 11, 2002 6:06 pm

Dear Qiyam,

Emotion can certainly be an expression of thought. In fact, in most instances it is, and is a learned behaviour. Pleasure at seeing a movie is a result of having a memory of things seen earlier.

But emotion need not result from thought. Fear, e.g., can be an instinctive reaction to danger. Many emotions linked to fear and love can be traced to our evolutionary past before neo-cortex was fully developed.

Hatred is, as you, same as Love. It is Love withheld and is an aspect of fear. Hate generally has associated desire for revenge and doing harm to the object of hatred. It can result from love withheld from the person who hates or love withheld by the hater himself.

Primal emotions are the root of human fuctioning. It is our ability to memorize emotions and associated circumstances that give us the ability to make distinctions between emotions buy giving names to these emotions.

If your aql is the same as thought + emotion, then that is fine but more rational amongst us are able to make finer distinctions. I think we can lay this to rest. As always, I will give you the last word. Thank you for participating.

qiyam
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#45

Unread post by qiyam » Fri Oct 11, 2002 6:16 pm

Dear Porus,
"But emotion need not result from thought."

--Then how do you even know your having an emotion of any kind...if you don't recognise the emotion. It is thought that allows you to know you are afraid, or in love. If you put your hand over fire...you hand would burn and your hand would hurt...but unless your brain recognized your hand burning and in pain...your brain has no reason to send a signal to move it away. The body doesn't move out of instinct...the brain signals to the nerves of the body to do things. The brains "thinks" of what is occuring and then reacts. This is using your thought process or Aql.

What you call separate entities: instinct, emotions, etc...all eminate from thought.

"If your aql is the same as thought + emotion"

---I am saying emotion eminates from thought.

Humsafar
Posts: 2608
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2000 5:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#46

Unread post by Humsafar » Fri Oct 11, 2002 7:05 pm

Here's a sufi verse (I quote from memory):

jo aql mein gir gaya woh la-intiha kyun kar hua
jo samajh mein aa gaya woh khuda kyun kar hua

The human mind is finite. It cannot know everything. Thank God for that ;-) But this is not the problem. The problem begins when scriptures and its diehard interpreters pretend to know the totality: the beginning, the end and the beyond. It this arrogance that is the source of most evil. And the mission to spread one's faith among kafirs/heathens only makes it worse.

Of course, this does not mean that religious narratives have to be scientifically true. Religious narratives - with their tenets and liturgy - give meaning and context to people's lives - as porus never tires of repeating that all religions are true in their own context.

No one religion can claim monopoly of THE truth. The longer we take to realise this the more we are destined to suffer and kill each other in the name of half-truths. Amidst all this, the petty and squalid priesthood among Bohras is almost insignificant. It is a joke, if only it were not so cruel and oppressive.

porus
Posts: 3594
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#47

Unread post by porus » Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:20 pm

Dear Qiyam,

Please understand that thought is a higher level function associated with neo-cortex. Basic anatomy of brain includes two other areas of brain which are the cortex and the primitive (reptilian or bird) brain.

Parts of brain which make you instinctively recoil from fire and similar dangers do not involve thought, a neo-cortical function, but operates in the reptilian brain of humans. This brain is present even in single-celled animals. The motor nerves associated with 'fight or flight' instinctual behavior is present in all animals who will never, as far as I know, have heard of Ismaili Aql. These animals do not think in my dictionary, but in yours they apparently are endowed with Aql. Only God knows if that is the case!

observer
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2000 5:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#48

Unread post by observer » Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:48 pm

To say the least.. I am thoroughly impressed with the level of debate on this topic and have learnt a lot. I do not have a psychology background and must admit this is all new to me and I have learnt. e.g. I did not know that one is born with a fear of falling. I thank you all for the enlightening discussion that you have provided and ask that you continue. Huzeifa and Raheel need not participate. It is nice to know that we have such intelligent people in our community and it is sad to see that they are not given a lead role to provide vision to our community and take it to the next stage. Also it is healthy to note that we can discuss and live with our differences rather than beating up people in the mosque who have a point of view different than ours. Or is it because this is anonymous. Would pororus and humsafar or jinx be beaten up in a mosque for their views here? This community is big (in the intellectual sense) and with transparency and a little democracy at the ground level we can all coexist. We can leave the dogma and the rest for the religious among us, but cannot we be a little secular and not force people to do things a certain way..like dress, beard etc. and force them to contribute large amounts of money which disappears somewhere. Can we not use the funds collected locally to help local individuals rather than be at the mercy of some amil who has no obligation to provide accounts etc. and send s the moeny Allah knows where(dogma again I guess: the dai is not answerable to his followers but only to the Imam). Let us enjoy each other and play cricket and soccer again without having to grow a beard, let us go to the mosque and madressa to build on life long relationships, let us smile when we see each other again. Let us be Bohoras like we used to be.

Khairan
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#49

Unread post by Khairan » Sat Oct 12, 2002 5:50 pm

A little scientific background for this debate:

Porus,

I must point out that your post concerning the biology of thought and emotion is either not based in biological fact, or you are using terminology that I completely do not understand.

For one thing, scientists have little to no conception of how emotion is mediated by the brain. A sub-cortical area, the limbic system, is thought to be involved, but the mechanisms are unclear. So to simplify the brain areas in the way that you have to represent emotion-thought function simply doesn't fall in line with any modern scientific paradigm.

You are correct that recoiling from fire is not a neocortical thought process, but it is in fact a spinal reflex. The nerve impulses that cause the motor action in this case never travel as far as the brain. I don't know what the "reptilian brian" you mention is - please explain...
Also, in what way is the brain present in single celled organisms? Standard definitions do not even give such relatively more complex creatures as flies and worms as having brains, so I'm confused as to your definition of "brain".

On another note, one of the scientific definitions of emotion is physical arousal associated with a psychological label. So - physiologically speaking, your body reacts to all emotions in the same way. It is your interpretation of the phsyical response that is the "emotion" (and this interpretation need not be conscious). For instance, a man with a fear of heights who meets a woman on a rickety, swaying bridge will be more likely to be attracted to that woman than a man without a fear of heights who meets the same woman (this has been done).

Another note: many animals, especially more complex ones, do think as we understand it, though they may not possess the higher cognitive functions that humans do.

khuzema
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#50

Unread post by khuzema » Sat Oct 12, 2002 11:10 pm

One can’t understand allah from aql. That does not mean we must not use our aql to understand him. Allah is above our understanding. One can never reach him by just using aql. Its not just ismailis who believe in aql, mostly all the big schloors agrees with the concept of aql.
Einstein says if there is god he should be in 4 more dimensions. This is very interesting; let me make it more clear. We can see and understand the things which are in either 1, 2, or 3 dimensions( Length, breath and height). Think of a situation that a guy can only see and understand in 2 dimensions (length and breath). The guy can see only length and breath. Now if we are explaining him about the height then it is impossible for him to understand height. Same is with human being it is impossible for us to understand some things which is more then 3 dimensions.

Now this does not mean the guy who can just see two dimensions can’t not try to understand about the 3 dimension. He won’t understand it totally but he can try to understand. He can relate the 3rd dimension with the two dimensions he know. Like he can try to understand the 3rd dimension by assuming that height is like length or breath but in some other direction. We human beings do the same by understanding god relating god with all the things which we know, to understand his jat we relate it with shifat. The guy can have a very close idea of 3 dimension if he is working hard. The only difference between the guy’s story and our own story is the guy is trying to understand the 3rd dimension, his goal is to understand one more dimension and we human being don’t even know how may dimension we need to understand allah and how much those dimensions are related to our 3 dimension ( some takes Time as 4th dimension).

That’s why at one time we need to leave our aql behind to know more about Allah. But many guys misuse these things for their selfish ends. Love come after we have all the knowledge which we can have. So some body is fooling us that means we don’t have full knowledge about him.

porus
Posts: 3594
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#51

Unread post by porus » Sun Oct 13, 2002 2:09 am

We cannot understand Allah using Aql. But we must use Aql to understand Allah!!

What a concept, Khuzema!!!

I am flummoxed? No, I am bamboozled? Not really.

That is Mulla-speak!!!!!

nausicaa
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2002 4:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#52

Unread post by nausicaa » Sun Oct 13, 2002 6:14 am

That post of Khuzema's has more holes than a block of rat-eaten swiss cheese. It would be better if he stuck to cursing. At least, he is doing what he knows best there.

nausicaa
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2002 4:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#53

Unread post by nausicaa » Sun Oct 13, 2002 6:21 am

I confused Khuzema and huzaif. My apologies. The first sentence still stands though.

-N

Muslim
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2000 5:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#54

Unread post by Muslim » Sun Oct 13, 2002 9:34 am

I would tend to agree with Khuzema’s ideas (although his first sentence is contradictory). It is impossible to fully ‘understand’ Allah because we tend to understand everything by comparing with the creation, and Allah is beyond the limits of His creation, namely space and time. Therefore, part of acknowledging His existence is acknowledging the limits of our own understanding of Him. Unfortunately, it is the anthropomorphic view which currently dominates Islamic thought. Imam Ali (AS) says in Nahjul Balaagha (s.152): He who describes Him limits Him. He who limits Him numbers Him. He who numbers Him rejects His eternity. He who said "how" sought a description for Him. He who said "where" bounded him. He is the Knower even though there be nothing to be known. He is the Sustainer even though there be nothing to be sustained. He is the Powerful even though there be nothing to be overpowered.

Humsafar
Posts: 2608
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2000 5:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#55

Unread post by Humsafar » Sun Oct 13, 2002 1:44 pm

Allah is a meta-relaity. Muslim is right, understanding him trhough anthropomorphic perspective is problematic, not to mention the widespread acceptance of his maleness.

Mullahs try in vain (if we ignore their ulterior motive for a moment) to explain God and his ways. To 'understand' and 'know' the higher being you need to be on a higher plane of consciousness. A state of transcendence beyond rationality and logic which can be achieved only through utter humility and destruction of the self - the ego.

Show me a mullah/priest with these qualities. For them the path to God is strewn with threats of hellfire and eternal damnation, with curses and condemnation. These are medieval tricks that have unfortunately sruvived, and how, to this day. The God in the popular mind is a utilitarian god - to be used like soap to clean ones 'soul' through rituals and public displays of piety.

God and religion are two different things - and mutually exclusive. It's with cruel ingenuity and shamelessnes that mullahs/priests deploy God to keep believers in eternal fear of the unknown - preventing them to shed their false consciousness and realise God.

Not before the mianrets and mosques come down
Will there be many Dervish around
Until Faith becomes Heresy
And Heresy becomes Fatih
No one will become Moslem

- Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi

Muslim
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2000 5:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#56

Unread post by Muslim » Sun Oct 13, 2002 2:59 pm

On the subject of emotion and 'aql', I am inclined to concur with the view of many here that the two are distinct and largely unconnected. I may also add that one of these may overpower the other for better or for worse. In acknowledging the existence of God and in distinguishing between right and wrong, man can only use his power of reason (aql) and not emotion.

In another narration Imam Ali says:

<blockquote>Surely God has characterized the angels by intellect without sexual desire and anger, and the animals with anger and desire without reason. He exalted man by bestowing upon him all of these qualities. Accordingly, if man's reason dominates his desire and ferocity, he rises to a station above that of the angels; because this station is attained by man in spite of the existence of hurdles which do not vex the angels.</blockquote>

porus
Posts: 3594
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#57

Unread post by porus » Sun Oct 13, 2002 4:46 pm

If that is what Ali said about angels, surely it is no fun being an angel ;) !

It is completely futile to spend time on esoteric Ismaili idea about 'Aql', which no one really understands, but mullas want to keep mysterious. Mullas do not understand that either.

Aql is simply reason which along with memory is what we can call mind. Memory of emotions associated with circumstances allow us make distinctions between emotions by giving the same "state of arousal" different names. Accomplished poet will be able to make more distinctions among different types of pleasure, than a person who has not experience vicissitudes of life. It is the same emotion but with different associations lodged in memeory.

Once in memory, reason can manipulate memory to recreate circumstances in imagination and fantasy so that they feel real. Like Ashura waez, it is simply a manipulation of mind.

Knowing God will require us to rise above both reason and emotion. Neither are useful in that enterprise. Hence the requirement for a novice in spiritual search is to quieten his mind for faculty that transcends both emotion and reason so he can access pure consciousness.

khuzema
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#58

Unread post by khuzema » Sun Oct 13, 2002 6:08 pm

Remember Mairaz of prophet Muhammad? Horse was symbol of knowledge (aql). With out horse he wouldn’t have been reached on 7th sky. After reaching a particular stage he left the horse behind, this, means he stoped understanding allah with his aql.

serendipity
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2002 4:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#59

Unread post by serendipity » Sun Oct 13, 2002 6:43 pm

I can only say that Ismaili tradition partakes of GNOSTICISM in its understanding of Aql. To KNOW (gnosis) without being able to put that into words is the very heart of the life-changing experience. Aql has been equated with the "Philosopher's Stone", the power of Transmutation. It is the root of all the SIDDHI powers in Eastern systems -- supernatural abilities which are UNDERSTOOD, although not capable of being EXPLAINED! Western mystic Jacob Boehme calls it "Magic", and says it is a Universal principle: "Everything is accomplished by it. It is of the essence of THOUGHT, tinctured by LOVE."

jinx
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 4:01 am

Re: Syedana’s vision

#60

Unread post by jinx » Mon Oct 14, 2002 4:27 am

Br Porus/Hamsafar/Observer
Still 'attempting' to debate with Qiyam? :)

Trust me...Bohra Mullahs will never ever debate with reasons, logic or Aqal but only on the philosophical level, numerology and their own 'magical' interpretations.

Oh..Well..I am looking forward to the day when the level of education and religious knowledge increases in our Bohra community…when more people will come to seek the true understanding of Islam.