From tariqas-digest-approval@europe.std.com Wed Aug 28 17:43:01 1996 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 19:21:28 -0400 (EDT) From: tariqas-digest-approval@europe.std.com Reply-To: tariqas-digest@world.std.com To: tariqas-digest@world.std.com Subject: tariqas-digest V1 #111 tariqas-digest Tuesday, 27 August 1996 Volume 01 : Number 111 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jinavamsa@aol.com Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 18:27:18 -0400 Subject: On being a worthless ugly wretch [was Re: Prayer In a message dated 96-08-26 15:46:16 EDT, you write: > >I will always pray for your welfare > >What more can I ask from God, my only prayer is for your long life. >Because without mt guardian, my true love I am a worthless ugly wretch. >I pray and I pray that you might be blessed and spared from every grief. dag, Ashiq, may I, then, pray that you see your own beauty and worth, and vibrate in compassion for All (including "you" since "you" too are part of the All, methinks)? in peace, Jinavamsa ------------------------------ From: Sipko den Boer <106254.1277@compuserve.com> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 17:31:57 -0400 Subject: Learning from the senses Dear Sisters and Brothers as salaam aleikum, Hearing, seeing, tasting and touching are given to acquire knowledge and to experience and perceive life as clear as possible. If we open our heart for the inner meaning of the impressions we obtain thru our senses we get in touch with that part of ourselves which we call soul Ibn ' Arabi already said: (From "Garden Within the flames") "I am the fragrance within every fragrance, I am the savor within every savor You have not smelled Me and you have not tasted" Just because everyone eagerly watches the wine bearer. Doesn't mean that he will give everyone his attention. There are those who depart with their wishes unfulfilled. There are those who depart with their senses all confused. May Allah open us all Ashiq ------------------------------ From: Fred Rice Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 09:05:29 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: Friend of Allah? (fwd) Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah, On Sat, 24 Aug 1996, Asim Jalis wrote: > A related issue is that of people who are atheist. I am torn about > whether I should quickly change the subject with them if they bring up > the issue of God or whether to wait and hear out their ideas. I am > more attracted to the first but end up doing the second in most cases. > And this leaves me feeling weird and low for several days. I begin to > wonder if my belief in God is just a game I am playing with myself, a > convenient fiction to conceal the depressing "reality" out there. I > mean belief makes life so much more pleasant that I actually don't > care whether it is "true" or "false". Yet my mind subconsciously tries > to impose order on my thoughts and classify them as true and false. What do they say? I presume they say "God doesn't exist," but how do they know? They can't - you can't prove a negative. So they may ask you where is the "evidence" for God's existence? To me, the evidence is strong in the writings and experiences of many centuries of Sufis, as well as the authentic "mystics" of other religions. To me, Tasawwuf is very much like science. Just as in science you must test your hypothesis with an experiment, the Sufi approach is just the same. The non-Sufi approach to religion is based on faith, while the Sufi approach is based on evidence. Most likely the atheist you are discussing things with is only familiar with the non-Sufi approach to religion, and not the Sufi approach. Just as a scientist must train, perhaps for many years, before he or she is able to perform and understand scientific experiments, similarly the traveller on the path to Allah may have to train, perhaps for many years as well. As he or she trains, he or she becomes more capable of doing the "experiments." Eventually, he or she knows Allah through his or her direct experience - this is the "evidence" the atheist requires, but it can only be experienced within oneself. It is stronger than scientific evidence, in my opinion, because scientific evidence is based on sense perceptions or extensions to our perceptions, which can be deceived (eg. magic tricks, to take a simple example, are all based on deceiving people based on what they see). So, to me, the inner experience of Tasawwuf is stronger evidence than what can be achieved through unreliable sense perceptions. The atheist might ask to see the evidence for himself or herself. In reply, you can point out that the "evidence" in many modern physics experiments (eg. particle accelerators) are in reality only seen by very few scientists (because top of the range particle accelerators cost billions of dollars to build). Does that mean you doubt their evidence, because only a few have seen it? Probably at least tens of thousands of more people have "witnessed" the evidence for God through Tasawwuf than have "witnessed" evidence for the neutrino (an elementary particle), for instance. Why should we doubt the existence of God when it has been "witnessed" by tens of thousands more people than have witnessed the evidence for the neutrino? (Or to take a more recent example, the top quark - even fewer haave witnessed the recent evidence for that.) In the end, the atheist is standing on quicksand, because he or she cannot prove the negative assertion that "God does not exist," but you do have evidence for the existence of God, in the positive witnessing of centuries of Sufis, and to that you can add Christian mystics, Zen Buddhists, etc., if you wish (though that might just complicate things). Anyone can witness it for himself or herself, too, if he or she is willing to undergo the proper training under a true Shaykh, just like you usually need a proper university training to become a scientist. Wassalam, Fariduddien Rice (Dien Rice) (Ph.D. student in theoretical physics) ------------------------------ From: Well333@turbonet.com (Jacquie Weller) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 19:21:12 +0100 Subject: Re: A Friend of Allah.(the Atheist) An Atheist is sure there is no God, and yet s/he believes the Sun comes up each day and sets each evening. How can they know this will happen tomorrow. How can they know that it happened a trillion years ago. How do they know if it isn't an illusion and that we are not all asleep dreaming the sun comes up and sets. What does this have to do with God or any name we have for deity. Well things can be proved and not proved, but does that take away our experience of this. The Athiest may say I believe in God because this gives me comfort, and this is a crutch, and this makes my own death easier believing I live eternally. Well he is right, it is more comforting, peaceful, and requires less faith for me than believing this world accidently became intelligent, instead of chaotic and seems to function well without colliding with other planets, stars, comets, and all the other space debri. Of course this could happen, but think of all the millions of yrs it didn't happen. Isn't that pretty amazing for an accident. Well enough anyway. I think the Athiest believes in something and it could be he has a different name for this mysterious Lovly thing called forth, than I do. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if being an Athiest takes as much faith as being a believer, probably more, because how does a vacummne create creatures who are in love, imaginative, creative, intuitive, and so capable of worship. What impersonal scientific thing could ever have imagined that after billions of yrs, someone would be writting poems across the internet all over the world praising the Great Creator. Call this simple energy, but where is the source of this energy. If it came from nothing then would it not produce nothing. If it came from something then would not that something have to be at least as complex as it's creation. Oh well I am not smart enough, or scientific enough to talk in metaphysical terms. Anyway nobody can prove I love my kids either. It could be something I made up, and when they were born, I was just pretending to love them. But I know the difference between pretending something and not. Just the same way there are those who know what their experiences are and what is real or not. Anything false eventurally doesn't pan out anyway. Kaffea Lalla ------------------------------ From: "Bryce G. Hoffman" Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 23:16:31 -0700 Subject: Re: Naqshis in Turkey Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Was-salamu 'alayna wa 'ala 'ibadi Llahis-salihin Ash-hadu an la ilaha illa Llah Brothers & Sisters, I do not know who is or is not the leading Naqshbandi in Turkey today, but I met Grand Shaykh Nazim last week and took biyat from him and I do know that he is a truly remarkable man and a Friend of Allah (the Merciful, the Compassionate). Maha 'salami, Jamaludeen Bryce Hoffman - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - --> Bryce G. Hoffman literati@goldrush.com www.goldrush.com/~literati <--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - --- ------------------------------ From: Craig Johannsen Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 00:50:52 -0500 Subject: Re: Friend of Allah? (fwd) Fariduddien Rice wrote: > What do they say? I presume they say "God doesn't exist," but how do > they know? They can't - you can't prove a negative. > > So they may ask you where is the "evidence" for God's existence? To me, > the evidence is strong in the writings and experiences of many centuries > of Sufis, as well as the authentic "mystics" of other religions. > > To me, Tasawwuf is very much like science. Just as in science you must > test your hypothesis with an experiment, the Sufi approach is just the > same. The non-Sufi approach to religion is based on faith, while the Sufi > approach is based on evidence. Most likely the atheist you are > discussing things with is only familiar with the non-Sufi approach to > religion, and not the Sufi approach. > > Just as a scientist must train, perhaps for many years, before he or she > is able to perform and understand scientific experiments, similarly the > traveller on the path to Allah may have to train, perhaps for many years > as well. As he or she trains, he or she becomes more capable of doing the > "experiments." Eventually, he or she knows Allah through his or her direct > experience - this is the "evidence" the atheist requires, but it can only > be experienced within oneself. It is stronger than scientific evidence, > in my opinion, because scientific evidence is based on sense perceptions > or extensions to our perceptions, which can be deceived (eg. magic > tricks, to take a simple example, are all based on deceiving people based > on what they see). So, to me, the inner experience of Tasawwuf is > stronger evidence than what can be achieved through unreliable sense > perceptions. > > The atheist might ask to see the evidence for himself or herself. In > reply, you can point out that the "evidence" in many modern physics > experiments (eg. particle accelerators) are in reality only seen by very > few scientists (because top of the range particle accelerators cost > billions of dollars to build). Does that mean you doubt their evidence, > because only a few have seen it? Probably at least tens of thousands of > more people have "witnessed" the evidence for God through Tasawwuf than have > "witnessed" evidence for the neutrino (an elementary particle), for instance. > Why should we doubt the existence of God when it has been "witnessed" by > tens of thousands more people than have witnessed the evidence for the > neutrino? (Or to take a more recent example, the top quark - even fewer > haave witnessed the recent evidence for that.) > > In the end, the atheist is standing on quicksand, because he or she > cannot prove the negative assertion that "God does not exist," but you do > have evidence for the existence of God, in the positive witnessing of > centuries of Sufis, and to that you can add Christian mystics, Zen > Buddhists, etc., if you wish (though that might just complicate things). > Anyone can witness it for himself or herself, too, if he or she is > willing to undergo the proper training under a true Shaykh, just like > you usually need a proper university training to become a scientist. Thank you for making the above points. May I add a couple more? 1. In physics and most other sciences, many (most?) measurements are indirect. The scientist doesn't even really experience the phenomenon. It is simply (and sometimes wrongly) inferred from what the scientist can manage to observe. The inference is based upon a set of assumptions that may turn out to be incorrect. When many scientists find that a lot of different experiments allow them to infer the same thing, then they decide the phenomenon is "real". A few weeks or years later, they may learn that their inferences were incorrect and come up with an alternative explanation. For example, a chemist may observe that a few neutrons are emitted from a certain kind of chemical reaction and infer from this that nuclear fusion is the cause. Fariduddien was touching on this topic where he mentioned "extensions to perception" above. 2. Scientists are not a bunch of evil atheists who are out to destroy religion. Many scientists find themselves totally awestruck when they explore the frontiers of their discipline. What they find is an order and degree of intricate coordination that often leads them to believe (or at least suspect) that there must be some kind of intelligence behind it all. Witness Einstein's famous remark "God doen't play dice". It was his reaction to the reliance of quantum theory on mathematical probability. In Einstein's opinion, probability was too fuzzy and too imprecise to be the sort of principle God would use to organize things. He and most other scientists collectively were trying to find absolute and enduring principles that ultimately would account for what we observe and provide an authoritative rationale for what we believe. Scientists hope to use these enduring principles to explain the past and to predict the future. This is the same territory that religion claims for itself. Many early scientists made the purpose behind their search for truth explicit -- for example, Galileo called mathematics the speech of God; Pascal and Leibnitz said they heard God in the awesome rectitudes of mathematics. To quote Julian Jaynes: "We sometimes think, and even like to think, that the two greatest exertions that have influenced mankind, religion and science, have always been historical enemies, intriguing us in opposite directions. But this effort at special identity is loudly false. It is not religion but the church and science that were hostile to each other. And it was rivalry, not contravention. Both were religious. They were two giants fuming at each other over the same ground. Both proclaimed to be the only way to divine revelation." Many atheists believe that science disproves or somehow invalidates religion. It they believe this, it is because they don't really understand the nature of science -- it is a quest for truth in the same spirit as the traditional Sufi quest. As Fariduddien points out, in several ways the Sufi approach stands on more solid ground. ------------------------------ From: frank gaude Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 08:01:06 -0700 Subject: Re: Friend of Allah? (fwd) Hello, everybody! Craig Johannsen wrote: > > Fariduddien Rice wrote: > > What do they say? I presume they say "God doesn't exist," but how do > > they know? They can't - you can't prove a negative. [...] > Many atheists believe that science disproves or somehow invalidates religion. > It they believe this, it is because they don't really understand the nature > of science -- it is a quest for truth in the same spirit as the traditional > Sufi quest. As Fariduddien points out, in several ways the Sufi approach stands > on more solid ground. You guys! How blessed we are to have people on this planet in community! Something penned a few months back to our youngest grand daughter, Gennie, seem to fit (Apologies to those who have seen it before): Gennie, one imagines that because a word has been placed on an event or a principle, to label it, that one understands what is going on. An example, in the electrical world when there is potential between two pieces of wire, i.e., there is voltage between them, it is said to have electromotive force. Now these two words should have lots of meaning for some of us. But analyze each: electro means what? motive? and then, force? Gee, we are in a quagmire of words, words. Sometimes it might be better to not label a situation, use no words to think about it. Think just what this means, to use no words! Most of society has come to believe in the factual nature of science and has forgotten the relative nature of it. This is a real problem, don't you think, Gennie? Therefore they have devalued religious, spiritual thought, because that isn't based on "fact". You know, Gennie, neither is science based on such. They exist on a par. As functional systems that both say: If we assume X, then a view of the world Y emerges, and it is (more or less) to us a useful and functional view. No statement can ever be made about the truth or otherwise of proposition X from within worldview Y, save to say that the view Y is reasonably consistent with the purpose of the view. Different propositions are valid for different purposes. None of the views is real. Gennie, this is all coming from my personal experience but you will find your own by-and-by. - ---- One point we might could discuss: "inner experience of Tasawwuf is stronger evidence than what can be achieved through unreliable sense perceptions." Is the sensor that does the experiencing rightly called intuition? The question relates to just what is it that we hang onto after our inner experiences. I'm at the point where words totally fail. Should we even try to get past this point? This is at the point I cop out with "Knower is the Known." Should we leave it at that? Towards The One, tanzen ------------------------------ From: "Michael J. Moore" Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 09:57:27 -0700 Subject: A-theism Fred Rice wrote: > > Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah, > > What do they say? I presume they say "God doesn't exist," but how do > they know? They can't - you can't prove a negative. No, this is a straw man argument. They say "You cannot prove that God does exist." > > So they may ask you where is the "evidence" for God's existence? To me, > the evidence is strong in the writings and experiences of many centuries > of Sufis, as well as the authentic "mystics" of other religions. All of this can be attributed to man's intelligence which allows him to anticipate his own death. Man desperately does not want to die and invents a way out. > > To me, Tasawwuf is very much like science. Just as in science you must > test your hypothesis with an experiment, the Sufi approach is just the > same. The non-Sufi approach to religion is based on faith, while the Sufi > approach is based on evidence. Most likely the atheist you are > discussing things with is only familiar with the non-Sufi approach to > religion, and not the Sufi approach. And of course, we are looking for this evidence with a gun held to our heads. If we do not find it, we die. Hardly grounds for unbias observation. > > Just as a scientist must train, perhaps for many years, before he or she > is able to perform and understand scientific experiments, similarly the > traveller on the path to Allah may have to train, perhaps for many years > as well. As he or she trains, he or she becomes more capable of doing the > "experiments." Eventually, he or she knows Allah through his or her direct > experience - this is the "evidence" the atheist requires, but it can only > be experienced within oneself. It is stronger than scientific evidence, > in my opinion, because scientific evidence is based on sense perceptions > or extensions to our perceptions, which can be deceived (eg. magic > tricks, to take a simple example, are all based on deceiving people based > on what they see). So, to me, the inner experience of Tasawwuf is > stronger evidence than what can be achieved through unreliable sense > perceptions. > > The atheist might ask to see the evidence for himself or herself. In > reply, you can point out that the "evidence" in many modern physics > experiments (eg. particle accelerators) are in reality only seen by very > few scientists (because top of the range particle accelerators cost > billions of dollars to build). Does that mean you doubt their evidence, > because only a few have seen it? If the scientist had a huge vested interest in manufacturing evidence then perhaps one would ask to see for one's self. > Probably at least tens of thousands of > more people have "witnessed" the evidence for God through Tasawwuf than have > "witnessed" evidence for the neutrino (an elementary particle), for instance. > Why should we doubt the existence of God when it has been "witnessed" by > tens of thousands more people than have witnessed the evidence for the > neutrino? (Or to take a more recent example, the top quark - even fewer > haave witnessed the recent evidence for that.) Yes, but when they saw it, they saw the same thing. Whereas each man will have his own Lord. (Lord in the Ibn al-'Arabi meaning.) > > In the end, the atheist is standing on quicksand, because he or she > cannot prove the negative assertion that "God does not exist," but you do > have evidence for the existence of God, in the positive witnessing of > centuries of Sufis, and to that you can add Christian mystics, Zen > Buddhists, etc., if you wish (though that might just complicate things). > Anyone can witness it for himself or herself, too, if he or she is > willing to undergo the proper training under a true Shaykh, just like > you usually need a proper university training to become a scientist. Well "just like" may be a little misleading. Idres Shah spent a whole book making this point in "Learning How to Learn". I have never found a convincing argument to atheism or non-belief. In fact, I don't believe there is such a thing as atheism. And likewise there is no theism except in our creative imagination. There is no theism and no atheism in al haquiqa. There is no God, Allah is not deity, but deity is an attribute of Allah. First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is. La illaha Il lah ala > > Wassalam, > > Fariduddien Rice (Dien Rice) > (Ph.D. student in theoretical physics) - -- just thinking out loud Michael Moore (8th grade) ------------------------------ From: maarof Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 02:32:25 +0800 Subject: Re: Friend of Allah? (fwd) Assalamualaikum Tanzen wrote: (...) >One point we might could discuss: "inner experience of Tasawwuf is >stronger evidence than what can be achieved through unreliable sense >perceptions." I'm not sure what is meant by "inner experience". The sufis use the terms reflection, mirror etc. to describe their experience, vision or the arabic term, kashaf. However, the main argument against kashaf is that it is an individual experience, and the experience are different from person to person. In Islam, kashaf can be true or wrong, based on how the experience compared with Sharia (Quran and Sunnah) There has also been mentioned in this list how Tasawwuf is a proof God's existence. IMO, Tasawwuf does not offer proof but the KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. I think this is the position of sufi masters of the past. Ghazzali said this "knowledge" is the highest form of knowledge, and my speculation is when one has this knowledge, this world (including all the questions posed by man) becomes irrelevant. salam maarof ------------------------------ From: frank gaude Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 12:35:21 -0700 Subject: Re: Friend of Allah? (fwd) Bism-Allahi ar-Rahmani ar-Rahim Assalamu Alaikum, all! maarof wrote: > Tanzen wrote: > > (...) > > >One point we might could discuss: "inner experience of Tasawwuf is > >stronger evidence than what can be achieved through unreliable sense > >perceptions." > > I'm not sure what is meant by "inner experience". It's the knowing that comes from experience gained through certain practices. Understanding is intellectual, knowing is intuitive. Knowledge comes from "on high" through experience of all the senses, flooded from within and from without... there is no real knowledge other than from this way. Of course others may believe other than this. > The sufis use the > terms reflection, mirror etc. to describe their experience, vision > or the arabic term, kashaf. However, the main argument against kashaf > is that it is an individual experience, and the experience are different > from person to person. It seems that if certain practices are performed each individual has the identical experience, at least to the extent words can be used to compare "notes". > In Islam, kashaf can be true or wrong, based > on how the experience compared with Sharia (Quran and Sunnah) My belief is that Mohammad became a sufi just to get the Knowledge of God through certain practices that have been used (called by some The Adamic Crack) since the beginning of human self-consciousness. > There has also been mentioned in this list how Tasawwuf is a proof > God's existence. IMO, Tasawwuf does not offer proof but the KNOWLEDGE > OF GOD. Yes, this is so. Knowledge of just what you are and where you come from, where you go. The only "proof" is to the self as Self shines forth. Thus the expression: God gets to know Self through self. > I think this is the position of sufi masters of the past. Such is my understanding. > Ghazzali said this "knowledge" is the highest form of knowledge, > and my speculation is when one has this knowledge, this world > (including all the questions posed by man) becomes irrelevant. Yes and no. This knowledge gives one the insight into The One and just where self fits into This One, Self. Nothing then is irrelevant, all is of equal importance! Consider, without this world there is no spirit, no will, no reason, no matter, no substance, nothing! What is there then? Allah Hu! al-Hamdu'lillah Peace and love, tanzen ------------------------------ From: Fred Rice Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 09:20:41 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: A-theism Assalamu alaikum, Thanks for playing "devil's advocate".... let's see now... On Tue, 27 Aug 1996, Michael J. Moore wrote: > Fred Rice wrote: > > > > Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah, > > > > What do they say? I presume they say "God doesn't exist," but how do > > they know? They can't - you can't prove a negative. > > No, this is a straw man argument. They say "You cannot prove that > God does exist." First, you cannot even _in principle_ prove that God does not exist. You can, however, experience God's existence, and I answer that the doubter can too if he or she is willing to undergo the required years of training. The Sufis over the centuries are those who have had this experience and reported what they saw. > > So they may ask you where is the "evidence" for God's existence? To me, > > the evidence is strong in the writings and experiences of many centuries > > of Sufis, as well as the authentic "mystics" of other religions. > > All of this can be attributed to man's intelligence which allows him > to anticipate his own death. Man desperately does not want to die and > invents a way out. They are assuming that Sufis are lying. This is just like someone who argues against science, by assuming that scientists are lying. It is an incredibly weak argument - basically, it amounts to "I don't believe you!" I say, you can test it for yourself, but you must be willing to do the required training. The analogy with science is this: you can do the experiment, for example, that shows what is called "gravitational redshift" (an experiment done by Pound and Rebka (?) in about 1960). So you _can_ test it for yourself. However, to do the test for gravitational redshift, you must have training and at least a few tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of dollars to throw at the experiment. Similarly, you can do the Sufi test for yourself (you do not have to believe what they say). But you need the time to do the training, which could take several years, depending.... By the way, this is one of the reasons I became attracted to Tasawwuf, I realized I could do the "test" myself, and I did not need any "blind" faith at all. It took me several years, however, before the "experiment" succeeded, alhamdulillah. (In physics research, particularly at the forefront of physics, often it will take several tries before an experiment succeeds - it takes time to manage to get all the variables right.) The response, "I don't believe you!", or "I don't believe what the Sufis say!", isn't a very solid counter-argument in my book, since you can use it against any argument: Statement: "The earth is round" Answer: "This is your own delusion, because you don't like the fact that the earth is flat." Statement: "Clouds are made out of water" Answer: "This is your own delusion, because you don't like the fact that clouds are made out of cotton-balls, and it doesn't answer why the clouds don't fall to earth." etc. Would the (hypothetical) atheist also accept the above arguments? They seem to be in the same vein to me. > > To me, Tasawwuf is very much like science. Just as in science you must > > test your hypothesis with an experiment, the Sufi approach is just the > > same. The non-Sufi approach to religion is based on faith, while the Sufi > > approach is based on evidence. Most likely the atheist you are > > discussing things with is only familiar with the non-Sufi approach to > > religion, and not the Sufi approach. > > And of course, we are looking for this evidence with a gun held to our > heads. > If we do not find it, we die. Hardly grounds for unbias observation. So it is better not to look? This is not a scientific approach at all. If anyone actually said this, then they really have absolutely no respect for a scientific approach whatsoever. So it is better to _assume_ the answer you like, rather than do the testing? Most scientific experiments are done in non-ideal conditions, it is required in the field. So my answer is: the testing conditions may not be ideal, just like in most scientific experiments. However, to not do the experiment is not only unscientific, it is the opposite of the scientific approach. > > Just as a scientist must train, perhaps for many years, before he or she > > is able to perform and understand scientific experiments, similarly the > > traveller on the path to Allah may have to train, perhaps for many years > > as well. As he or she trains, he or she becomes more capable of doing the > > "experiments." Eventually, he or she knows Allah through his or her direct > > experience - this is the "evidence" the atheist requires, but it can only > > be experienced within oneself. It is stronger than scientific evidence, > > in my opinion, because scientific evidence is based on sense perceptions > > or extensions to our perceptions, which can be deceived (eg. magic > > tricks, to take a simple example, are all based on deceiving people based > > on what they see). So, to me, the inner experience of Tasawwuf is > > stronger evidence than what can be achieved through unreliable sense > > perceptions. > > > > The atheist might ask to see the evidence for himself or herself. In > > reply, you can point out that the "evidence" in many modern physics > > experiments (eg. particle accelerators) are in reality only seen by very > > few scientists (because top of the range particle accelerators cost > > billions of dollars to build). Does that mean you doubt their evidence, > > because only a few have seen it? > > If the scientist had a huge vested interest in manufacturing evidence > then perhaps one would ask to see for one's self. Scientists often do have a vested interest in finding certain results - particularly if a result could validate or invalidate their theory. If anyone made the objection above, then they are probably unfamiliar with the world of scientific research. The key to science is that results are reproducible. To me, centuries and centuries of common Sufi experiences (or Zen Buddhist experiences, or whatever), without doubt point to an undeniable truth behind those _repeatable_ experiments in the realm of experience. The many commonalities between different types of "mysticism" arising in different parts of the world, to me, also point to a single truth behind them. (Though they may use different words to state them, to me the similarities between Sufism and Zen Buddhism, for example, seem clear.) > > Probably at least tens of thousands of > > more people have "witnessed" the evidence for God through Tasawwuf than have > > "witnessed" evidence for the neutrino (an elementary particle), for instance. > > Why should we doubt the existence of God when it has been "witnessed" by > > tens of thousands more people than have witnessed the evidence for the > > neutrino? (Or to take a more recent example, the top quark - even fewer > > haave witnessed the recent evidence for that.) > > Yes, but when they saw it, they saw the same thing. Whereas each man > will have his own Lord. (Lord in the Ibn al-'Arabi meaning.) I am not sure what you mean here..... I think the seemingly common experiences point to a single "reality" behind the experiences.... > > In the end, the atheist is standing on quicksand, because he or she > > cannot prove the negative assertion that "God does not exist," but you do > > have evidence for the existence of God, in the positive witnessing of > > centuries of Sufis, and to that you can add Christian mystics, Zen > > Buddhists, etc., if you wish (though that might just complicate things). > > Anyone can witness it for himself or herself, too, if he or she is > > willing to undergo the proper training under a true Shaykh, just like > > you usually need a proper university training to become a scientist. > > Well "just like" may be a little misleading. Idres Shah spent a whole > book making this point in "Learning How to Learn". I haven't read that book, and I have come to my own opinions, of course. :) I don't know if Idries Shah knows much about scientific research?? I think that it is a very true analogy, though the difference is they are investigating different realms. I know I am not the only one who uses these kinds of comparisons - John Neatrour, who sometimes posts on alt.zen and is a Zen priest of the Soto Zen school, also has done physics research (I've forgotten which field now). I've seen him argue very effectively against atheists who _think_ they are being "scientific," but in reality don't know how scientific research works. These atheists were arguing against all religions, and John Neatrour trounced them, IMHO, because the atheists simply didn't know what they were talking about when it came to scientific research, and John Neatrour did. He compared scientists to "priests", a comparison atheists tend to hate, but which I think has some validity - for example, you have to trust what they say on many things, because it is impossible (due to financial reasons or whatever) to check it for yourself, so in this sense the scientist can be like a priest. You trust what the scientist says regarding science, just like people tend to trust what the priest says regarding religion. (By the way, most physicists don't like the "Tao of physics" - that is something different entirely to what I am talking about, I think....) > I have never found a convincing argument to atheism or non-belief. In > fact, I don't believe there is such a thing as atheism. And likewise > there is no theism except in our creative imagination. There is no > theism > and no atheism in al haquiqa. > There is no God, Allah is not deity, but deity is an attribute > of Allah. > > First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is. > La illaha Il lah ala I noticed in the book "Love is the Wine," Shaykh Muzaffer Ozak says many people are really "believers," and it is shown in their actions, but they don't even know it themselves... allahu `alam (God knows best). Wassalam, Fariduddien Rice ------------------------------ End of tariqas-digest V1 #111 *****************************