Guest guest Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 786 Greetings! These speculations we can see in books of Idries Shakh :-). In fact real traditional sufis are muslims. I spoke to sheikh of Nimatullahi order, he told that acceptance of Islam is necessary to admit to their order. Same as i know with Bektashi, Naqshbandi etc. Tradition of sufism is existing in body of Islam. If U say that sufis are "lovers of God", that is true. Same as with gnostics or kaulas :-))). But historically sufis are in Islam outwardly, gnostics - in christianity, kaulas - in hinduism... Even if to speak of literal meaning of words... Islam means "humbleness, obedience to God". Is it not in Sufism? Doesn't sufis recognise shahida "La Ilaha il-Allahu un-Muhammad ur-Rasul Allahu"? Doen't they rely on hadith? Not New Testament, not Tantras, not Zohar. ... It is a muslim practice! Or what, U will say that there is no Love to God in any other scriptures? Some modern sheikhs may give examples from other religions, true. Few did this in past, maybe. However read sufi classics - it is islamic literature. Al-Ghazali, a great sufi philosopher and sait, wrote a big work to prove that sufism is in accordance with Islam. If U really love Christ or Devi, U do not need sufi training. If U reached stage of haqiqat, what is the need in tariqat? ;-) A. , Brianna Mosteller <rubyrapunzel> wrote: > Actually sufi in it's proper sense refers to "lovers > of God." The "Blanket Wearers," as their name is > interpreted, were wandering for many generations > looking for the Truth. They heard about the prophet > and arranged to see him. The day they met, the blanket > wearers (so called because their only possesion was a > blanket which served as both clothing and cover at > night) sat at the prophet's feet for the whole of one > day. No words were exchanged. They left completely > satisfied. > > This does not imply that sufis are a "mystical aspect > of Islam." That is a common misconception. There is no > Islamic dogma in sufism, although there are many > Islamic Sufis. Sufism is not a religion, it is > accepting of all religions and embraces the inherant > truths in all religions. If you are a hindu and you > approach a sufi Sheikh (master), He/She will give the > training according to one who percieves God as a hindu > would. Telling a born and raised hindu to chant the > name of Allah would be a waste of time in most cases. > The Sheikh would most certainly refer to God as Ram, > or whichever most suited the shishya's constitution. > That is why God is most frequently called "Beloved" in > Sufism. "Beloved" encompasses all forms, as well as > the formless. To think of God as "Beloved" also opens > the heart and creates love, which is the way of > sufism. > > The Sheikh gives the training according to the nature > of the Shishya. It is so in all sufi traditions. They > will refer to Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Koran, > Torrah, Bible, the Sufi poets, ect. All that is > required of the Shishya is surrender. > > So "Sufi" does not designate ANY mystic. Gnostic is > not sufi. Nor does the fact of what sufism is mean > that there are muslim kaulas! Sufis are lovers- that > is the very essence of the sufi way. If one loves > Christ in this way, one could recieve a sufi training. > Same for Rama, Devi, Allah, Pan, ect. > > Jai Ma! > > Brianna > > --- Arjuna Taradasa <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > 93 > > Sufi in it's proper sense are mystics of Islam only. > > If we start using > > this term as designating ANY mystic, it becomes > > equal to words > > "kaula", "gnostic", "tsaddik" etc used in same > > sense. Then we can say > > that there're muslim kaulas :-). It is true also; > > but it is easier to > > use these terms as they are, with correspondance to > > cultural > > surrounding of those esoteric traditions. > > > > Love is the law, love under will. > > A. > > > > , Brianna > > Mosteller > > <rubyrapunzel> wrote: > > > > BTW in some sufi traditions Allah is seen as > > > > Beloved! In this case we > > > > can say Allah is Shakti... > > > > > > All sufi traditions refer to God as Beloved. > > Sufism > > > has no religion- is not necessarily mystical > > aspect of > > > Islam only. There are hindu sufis, jain sufis, > > > christian sufis, ect. The naqshbandi order are the > > > silent ones. The master creates love in the > > shishya's > > > heart- a fire that consumes the ego. They do japa > > with > > > the mantra "la il lillah" or il la illallah" > > (there is > > > only Allah...). It is quite a beautiful practice, > > and > > > a beautiful tradition. Worth looking into, > > especially > > > for those with strong bhakti. > > > > > > pranams, > > > > > > Brianna > > > > > > > > > Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway > http://promotions./design_giveaway/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 In fact real traditional sufis are muslims. I spoke to sheikh of Nimatullahi order, he told that acceptance of Islam is necessary to admit to their order. Same as i know with Bektashi, Naqshbandi etc. Tradition of sufism is existing in body of Islam. [Mouse] I attest to this from personal experience. An exception though: a Sufi master may decide to accept and train you even if you're not a Muslim. [Mouse] Similar situation with Kabbalah - which exists within Judaism. Some modern sheikhs may give examples from other religions, true. Few did this in past, maybe. [Mouse] Actually, it is not that uncommon within a Sufi order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 I belive sufism is much more older than Islam.islam is more to do with > society,politics,holy wars.Sufism might be as old as zarathustra. > Sufis are just mystic without any rerigious affiliation. > > But when your are engulfed by > people who know one word to describe god, they how do you speak to > them about god. naturally ues the same name they Use"That is exactly > what sufis did. > Above all there is god. They also started calling god as Allah. , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > 786 Greetings! > > These speculations we can see in books of Idries Shakh :-). In fact > real traditional sufis are muslims. I spoke to sheikh of Nimatullahi > order, he told that acceptance of Islam is necessary to admit to their > order. Same as i know with Bektashi, Naqshbandi etc. Tradition of > sufism is existing in body of Islam. > If U say that sufis are "lovers of God", that is true. Same as with > gnostics or kaulas :-))). But historically sufis are in Islam > outwardly, gnostics - in christianity, kaulas - in hinduism... > Even if to speak of literal meaning of words... Islam means > "humbleness, obedience to God". Is it not in Sufism? Doesn't sufis > recognise shahida "La Ilaha il-Allahu un-Muhammad ur-Rasul Allahu"? > Doen't they rely on hadith? Not New Testament, not Tantras, not Zohar. > .. It is a muslim practice! Or what, U will say that there is no Love > to God in any other scriptures? > Some modern sheikhs may give examples from other religions, true. Few > did this in past, maybe. However read sufi classics - it is islamic > literature. Al-Ghazali, a great sufi philosopher and sait, wrote a big > work to prove that sufism is in accordance with Islam. > If U really love Christ or Devi, U do not need sufi training. If U > reached stage of haqiqat, what is the need in tariqat? ;-) > > A. > > > , Brianna Mosteller > <rubyrapunzel> wrote: > > Actually sufi in it's proper sense refers to "lovers > > of God." The "Blanket Wearers," as their name is > > interpreted, were wandering for many generations > > looking for the Truth. They heard about the prophet > > and arranged to see him. The day they met, the blanket > > wearers (so called because their only possesion was a > > blanket which served as both clothing and cover at > > night) sat at the prophet's feet for the whole of one > > day. No words were exchanged. They left completely > > satisfied. > > > > This does not imply that sufis are a "mystical aspect > > of Islam." That is a common misconception. There is no > > Islamic dogma in sufism, although there are many > > Islamic Sufis. Sufism is not a religion, it is > > accepting of all religions and embraces the inherant > > truths in all religions. If you are a hindu and you > > approach a sufi Sheikh (master), He/She will give the > > training according to one who percieves God as a hindu > > would. Telling a born and raised hindu to chant the > > name of Allah would be a waste of time in most cases. > > The Sheikh would most certainly refer to God as Ram, > > or whichever most suited the shishya's constitution. > > That is why God is most frequently called "Beloved" in > > Sufism. "Beloved" encompasses all forms, as well as > > the formless. To think of God as "Beloved" also opens > > the heart and creates love, which is the way of > > sufism. > > > > The Sheikh gives the training according to the nature > > of the Shishya. It is so in all sufi traditions. They > > will refer to Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Koran, > > Torrah, Bible, the Sufi poets, ect. All that is > > required of the Shishya is surrender. > > > > So "Sufi" does not designate ANY mystic. Gnostic is > > not sufi. Nor does the fact of what sufism is mean > > that there are muslim kaulas! Sufis are lovers- that > > is the very essence of the sufi way. If one loves > > Christ in this way, one could recieve a sufi training. > > Same for Rama, Devi, Allah, Pan, ect. > > > > Jai Ma! > > > > Brianna > > > > --- Arjuna Taradasa <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > > 93 > > > Sufi in it's proper sense are mystics of Islam only. > > > If we start using > > > this term as designating ANY mystic, it becomes > > > equal to words > > > "kaula", "gnostic", "tsaddik" etc used in same > > > sense. Then we can say > > > that there're muslim kaulas :-). It is true also; > > > but it is easier to > > > use these terms as they are, with correspondance to > > > cultural > > > surrounding of those esoteric traditions. > > > > > > Love is the law, love under will. > > > A. > > > > > > , Brianna > > > Mosteller > > > <rubyrapunzel> wrote: > > > > > BTW in some sufi traditions Allah is seen as > > > > > Beloved! In this case we > > > > > can say Allah is Shakti... > > > > > > > > All sufi traditions refer to God as Beloved. > > > Sufism > > > > has no religion- is not necessarily mystical > > > aspect of > > > > Islam only. There are hindu sufis, jain sufis, > > > > christian sufis, ect. The naqshbandi order are the > > > > silent ones. The master creates love in the > > > shishya's > > > > heart- a fire that consumes the ego. They do japa > > > with > > > > the mantra "la il lillah" or il la illallah" > > > (there is > > > > only Allah...). It is quite a beautiful practice, > > > and > > > > a beautiful tradition. Worth looking into, > > > especially > > > > for those with strong bhakti. > > > > > > > > pranams, > > > > > > > > Brianna > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway > > http://promotions./design_giveaway/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 Beloveds, There are three things to consider in this topic: 1. Many of the so-called "sufi" orders visible in the islamic world today are really decadent remnants of what were once real mystery schools, and are today only used by their leadership for their own profit. These schools are "dead branches" of sufism, and cannot be considered authoritative in determining what is or is not sufism. 2. It is neither correct nor incorrect to say that sufism is independent of Islam. Sufi schools in muslim countries operate, at their lower levels of initiation, in a form completely in accord with muslim values. However, as one rises in attainment, it becomes evident that the dogmatic rules of exoteric islam are not nescessary and the student is slowly instructed in how to shed them. Most true mystical schools in other cultures (including true mystical schools in hinduism) follow the same principle. 3. You cannot say that all mystics are sufis. But you also cannot say that sufi influence is only limited to the muslim world. There were several great sufi teachers in India who were not limited to teaching islam. The reason they are not typically considered is because they did not openly call themselves "sufis", specifically because if they did that the hindus in the crowd would have been uninterested! Sufi masters in india included Kabir, and Sai Baba (Sai Baba of Shirdi, the real one, not the modern day faker). In the west, sufis also operated without openly calling themselves sufis. In the middle ages sufis infiltrated the knights templar and affected their teachings (some of which were later preserved in freemasonry). Again, the typical freemason today would not think he was practicing in a sufi school, but the resemblance is very clear to anyone who's studied the topic. Gurdjieff and Crowley were other modern sufi masters who did not call themselves sufis. Love Nisarg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 93 Greetings! I can agree with almost all of what U've said, Anand ;-). With exceptance of that contemporary Sai Baba is false one. He is true. There can be seen some truely mystical schools without any connection of sufism also. For instance, kashmiri shaivism, zen-buddhist, vajrayana. As far as i know, some influence of sufism bengali vaishnavism had, especially later one (sect like bauls are a mixture of sahajiya and sufism). Probably influence was mutual. For this reason i want to call islami mystics as sufis and other religions' mystics - in accordance with their own tradition. Speculatively of course we can say that every one who is devoted to God is "sufi", "pure", but then he is also "gnostic" (who has true Knowledge), "kaula" and "tsaddiq" (rigteous one, saint). BTW may i ask, Ur name is from Osho's neo-sannyasa? Love, A. , Swami Anand Nisarg <swamiji_nisarg> wrote: > Beloveds, > > There are three things to consider in this topic: > > 1. Many of the so-called "sufi" orders visible in the > islamic world today are really decadent remnants of > what were once real mystery schools, and are today > only used by their leadership for their own profit. > These schools are "dead branches" of sufism, and > cannot be considered authoritative in determining what > is or is not sufism. > > 2. It is neither correct nor incorrect to say that > sufism is independent of Islam. Sufi schools in > muslim countries operate, at their lower levels of > initiation, in a form completely in accord with muslim > values. However, as one rises in attainment, it > becomes evident that the dogmatic rules of exoteric > islam are not nescessary and the student is slowly > instructed in how to shed them. Most true mystical > schools in other cultures (including true mystical > schools in hinduism) follow the same principle. > > 3. You cannot say that all mystics are sufis. But you > also cannot say that sufi influence is only limited to > the muslim world. There were several great sufi > teachers in India who were not limited to teaching > islam. The reason they are not typically considered > is because they did not openly call themselves > "sufis", specifically because if they did that the > hindus in the crowd would have been uninterested! > Sufi masters in india included Kabir, and Sai Baba > (Sai Baba of Shirdi, the real one, not the modern day > faker). > In the west, sufis also operated without openly > calling themselves sufis. In the middle ages sufis > infiltrated the knights templar and affected their > teachings (some of which were later preserved in > freemasonry). Again, the typical freemason today > would not think he was practicing in a sufi school, > but the resemblance is very clear to anyone who's > studied the topic. > Gurdjieff and Crowley were other modern sufi masters > who did not call themselves sufis. > > Love > Nisarg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 Om Namah Shivayah, Swamiji, > Gurdjieff and Crowley were other modern sufi masters > who did not call themselves sufis. Do you mean Aleister Crowley? Surely you don't mean to suggest that he was a sufi master? Other than this last confusing bit, your post was fairly accurate. The point that I was trying to make about Islam and Sufism is illustrated in the story I wrote about the "Kamal Posh," the blanet-wearers (see previous post). They wandered for hudreds of years searching for truth. When they heard of the Prophet, they made plans to see Him. Since the Prophet spoke no words to the Kamal Posh (he sat in silence with them and created love in their hearts- they left satisfied), he imparted no Islamic dogma or doctrine. It was love only that was given, and the sufis found the essence of Islam to be in harmony with that love. But doing jap with the name of Allah does not place sufism entirely within the framework of Islam. Much of Islam is left behind in the sufi way- the "goals"of the two are somewhat differant. Which is NOT to say that love does not exist in Islam, but it is the very heart of sufism. The majority of sufis are muslim sufis. But there ARE hindu sufis, jain sufis, ect. as I mentioned. But sufism is not owned by any religious doctrine. It is correct that many of the sufi "dynasties" taught and still teach sufism as "mystical aspect of Islam," still does not change the fact of the event that brought sufism into being, the meeting of the prophet. A lover doesn't figure the odds. He figures he came clean from God as a gift without a reason, so he gives without cause or calculation or limit. A conventionally religious person behaves a certain way to achieve salvation. A lover gambles everything, the self, the circle around the zero! he or she cuts and throws it all away. This is beyond any religion. Lovers do not require from God any proof, or any text, nor do they knock on a door to make sure this is the right street. They run, and they run. -Rumi Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions./design_giveaway/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 93 > Do you mean Aleister Crowley? Surely you don't mean to > suggest that he was a sufi master? Other than this > last confusing bit, your post was fairly accurate. Crowley was a Master. In Ur terms yes, sufi one. Much of Islam > is left behind in the sufi way- the "goals"of the two > are somewhat differant. Which is NOT to say that love > does not exist in Islam, but it is the very heart of > sufism. There is a well known hadith of Holy Prophet: "Shariat is what I say, Tariqat is what I do, Haqiqat is what I am". This hadith is quiet orthodox and widely accepted among muslims as far as i know. "Tariqat" as U may know designates sufi way. What "different" goals can exist??? Goal is one - GOD. Noone of sufi masters ever had said such an odd thing. I remind again, Al-Ghazali wrote a whole book to prove that sufism is in total accordance with Islam. > The majority of sufis are muslim sufis. But there ARE > hindu sufis, jain sufis, ect. as I mentioned. But > sufism is not owned by any religious doctrine. If not take two examples of Kabir and Shirdi Baba, where have U heard about hindu sufis and jaina (!). Of course there should exist some misticism in jaina-dharma (just i'm not familiar with it), but it is NOT sufism. Why not to start calling everyone "gnostics" inspite of "sufis"? U are ignoring till now this obvious question... Because I.Shakh says it is so? We have to be at least a bit more objective in our judgements. Love is the law, love under will. A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 --- Arjuna Taradasa <bhagatirtha wrote: > Crowley was a Master. In Ur terms yes, sufi one. In "my terms" a sufi is a lover of God. Crowley was a self-proclaimed drug and sex fiend. Most of his books were self-published. He was a "master" of magick and the occult. One of his books is titled "Diary of a Drug Fiend." His "poetry" includes such appaling and decidedly NON-SUFI lines as "I rave and I rape, and I rip and I rend." > Why not to start calling everyone "gnostics" inspite > of "sufis"? U are > ignoring till now this obvious question... Because > I.Shakh says it is > so? We have to be at least a bit more objective in > our judgements. One does not need to be a muslim to recieve the sufi training, because the training is for those on a certain stage of the path who are filled with longing and are called to the sufi master. There is no religious prerequisite, although perhaps you have heard of certain lines who will only give the training in an Islamic context. All mystics are not gnostics, nor are they all sufis! "mysticism" is not an umbrella term that encompasses sufism, gnosticism, ect. No Islamic dogma was imparted to the Kamal Posh by the Prophet. Love was created in their hearts as they sat in silence. There are sufi lines that work in this way, and there are sufi lines who use the framework of Islam to give the training. I cannot speculate on the differance, as I am not a sufi master. However, the (Persian, Muslim) sufi master I used to study with was trained by a sufi master who happened to be hindu. He knew the teachings of Islam and those of Sanatana Dharma, and gave the training according to the nature of the individual, as all masters will. Incidentaly, I was never asked to repeat name of Allah, or do any Muslim practices, although He read from the Koran frequently. He also read from Upanishads and Gita, and of course the great poets. He insisted that sufism is only about lover and Beloved, and that once the soul is in "The Tavern of Ruin" all ideas of religion are abandoned. I wish He were here to join this discussion, but He has left His body. This is such a wasteful argument, really. Clearly nothing is being gained in the spiritual sense, and it is only a matter of semantics. This is my opinion and general feeling on sufism, please take it with a grain of salt, as it is my opinion, and the result of MY experience and study. I thank you for sharing yours. pranams, Brianna Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions./design_giveaway/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 Dear Brianna: Thank you for posting your understanding of sufism. It generated interesting discussion, even if it did end up in a familiar argument of dogma vs. love (a common theme on our message board, I have noticed). I don't understand the end of the Rumi poem someone posted about lovers running. Maybe it just means moving swiftly, in constant motion, rather than wedded to dogma, to anything that would weigh down the heart. Mary Ann , Brianna Mosteller <rubyrapunzel> wrote: > > --- Arjuna Taradasa <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > Crowley was a Master. In Ur terms yes, sufi one. > > In "my terms" a sufi is a lover of God. Crowley was a > self-proclaimed drug and sex fiend. Most of his books > were self-published. He was a "master" of magick and > the occult. One of his books is titled "Diary of a > Drug Fiend." His "poetry" includes such appaling and > decidedly NON-SUFI lines as "I rave and I rape, and I > rip and I rend." > > > Why not to start calling everyone "gnostics" inspite > > of "sufis"? U are > > ignoring till now this obvious question... Because > > I.Shakh says it is > > so? We have to be at least a bit more objective in > > our judgements. > > One does not need to be a muslim to recieve the sufi > training, because the training is for those on a > certain stage of the path who are filled with longing > and are called to the sufi master. There is no > religious prerequisite, although perhaps you have > heard of certain lines who will only give the training > in an Islamic context. All mystics are not gnostics, > nor are they all sufis! "mysticism" is not an umbrella > term that encompasses sufism, gnosticism, ect. > > No Islamic dogma was imparted to the Kamal Posh by the > Prophet. Love was created in their hearts as they sat > in silence. There are sufi lines that work in this > way, and there are sufi lines who use the framework of > Islam to give the training. I cannot speculate on the > differance, as I am not a sufi master. However, the > (Persian, Muslim) sufi master I used to study with was > trained by a sufi master who happened to be hindu. He > knew the teachings of Islam and those of Sanatana > Dharma, and gave the training according to the nature > of the individual, as all masters will. Incidentaly, I > was never asked to repeat name of Allah, or do any > Muslim practices, although He read from the Koran > frequently. He also read from Upanishads and Gita, and > of course the great poets. He insisted that sufism is > only about lover and Beloved, and that once the soul > is in "The Tavern of Ruin" all ideas of religion are > abandoned. I wish He were here to join this > discussion, but He has left His body. > > This is such a wasteful argument, really. Clearly > nothing is being gained in the spiritual sense, and it > is only a matter of semantics. This is my opinion and > general feeling on sufism, please take it with a grain > of salt, as it is my opinion, and the result of MY > experience and study. I thank you for sharing yours. > > pranams, > > Brianna > > > > > > Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway > http://promotions./design_giveaway/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 Dear Mary Ann-ji, I posted the Rumi poem. Here it is again: A lover doesn't figure the odds. He figures he came clean from God as a gift without a reason, so he gives without cause or calculation or limit. A conventionally religious person behaves a certain way to achieve salvation. A lover gambles everything, the self, the circle around the zero! he or she cuts and throws it all away. This is beyond any religion. Lovers do not require from God any proof, or any text, nor do they knock on a door to make sure this is the right street. They run, and they run. Rumi is speaking to us of the great gamble: shrouded as we are in the ignorance of self (ego), lovers are not prepared to wait until the physical death to be with Beloved. We have to surrender everything, without having seen it first. We have the longing for truth, but not the truth yet. A spark is ignited in the heart, which in turn becomes a flame which eventually consumes, anihilates, the ego. The lover prays to be made "less than dust at the master's feet." He wants to be nowhere, to be no one. He wants to be absorbed into the Beloved. In this state of intense longing, the lover will drop everything which is identified with the ego, including all religious knowlege, and "run" towards that Truth. Your interp. was absolutely correct! Yeah, dogma vs. love is an age-old debate. My thinking is of the "all paths lead to the Buddha" type, though I am not a Buddhist. The paths are as many as there are souls. We'll all meet in Her arms and laugh about how we got there someday! We're all very blessed to have the company and conversation of fellow truth-seekers. BTW, there is a called Rumi-to-Hafiz that sends out sufi poetry daily, v. good stuff, sure to open the heart and sometimes cause a girl to laugh out loud, or cry with abandon for her Beloved Ma.... --- Mary Ann <maryann wrote: > Dear Brianna: > > Thank you for posting your understanding of sufism. > It generated > interesting discussion, even if it did end up in a > familiar > argument of dogma vs. love (a common theme on our > message > board, I have noticed). > > I don't understand the end of the Rumi poem someone > posted > about lovers running. Maybe it just means moving > swiftly, in > constant motion, rather than wedded to dogma, to > anything that > would weigh down the heart. > > Mary Ann > > > > , Brianna > Mosteller > <rubyrapunzel> wrote: > > > > --- Arjuna Taradasa <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > > Crowley was a Master. In Ur terms yes, sufi one. > > > > In "my terms" a sufi is a lover of God. Crowley > was a > > self-proclaimed drug and sex fiend. Most of his > books > > were self-published. He was a "master" of magick > and > > the occult. One of his books is titled "Diary of a > > Drug Fiend." His "poetry" includes such appaling > and > > decidedly NON-SUFI lines as "I rave and I rape, > and I > > rip and I rend." > > > > > Why not to start calling everyone "gnostics" > inspite > > > of "sufis"? U are > > > ignoring till now this obvious question... > Because > > > I.Shakh says it is > > > so? We have to be at least a bit more objective > in > > > our judgements. > > > > One does not need to be a muslim to recieve the > sufi > > training, because the training is for those on a > > certain stage of the path who are filled with > longing > > and are called to the sufi master. There is no > > religious prerequisite, although perhaps you have > > heard of certain lines who will only give the > training > > in an Islamic context. All mystics are not > gnostics, > > nor are they all sufis! "mysticism" is not an > umbrella > > term that encompasses sufism, gnosticism, ect. > > > > No Islamic dogma was imparted to the Kamal Posh by > the > > Prophet. Love was created in their hearts as they > sat > > in silence. There are sufi lines that work in this > > way, and there are sufi lines who use the > framework of > > Islam to give the training. I cannot speculate on > the > > differance, as I am not a sufi master. However, > the > > (Persian, Muslim) sufi master I used to study with > was > > trained by a sufi master who happened to be hindu. > He > > knew the teachings of Islam and those of Sanatana > > Dharma, and gave the training according to the > nature > > of the individual, as all masters will. > Incidentaly, I > > was never asked to repeat name of Allah, or do any > > Muslim practices, although He read from the Koran > > frequently. He also read from Upanishads and Gita, > and > > of course the great poets. He insisted that sufism > is > > only about lover and Beloved, and that once the > soul > > is in "The Tavern of Ruin" all ideas of religion > are > > abandoned. I wish He were here to join this > > discussion, but He has left His body. > > > > This is such a wasteful argument, really. Clearly > > nothing is being gained in the spiritual sense, > and it > > is only a matter of semantics. This is my opinion > and > > general feeling on sufism, please take it with a > grain > > of salt, as it is my opinion, and the result of MY > > experience and study. I thank you for sharing > yours. > > > > pranams, > > > > Brianna > > > > > > > > > > > > Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway > > http://promotions./design_giveaway/ > > Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions./design_giveaway/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 Thanks for repeating the poem, and for the info re Rumi to Hafiz. I would love to receive beautiful poetry daily This poem made me think of a song I wrote when I was sixteen. I wrote it because I felt magical feelings about a girl in my school. These feelings of course got me into trouble in Fairview Park, Ohio. I wasn't hiding them: I was writing songs and poems and sharing them with the world which was my high school at that time. Here is the song, called "But I Wonder." I recall my aunt listening to me sing it, and saying: "This song is about God, isn't it?" Then a little while later: "You wrote this song about a girl, didn't you!?" Maybe the song is about Devi after all... I once met a girl so young Not in age but in action So I asked her to be the one -- I'm talking dereliction She didn't say anything So I walked away I guess she didn't know what I mean But I wonder still today Ah-ha-a-a-I wonder Ah-ha-a-a-a. I went to another place I knew she'd never been there But my heart began to race And I didn't care I went from door to door I asked for her by her name They'd never heard of her before But I wonder just the same Ah-ha-a-a-I wonder Ah-ha-a-a-a. I still am caught in the spell For all that it seems I think I'll never get well I surrender to this dream If I've been wrong all along There's no more I can say Both the real and the dream girl are gone But I wonder anyway Ah-ha-a-a-I wonder Ah-ha-a-a-a. I remember my mother being bothered that I used the word "dereliction." She thought I was asking the girl to become a crazy person, and that I was saying I was crazy. I meant dereliction of duty in the sense of not following tradition or dogma, but rather, following the heart, that magical sense of knowing there's something there, even without acknowledgment or approval from others, even with disapproval. , Brianna Mosteller <rubyrapunzel> wrote: > Dear Mary Ann-ji, > > I posted the Rumi poem. Here it is again: > > A lover doesn't figure the odds. > > He figures he came clean from God > as a gift without a reason, > so he gives without cause > or calculation or limit. > A conventionally religious person > behaves a certain way > to achieve salvation. > > A lover gambles everything, the self, > the circle around the zero! he or she > cuts and throws it all away. > > This is beyond > any religion. > > Lovers do not require from God any proof, > or any text, nor do they knock on a door > to make sure this is the right street. > > They run, > and they run. > > Rumi is speaking to us of the great gamble: shrouded > as we are in the ignorance of self (ego), lovers are > not prepared to wait until the physical death to be > with Beloved. We have to surrender everything, without > having seen it first. We have the longing for truth, > but not the truth yet. > > A spark is ignited in the heart, which in turn becomes > a flame which eventually consumes, anihilates, the > ego. The lover prays to be made "less than dust at the > master's feet." He wants to be nowhere, to be no one. > He wants to be absorbed into the Beloved. In this > state of intense longing, the lover will drop > everything which is identified with the ego, including > all religious knowlege, and "run" towards that Truth. > Your interp. was absolutely correct! > > Yeah, dogma vs. love is an age-old debate. My thinking > is of the "all paths lead to the Buddha" type, though > I am not a Buddhist. The paths are as many as there > are souls. We'll all meet in Her arms and laugh about > how we got there someday! > > We're all very blessed to have the company and > conversation of fellow truth-seekers. > > BTW, there is a called Rumi-to-Hafiz that > sends out sufi poetry daily, v. good stuff, sure to > open the heart and sometimes cause a girl to laugh out > loud, or cry with abandon for her Beloved Ma.... > > --- Mary Ann <maryann@m...> wrote: > > Dear Brianna: > > > > Thank you for posting your understanding of sufism. > > It generated > > interesting discussion, even if it did end up in a > > familiar > > argument of dogma vs. love (a common theme on our > > message > > board, I have noticed). > > > > I don't understand the end of the Rumi poem someone > > posted > > about lovers running. Maybe it just means moving > > swiftly, in > > constant motion, rather than wedded to dogma, to > > anything that > > would weigh down the heart. > > > > Mary Ann > > > > > > > > , Brianna > > Mosteller > > <rubyrapunzel> wrote: > > > > > > --- Arjuna Taradasa <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > > > Crowley was a Master. In Ur terms yes, sufi one. > > > > > > In "my terms" a sufi is a lover of God. Crowley > > was a > > > self-proclaimed drug and sex fiend. Most of his > > books > > > were self-published. He was a "master" of magick > > and > > > the occult. One of his books is titled "Diary of a > > > Drug Fiend." His "poetry" includes such appaling > > and > > > decidedly NON-SUFI lines as "I rave and I rape, > > and I > > > rip and I rend." > > > > > > > Why not to start calling everyone "gnostics" > > inspite > > > > of "sufis"? U are > > > > ignoring till now this obvious question... > > Because > > > > I.Shakh says it is > > > > so? We have to be at least a bit more objective > > in > > > > our judgements. > > > > > > One does not need to be a muslim to recieve the > > sufi > > > training, because the training is for those on a > > > certain stage of the path who are filled with > > longing > > > and are called to the sufi master. There is no > > > religious prerequisite, although perhaps you have > > > heard of certain lines who will only give the > > training > > > in an Islamic context. All mystics are not > > gnostics, > > > nor are they all sufis! "mysticism" is not an > > umbrella > > > term that encompasses sufism, gnosticism, ect. > > > > > > No Islamic dogma was imparted to the Kamal Posh by > > the > > > Prophet. Love was created in their hearts as they > > sat > > > in silence. There are sufi lines that work in this > > > way, and there are sufi lines who use the > > framework of > > > Islam to give the training. I cannot speculate on > > the > > > differance, as I am not a sufi master. However, > > the > > > (Persian, Muslim) sufi master I used to study with > > was > > > trained by a sufi master who happened to be hindu. > > He > > > knew the teachings of Islam and those of Sanatana > > > Dharma, and gave the training according to the > > nature > > > of the individual, as all masters will. > > Incidentaly, I > > > was never asked to repeat name of Allah, or do any > > > Muslim practices, although He read from the Koran > > > frequently. He also read from Upanishads and Gita, > > and > > > of course the great poets. He insisted that sufism > > is > > > only about lover and Beloved, and that once the > > soul > > > is in "The Tavern of Ruin" all ideas of religion > > are > > > abandoned. I wish He were here to join this > > > discussion, but He has left His body. > > > > > > This is such a wasteful argument, really. Clearly > > > nothing is being gained in the spiritual sense, > > and it > > > is only a matter of semantics. This is my opinion > > and > > > general feeling on sufism, please take it with a > > grain > > > of salt, as it is my opinion, and the result of MY > > > experience and study. I thank you for sharing > > yours. > > > > > > pranams, > > > > > > Brianna > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway > > > http://promotions./design_giveaway/ > > > > > > > > > Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway > http://promotions./design_giveaway/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.