(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Many "occult" teachings state that one can learn all the "secrets" of creation by studying nature. The alchemists say that the truth is "hid in plain sight.
[Comment - Is the purpose of creation to learn all the secrets of creation? There is a difference between the occult perspective and the spiritual perspective, and one of the major distinctions is that occult paths tend to be preoccuipied with acquiring powers (especially in relation to nature and other human beings) rather than seeking the Truth concerning one's own essential identity, unique spiritual capacity, and the duties of care toward Divinty, ourselves, and the rest of Creation which arise out of the latter sort of knowledge and understanding.
Sufi shaykhs make a distinction between worldly kashf (unveiling) and spiritual kashf. One should avoid the former as much as possible while pursuing the latter without ceasing. Worldly kashf (e.g., reading other people's minds, seeing at a distance, projection of thought, pre-cognition, bringing forms into creation) has absolutely no spiritual value even though people are very impressed when ever they witness such phenomena.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) We cannot "rush" the process. Nature's greatest secrets are always close to us. In Nature, God is made manifest in all his many faces. Nature is the organ which proclaims the creator. It is important to learn everything you can about the physical world before you begin to investigate the spirit world because "there are innumerable realms in the unseen world, some of them far more dangerous than the worst jungles of the visible world." [Chittick] Once you have learned about the physical world, many things about the spiritual world which have been inexplicable will then be understood.
[Comment - Is it really important to learn everything about the physical world or cosmos? To be sure, one needs to learn enough to survive and get on in the physical world and to, thereby, create the sort of “space” one needs to explore the spiritual realm, but it is the latter which illuminates the physical realm, not vice versa.
The expression ‘As above, so below’ indicates that if we understand the former, we will understand the latter’. The way of Being doesn't necessarily work in the opposite direction even though many people believe this is so.
Although one is encouraged to contemplate the signs within us and on the horizons, as a way of beginning the process of gaining insight, experiencing the benefits of spiritual journey, and bearing witness to the manner in which Divinity's Presence manifests Itself as the Universe, nevertheless, attempting to learn everything about the physical world first is a way to become diffused and confused about the purpose of life. There are signs of God's immanence everywhere, but the greatest signs of that Presence is within.]
(From Cassiopaeans) All there is is lessons. This is one infinite school. There is no other reason for anything to exist. Even inanimate matter learns it is all an "Illusion." Each individual possesses all of creation within their minds. Now, contemplate for a moment. Each soul is all powerful and can create or destroy all existence if [they] know how. You and us and all others are interconnected by our mutual possession of all there is. You may create alternative universes if you wish and dwell within. You are all a duplicate of the universe within which you dwell. Your mind represents all that exists. It is "fun" to see how much you can access.
[Comment - Is that the purpose of life - to see how much we can access, or does this lead away from the central purpose of life? Does seeing how much we can access disperse one's spiritual potential rather than gather, focus and concentrate that potential? One of the differences between so-called 'normal' and 'coherent' light is that the former is moving in different directions, while the latter is unified in its activity.
What, really, does it mean to say that all is an 'Illusion'. What kind of an illusion? Why does the illusion exist? What underwrites that illusion, and what perpetuates it? What is the Reality which is veiled by that illusion, or are the Cassiopaeans saying there is no such thing as Reality. On the other hand, if there is a Reality, perhaps all that Is is not an illusion but, rather, the manifestations of Divinty which we do not recognize as such ... which suggests that what is illusory is our understanding.]
(From Cassiopaeans) A: All. Challenges are fun. Where do you think the limit of your mind is?
Q: (L) Where?
A: We asked you.
Q: (L) Well, I guess there is no limit.
A: If there is no limit, then what is the difference between your own mind and everything else?
Q: (L) Well, I guess there is no difference if all is ultimately one.
A: Right. And when two things each have absolutely no limits, they are precisely the same thing.
[Comment - As anyone who has even dabbled in the mathematics of infinity appreciates, one cannot necessarily claim that if two things have absolutely no limits, then, they are precisely the same thing. This was the whole point of Cantor's mapping demonstration involving natural numbers, and, then, real numbers - the two sets are not co-extensive even though they both give expression to infiinte members.
Moroever, when the mystics refer to the spiritual condition of having realized the Oneness of Being, they are not saying that we are Divinity - although we are not other than Divinity. In essence, all of Creation is Divine, but the Divine Essence transcends the essence of Creation even as It permits the latter to be manifested.
As with mathematics, there can be more than one kind of infinity. Divinity is one kind of infinity (and Hilbert space is but an infinitesimal point in relation to the infinity of Divinity), and human kind represents another kind of infinity which is encompassed by the larger, Divine infinity.]
(From Cassiopaeans) - A: You would not exist if someone didn't "dream you up."
Q: (L) Who dreamed me up?
A: You literally are the "figments" of someone's imagination, and nothing more!!! Remember, "God" is really all existence in creation, in other words, all consciousness. This is because all existence in creation is consciousness, and vice versa.
[Comment - Who is the ‘someone’ in relation to Whom we are but a figment of imagination? One cannot reduce Divinity to Creation, but rather Creation is the Created ideational template through which Divinity manifests the Hidden Treasure in this realm.
Everything is not reducible to consciousness. Consciousness is only one of the qualities which Divinity makes possible. One, for example, can have awareness without understanding, and, as well, one can have knowledge without awareness.
Consciousness cannot be reduced to Knowledge, and Knowledge cannot be reduced to Consciousness. Similarly, Divine Light cannot be reduced to either consciousness or knowledge, and vice versa. These are all different attributes of Divinity, and although Divinity is One, the attributes are not interchangeable - they are what they are, and they were Divinely intended to be different one from the other.
Finally, what does it mean to say that one is a figment of Someone's imagination and nothing more? What is the meaning and significance of this rider "nothing more"? How can one add such a rider until one understands either the Someone Whose Imagination we are a figment of, or until one understands the Himma or Aspiration out of which this figment was forthcoming?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The Secrets of Nature are there for all to see. Nature is its own Priestess/Teacher. She initiates and shows her inner sanctum to those who search and labor in the "vineyard." Even the most wholesome herb can, through lack of knowledge of its power, turn into a dangerous poison. It is the nature of the moth to fly into the flame because it lacks the knowledge of what effect the flame has. It is the nature of a spider to spin a web. It is the nature of the cat to torture the mouse before eating it. It is the nature of some creatures to eat their own young. It is the nature of the Black Widow and the Preying mantis to eat their mates during the act of mating.
[Comment - Nature teaches only what Divinity has placed therein for Nature to Communicate. Nature teaches according to the woof and warp of the play of the Divine Names and the Divine Names play in accordance with the Himma of “I was a Hidden Treasure and loved to be known, so I brought forth Creation.
All of Creation has a fitra or primordial nature. However, Divinity cannot be reduced down to the fitra of Creation. There is a difference between Creator and Created even as there is an initimate unity which links the 'two' as One.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) We have already mentioned the fact that the Sufis, using Islam as their operational platform, refer to something that amounts to an "inclusive principle". The Sufis refer to the "qualities" or "essences," as the "Names" of God. A "name" is thus a "principle/function." These names include: Alive, Knowing, Life Giver, Slayer, Powerful, Weak, Forgiving, Vengeful, Mercy, Compassion, and so on.
[Comment - Who said that the Sufis use Islam as an operational platform? What is the proof of this?
Ibn al-‘Arabi - whom Laura and company seem to like quite a lot - never gave any indication, whatsoever, that he was merely using Islam as an operational platform, and why would he do that when the Qur'an, itself, - to which ibn al-'Arabi subscribed - indicated that it was God who gave the name Islam, not human beings? The Sufi path is not something separate from, or which originated independently of, Islam.
The Sufi path is the esoteric dimension of Islam. Of course, such a claim is quite inconvenient for Laura because it doesn't sit well with her attitude toward religion, but, then, Islam is not a religion - it is a Deen ... that is a way, path and/or method for realizing truth, reality, identity, capacity, and purpose.
Any 'right' thinking person can be nothing but embarassed, saddened, and outraged at the travesties which have been perpetrated in the name of religion - whether through Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, and so on. But, as a popular song indicates - "I'm not afraid of your Yahweh ... I'm not afraid of your Allah ... I'm not afraid of your Jesus; I'm just afraid of what you do in the name of your God." The problem is not with what has been Divinely given, but, rather, the problem is with what human beings have done to that which has been Divinely given.
Hypocrisy consists in saying one thing outwardly, while doing another thing either inwardly or doing another thing out of the sight of those before whom one has said something publicly For Sufis to latch onto Islam as an operational platform, would be sheer hypocrisy.
Sufi practitioners observe the five pillars because they bow to the idea that such pillars give expression to certain dimensions of the Truth, as well as serve to so many ways to instantiate the Presence of Divinty in everyday life. Sufi practitioners have accept the basic principles of bearing witness to the Truth via the different modalities of iman, or faith, not as a result of blind belief and dogma but becuase of lived realizations concerning different facets of iman.
Sufis may have exercised caution with respect to some of what they said and wrote in order to avoid, as much as possible, becoming entangled in the witch hunts of the so-called orthodoxy (which usually means someone's self-serving reference to their own brand of dogma). However, exercising caution does not include saying that the Sufi path is a part of Islam when such is not the case.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) For example: the Name "Alive" designates the "precondition" for the existence of ALL the names, and is thus at the top of the "scale." It is ALL INCLUSIVE. The Sufis then go on to postulate that KNOWLEDGE is born from Alive and it includes AWARENESS of all the other names as intrinsic to its own Existence. Knowledge, as an all-inclusive principle, necessitates knowledge of ALL.
[Comment - The Names are but manifestations which the Essence has made possible. Each of the Names has a role to play in the Divine Himma or Aspiration. It is the Essence which is the ‘precondition’ for the existence of ALL the names.
The Alive is not all inclusive, for it only gives expression to those dimensions of Being which have to do with the quality or attribute of Aliveness. Moreover, before one begins saying what the Alive is and isn’t, one ought to understand that one knows about the Alive only what God permits.
Furthermore, on what is Laura basing the conjecture that the Alive includes Awareness? Names are a way of talking about what God makes manifest on different levels of created being. What is all-inclusive is the Name ALLAH, not ALIVE. In addition, ALLAH is only all inclusive with respect to what the Divine Essence or Dhat placed within the realm of that all-inclusive Name.
Finally, Knowledge only indicates a knowledge of all when considered from the perspective of the One Who is Omniscient. Humans are not omniscient, but, rather, we know according to our capacity and what God permits to be poured into that capacity.]
We also know that the knowledge of the name of Knowing is more inclusive in connections and more tremendous in compass than the name of Powerful or Desiring, since these names have less inclusive connections than Knowing. They are like gate-keepers for Knowing. There is a similar situation to be seen in the fact that the name of Hearing, Seeing, Thankful, Clemency, Compassion, and other similar names, are less inclusive in connection. All of them stand lower than Knowing. [Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge]
[Comment - Who is the 'we' who allegedly knows this, and how do 'we' know that what is being claimed is authentic knowledge? Chittick is introducing his own hermeneutic here.
The other names are not gate-keepers for the quality of Knowing. Chittick is introducing divisions and distinctions that are arbitrary and which he is imposing onto Reality. The Names work in Harmony to give expression to the Divine Himma underlying Creation.
Knowing the nature of Hearing is not the same as Hearing, for if it were, there would be no need to talk about the two when one would do. There is Knowledge of Hearing because Hearing is one of the qualities which Divinity has made manifest. The former and the latter co-exist, and neither is prior, for all the Names come together, and are together, in Unity, but, sometimes, one aspect of that Unity is given emphasis, rather than another.
Hearing is not ontologically derived from God’s Knowledge, and the latter did not ontologically precede the quality of Hearing. The notion of tawhid or Divine Unity does not lend support to such a hermeneutical parsing of Reality, but, rather, Hearing and Knowledge refer to different aspects of the Unity which is given expression through the all-inclusive Name: Allah.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) In thinking about the Names of God, and hypothesizing that each and everything that exists is a manifestation of one or more of these Names in its essential nature, we begin to get the idea of what it is we must understand in terms of our reality. The Sufis say that we are to learn to "put each thing in its proper place." That means, we are supposed to learn from it so that we can NAME it.
[Comment - The learning of the Names is not a linguistic function. The learning of the Names is an ontological process that can only be realized through a spiritual capacity which has been prepared to receive such ontological/experiential truths when they are unveiled.
We do not learn so that we can NAME. We experience, to varying degrees, the ontological reality of the Names and through that we learn.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Umberto Eco writes in The Search for The Perfect Language:
"God spoke before all things, and said, 'Let there be light.' In this way, he created both heaven and earth; for with the utterance of the divine word, 'there was light.' Thus Creation itself arose through an act of speech; it is only by giving things their names that he created them and gave them an ontological status: 'And God called the light Day and the darkness He called Night... And God called the firmament Heaven.'"
[Comment - What does it mean for God to speak? What is a Divine word? What does it mean for God to call something by Name?
Speaking is Himma made manifest? Divine Words are the Created reflections of Divine Intentions and Purposes? The calling forth of something by Name is the Divine mode of manifestation which give expression to a particular aspect of Unity in the context of the whole.]
In Genesis 2: 16-17, the Lord speaks to man for the first time, putting at his disposal all the goods in the earthly paradise, commanding him, however, not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We are not told in what language God spoke to Adam. Tradition has pictured it as a sort of language of interior illumination, in which god, as in other episodes of the Bible, expresses himself by thunderclaps and lightning.
[Comment - Why limit God to only thunderclaps and lightning? Why can’t the language of interior illumination be a direct communication of understanding ? Some Sufis refer to this as Sulyani - the language of the soul.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) ...It is at this point, and only at this point (2:19ff), that 'out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.' The interpretation of this passage is an extremely delicate matter. Clearly we are here in the presence of a motif, common to other religions and mythologies - that of the nomothete, the name giver, the creator of language. Yet it is not at all clear on what basis Adam actually chose the names he gave to the animals.
[Comment - To make Names a function of language is a mistake. Names give expression to principles of ontology and metaphysics.
In naming different aspects of ontology, one is addressing the Divine principles that are manifested through such Named ones, and such Named ones give expression to the Names which are operating through them. The giving of names was in the understanding of the nature of such manifestations. Later, material/worldly language corrupted the understanding by placing limits, distorted hermeneutics, and artificial boundaries on the principles at work in the Named one.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Aside from the fact that, in pre-biblical myths, Adam was a creature formed by the Goddess of Earth from her own clay, and given life by her blood, the issue of the Nomothete, as Dr. Eco points out, is a theme common to other religions and mythologies. Nevertheless, when we consider the later "Tower of Babel" issue, in which the theme was the "confusing" of languages, we find that Names, or words, as a significant motif, keeps coming up to remind us of something crucial.
[Comment - There is no need to build a Tower of Babel to reach heaven, because heaven and Divinity are within us now. The generation of languages which ensued from the Tower of Babel project was due to the hermeneutical breakdowns that arose as a result of this project as people began to differ about spiritual methodology, purpose, meaning, and the nature of reality during the building of a ‘stairway to heaven’. In short, the Tower of Babel was a misconceived project from the beginning because it sought a material, exoteric man-made solution to a spiritual, esoteric, interior, God-created issue.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The theme of "Names," or "words" as something that gave one power is brought forward again in the Bible when we are told that, after the Flood of Noah, "the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech." [Genesis 11:1] At this point, mankind decided to build a tower. The passage reads:
Come, let us build us a city, and a tower whose top reaches into the sky; and let us make a NAME for ourselves, lest we be scattered over the whole earth. [Genesis 11:4]
[Comment - The niyat or intention with which the Babel Project began was all wrong, and from that human beings permitted themselves to be led astray.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Now, it is very curious that the very idea we are discussing is specifically identified here. "Let us make a NAME for ourselves."
What happens next is most interesting.
"The Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said, Behold, they are one people, and they have 'all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and now nothing they have imagined they can do will be impossible to them. Come, let Us go down and there confound (mix-up, confuse) their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."[Genesis 11:5 7]
[Comment - “And now nothing they have imagined they can do will be impossible to them” - in other words, adab, or spiritual etiquette, has been lost, and whatever they imagine, they will seek to do, and in doing so, they will destroy themselves and not fulfill their duties as God’s vice-reagent. The desires of man will know no limit and they will believe that they have the right to pursue whatever comes to their imagination.]
Q: (L) According to what I understand, at the speed of light, there is no mass, no time, and no gravity. How can this be?
A: No mass, no time, but yes, gravity. Gravity supersedes light speed.
Q: (L) What would make a gravity wave unstable?
A: Utilization.
Q: (L) I feel like I am missing a really big point here...
A: You are, but you can only find it at your own pace
[Comment - If God is the gravity which encompasses all of creation and holds it together, then, the ‘instability’ of the gravity wave being discussed here could have to do with our relationship with this Source of Gravity which is in all of us - indeed, all of Creation. When that relationship falters, this causes instabilities in the Gravity waves which constitute the Being of Created existence. If Himma (Divine Aspiration) is at the heart of metaphysical Gravity (of which physical gravity is but one manifestation), then, when our niyat or himma does not reflect the Divine Himma, there is instability of gravity waves between ourselves and our Lord, and this creates ripples, of a problematic nature, throughout the universe - not for Divinity, but for those who have the responsbility of choosing how to allign themselves ... with, or in opposition to, Divine Gravity, and it is the latter which gives expression to the instabilities which become a problem and a challenge for the Created Universe..]
Return to 'Food For Thought' Menu
|
