From tariqas-digest-approval@europe.std.com Sun Jul  7 07:28:27 1996
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 17:43:07 -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 #39


tariqas-digest              Sunday, 30 June 1996        Volume 01 : Number 039


----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: jabriel@peoples.net (Jabreil  Hanafi)
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 10:10:37 -0500
Subject: Re: God's Omnicience & Omnipotence

>William J. Brown wrote:> 
>> If we are of G-d and we are "part of G-d", then if we change does G-d
still>> remain unchanged? <snip>>Yes, G-d remains unchanged. <snip> we would
remain within the G-dhead as we were pre-big-bang, as a >distinct pattern of
energy bound up with our Creator. <snip>
and  Abi l Khayr said:

Maybe it is that God changes from our point of view, but not from God's own
point of view. Abi'l-Khayr

My Friends,
   I would like to suggest that the very terms G-D and god distorts and
desicrates my Beloved.  Both carry a conotation which traps one into
thinking they can elucidate upon the mystery.  Some will confine it to the
universal field theory while others will confine it to the archetype of
Sophia or Zeus.

    I mean isn't it fascinating the way we scientificaly speak of the
"godhead" it reminds me of past scientists postulating with great authority
that this spit of cosmic dust we call earth was flat.

   In Islam there are some ninty nine names which is actually a geometric
folulae that hints but just hints about the veils of my Beloved.  

   How does the abstraction called all knowing grow in its knowledge.  It
does not.  I don't pretend to know about God but I do know about the
phenomina of language.  To know all suggests that all makes the passive very
is contained.  Is the equation for an object.  The opposite of everything is
nothing. Now we have everything, nothing and something.  The last ingrediant
necessary is placement and thus inside and outside.

   Our hearts are capable of breaking the barriers of everything, of
nothing, of something, of "isness" of outside and of inside.  This through
direct experiece occurs from a diffrent domain than the interpritation of
reality through language.  The direct experience cannot be intellectualized,
it cannot be spoken.  The love songs which we seem so enamoured with by
poets such as Yunnis and Rumi hint, they give a taste.  But even these
masters , and maybe especially these masters claimed to know less then you
claim to know.

   Are any of us bound to our Creator.  I have seen pictures as you all have
of us being bound to a reality called Shietan in the tarot deck, but if you
look closely at the picture you will notice that the chains are very loose.
All they require is to step into the unknown, to give up hell and to walk on
paradise giving up becomes the essential ingrediant.  What does it  mena to
die before you die.  In the sixties a somewhat chaleton type of Guru spoke
to the ego and L.S.D. experiments.  And then there was Alport, Ram Das and
the conversation of the Godhead, followed by the Maharishi, Sai Baba, Bagwan
Rashneish, Elzabeth Claire Prophet, Mother and hosts and hosts of people all
who claimed to have god realization all who were quitew willing to say that
you were bound to god.

My Beloved ghas neiother son nor daughter this is a great mystery.  My
beloved is a Creator which needs no creation.  Regarding the hidden treasure
looking to be found this is a metaphor, I do not believe it is to be taken
literally.  

I ask you to remember when youlast felt the love of your Creator.  I am not
speaking of looking into another's eyes now, or a glorious sun rise I am
speaking of being taken to the supra real through the love of your Source.
It was incomprehensible.  When you returned you could only be in awe.  There
were no words.  It was beyond open eyed samahdi, it was beyond the
descriptions, the poetry, the tantric orgasims, the levels of consciousness
brought about by the manipulation of breath and the autonomic nervous system.

   And as I understand it given my own lack of understanding this was but a
veil to what was known by Mohammed buring the Haj, Infintesimal from what
Mshe saw which is described as the buring bush, insifnificant from what Isa
spoke of when he spoke of the kingdom.

   Has our intellect done anything else than turned us into a jaded
manderine, has our intellect and pride done much more than covered our eyes
again with scales.  

   Howe do we than communicate about our beloved.  In chivalery I would
always suggest discreetly.  All my Love.  Jabriel 
>William J. Brown wrote:> 
>> If we are of G-d and we are "part of G-d", then if we change does G-d
still>> remain unchanged? <snip>>Yes, G-d remains unchanged. <snip> we would
remain within the G-dhead as we were pre-big-bang, as a >distinct pattern of
energy bound up with our Creator. <snip>
and  Abi l Khayr said:Maybe it is that God changes from our point of view,
but not from God's own point of view. Abi'l-Khayr

My Friends,
   I would like to suggest that the very terms G-D and god distorts and
desecrates my Beloved.  Both carry a connotation which traps one into
thinking they can elucidate upon the mystery.  Some will confine it to "the
universal field theory"  while others will confine it to the archetype of
Sophia or Zeus.

    I mean isn't it fascinating the way we scientifically speak of the
"godhead".  It reminds me of past scientists postulating with great
authority that this spit of cosmic dust we call earth was flat.

   In Islam there are some ninety nine names which are actually a geometric
formula that hints but just hints about the veils of my Beloved.  

   How does the abstraction called all knowing grow in its knowledge.  It
does not.  I don't pretend to know about God but I do know about the
phenomena of language.  To know all suggests that all makes the passive very
"is" contained.  "Isness" is  the equation for an object.  The opposite of
everything is nothing. Now we have everything, nothing and something.  The
last ingredient necessary is placement and thus inside and outside.

   Our hearts are capable of breaking the barriers of everything, of
nothing, of something, of "isness" of outside and of inside.  This through
direct experience occurs from a different domain than the interpretation of
reality through language.  The direct experience cannot be intellectualized,
it cannot be spoken.  The love songs which we seem so enamored with by poets
such as Yunnis and Rumi hint, they give a taste.  But even these masters ,
and maybe especially these masters claimed to know less then you claim to know.

   Are any of us bound to our Creator.  I have seen pictures as you all have
of us being bound to a reality called Shietan in the tarot deck, but if you
look closely at the picture you will notice that the chains are very loose.
All they require is to step into the unknown, to give up hell and to walk in
paradise. Giving up becomes the essential ingredient.  What does it  mean to
die before you die.  In the sixties a somewhat charlatan type of Guru spoke
to the ego and LSD experiments.  And then there was Alport, Ram Das and the
conversation of the Godhead, followed by the Maharishi, Sai Baba, Bagwan
Rashneish, Elzabeth Claire Prophet, Mother,  and hosts and hosts of people
all who claimed to have god realization all who were quite willing to say
that you were bound to god.

My Beloved has neither son nor daughter this is a great mystery.  My beloved
is a Creator which needs no creation.  Regarding the hidden treasure looking
to be found this is a metaphor, I do not believe it is to be taken
literally.  Regarding the godhead or Ahad this is just a model made from a
mental framework so as to move beyond that framework.  I suggest that you
are getting the map mixed up with (al Huk) the Reality. 

I ask you to remember when you last felt the love of your Creator.  I am not
speaking of looking into anther's eyes now, or a glorious sun rise I am
speaking of being taken to the supra real through the love of your Source.
It was incomprehensible.  When you returned you could only be in awe.  There
were no words.  It was beyond open eyed samahdi, it was beyond the
descriptions as well as the deceptions, it was beyond  the poetry, the
tantric orgasms, the levels of consciousness brought about by the
manipulation of breath and the autonomic nervous system.

   And as I understand it given my own lack of understanding this was but a
veil to what was known by Mohammed during the Haj, Infinitesimal from what
Mosha saw which is described as the burning bush, insignificant from what
Isa spoke of when he spoke of the kingdom.

   Has our intellect done anything else than turned us into a jaded
mandarin, has our intellect and pride done much more than covered our eyes
again with scales?    How do we than communicate about our Beloved.  In
chivalry I would always suggest always  discreetly, with valor I would
suggest always with humility, .  All my Love.  Jabriel 
- -----------------------------------------
          Jabriel Hanafi
        Pivotal Point Dynamics
     


------------------------------

From: CWoodsong@aol.com
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 13:14:09 -0400
Subject: Re: God's Omnicience & Omnipotence

What is this Great Mystery?
what is this yearning... this desire
to be with and of the Beloved 
when it is the Beloved that yearns for me! 
  
The Great Mysterious... 
that which IS 
and that which i can never know
is that of which I am 

I am the Love that pours through You
throwing oil on the fire of this Love! 

I am the Beauty waiting within 
the Beauty we can never know

I am You... 
and only through You can i see
the Beauty that is me. 

              <>><>><>><>><>><>><>>
   
    we are flow-- o-o-o.... we are the ebb!  we are the we-a - vers... we are
the web! 




------------------------------

From: CWoodsong@aol.com
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 14:01:04 -0400
Subject: Sufi

Hey, friends!

As you all probably know by now <grin>, i am a fan of Cat Stevens' music...
so, here we are... over coffee (and juice! ;) .. and the music's playing...
<<smile>> 

Interesting little tune... 

I wanna live in a wigwam
I wanna live in a wigwam
I wanna live in a wigwam
and dance 'round the totem pole.... 

...
I wanna live on a commune
I wanna live on a commune 
I wanna live on a commune
and people will call me a hippy... 

I wanna live in a treehut
I wanna live in a treehut
I wanna live in a treehut
and swing from branch to branch... 

just a few of the verses.... :) 
and another verse popped into my mind... (such as it is! :) 
     
I wanna Be with the sufis   
I wanna Be with the sufis
I wanna Be with the sufis 
and begin to learn what Love IS... 

and the refrain:

I'm glad I'm alive am I
I'm glad I'm alive am I
Glad I'm alive, glad I'm alive, glad I'm alive am I 

Gotta keep our heads up in the sky... etc.! 

my apologies to all... including Cat Stevens (i probably butchered the
lyrics! :)  ... but this is something so GOOD! ... i need to share!      

     love ya all!
        woodsong (the warped! :)



------------------------------

From: ASHA101@aol.com
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 15:21:03 -0400
Subject: Re: relationships and a view of flaming

Bob King wrote:
>>> but I also 
think it can serve as an opportunity to transform one emotion (anger) into 
another (admission of pain/hurt) into another (admission of caring), which 
can be a doorway to hightening/deepening (AKA spiritual learning).  What 
do you think?  This is not a defense of flaming, but rather a question 
concering how to interpret flaming. . .<<<<

   I think that flaming can be interpreted from two directions. One from the
direction that Buddha took in the long night before his illumination and the
other from the direction that a master takes, like, no doubt, Buddha did
after his illumination. In the first instance, one is receptive to the good
and the bad alike and learn that it really makes no impression on her or him.
However, you might also be aware that, if you are motivated to flame, if you
have not integrated the love and respect of the other as much as the love and
respect you have for yourself, then your masterful words that bring
discipline to the situation will be, in reality, harmful, lacking harmony,
and therefore a failure in the very terms of mastery in which they may have
been offered.
 Buddha, when attacked by the god of love and death on that long night under
the Bo tree did not repel the arrows that were flung at him, he did not
protect himself, he turned them into flowers. That, it seems is the first
step to enlightenment, receptivity, inclusiveness, etc. and in the morning
when the sun came up he was still awake. 
  Now, if you are at this point, having accepted the burning coals and sharp
edged arrows as if they were flowers, then you might try mastery. If you
flame from the direction of a master, it is just the steeling of the metal,
just the forming of the pot. If you are flamed and a master or a apprentice,
you learn not to simply go more deeply into it, but rise above it. 
  In the first instance there is inclusiveness, in the second instance all
that has been included is husbanded to fulfillment. Hopefully one has
included all because as we have found in the example of our environment, if
all is not included the mastery will be disastrous.
 I think that what I am saying is just exactly what you have said so simply.
This relationship between awakening and then enlightenment and mastery in the
world is a traditional sufi view. Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan stated "the
crowning enigma of the implications of the awakening attained 'beyond the
existential level' " (is) " when we face the critical turning point of real
life situations again, without losing sight of that transcendent awakening."
He quotes Ibn 'Arabi: "When one does not see anything other than God, the
void (khala) is impossible ... for such a being, a retreat (khalwa) is not
possible"
  Asha ...

------------------------------

From: jabriel@peoples.net (Jabreil  Hanafi)
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 14:52:07 -0500
Subject: It is not all sugar and light

Woodsong said:
>when it is the Beloved that yearns for me! > > IS>is that of which I am 
>>I am the Love that pours through You>>I am You... >and only through You
can i see>the Beauty that is me. 

Does the Beloved yearn?  Now I know that imagery would have one think so,
and I know that the demand for equality which comes from a sense of lack
would also have one think so.  But I would ask what is this you, this
pronoun which out of habit we all call ourselves to be.  If I am the love
that pours through you what good am I?  What good is sugar to the diabetic
who craves sugar but knows nothing of diabetes, what good is heroin of coke
for the addict?  

The greatest Shaykes will say I am nothing.  I am not that which the Beloved
yearns for, I am the fool who is a slave, who surrenders, who annihilates
what he or she is so that I may rise in life to praise with gratitude.  I am
here to give up I, to give it all up every last morsel of what is me, only
than can seeing begin to occur; only then can the transparency which allows
the Great Work to evolve and visit occur.

The sap, sweetness and light and sugar normally speaks to a ploy at best
called "won't you please accept me I am starving, I am empty, see how
wonderful I am, see how much I need your love."

The mystery needs a greater stance I think to answer the question in the
authors poem above.  The mystery requires not caring about whether you are
accepted, liked, acknowledged.  It requires you give up friends, treasures,
lovers and family.  It requires a love so giving that nothing can be held on
to, it requires complete self abandon, and if you are asking me Tanzen who
told me so, just begin to review Rumi's material.  But Rumi, Peace be upon
him does not matter.  My heart tells me.

There is a rigor to this business of Chivalry, a rigor to walking through
the fire which trues the metal it is not all sweetness and light.

While there is much truth to the notion that the heart of a child is
required to enter the gates of heaven ,and thus a state of innocence,  this
is a different type of child then the one who will sell themselves out for a
cup of poison they call love.

There are different types of poison, different types of wine they do not all
belong to the same source.  There are different types of light, they do not
all come from the same source.

There are many stories of wise men and women who go into retreat and in
trance or vision state are met by a principality (from within  or without)
which leads them astray.  This is an incredible class room we are in with
incredible lessons.  The fortitude with which we persevere as we like idiots
give up everything becomes essential.  Essential to what?  Essential to la
ilha il illah.  There is no god but Allah.  How do we approach there is no.
What does it mean that there is no?  Why is it called the negative ziker?

And thus what can be said in the face of the axiom that Allah has no
partners?  These are questions which can not be answered accept for one's
self. But I suggest they require an answer and that the answer while
personal between oneself and one's Creator is where illumination begins.

The truth is simple.  So simple that it cannot be spoken.  Re-read Rabbia.
Was she hard like  a diamond?  Why?  What matter of dedication is this from
one who says miracles performed by us are nonsense, the beauty of the spring
is nonsense, all that matters is the relationship with the Creator, and that
is private, very personal.  Why does Rumi say your home does not matter?
Your daughters and sons do not matter?  Here the yearning takes on perhaps a
deeper cut.  The cut is something in my experience we lack.  It is a cut of
unending thirst to know.  It does not come from the presumptuousness of
people who call themselves spiritual and have all the answers.  It comes
from a quest of idiots who know that they are nothing and they know nothing.
Love Jabriel
- -----------------------------------------
          Jabriel Hanafi
        Pivotal Point Dynamics
     


------------------------------

From: JHulvey@aol.com
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 16:09:58 -0400
Subject: Re: relationships and a view of flaming

Words differentiate. That is their usefulness. We choose one word instead of
another. Why? Perhaps we are saying exactly what we mean. (Sufi masters seem
to have been incredibly precise in their choice of words.)
If you quote my words and question them, I can see exactly what it is I've
said that you take issue with. Perhaps I will stand on what I've said.
Perhaps I'll see that I am speaking out of (say) the ego.Or perhaps it is
simply that I have not chosen my words well. Perhaps I'll see that I am not
as clear on a subject as I thought I was at the time of writing!  

Or perhaps I've mirrored language or positions I saw in your posting, and
I'll see that you didn't appreciate it!

BUT - if you question <me> and not my words, how can I respond?
Usually, one sees a person's actions and hears their words.  In this type of
situation, words are actions. 

The very least consideration we could give another here is to plainly
indicate what words of theirs we are disagreeing with. (Of course, you might
be accused of picking apart their post!) Even if it is a particular attitude
we are taking issue with, we've formed this opinion from the person's words
and so ought to be able to supply those words. If not, I think we should keep
our mouth shut. 

By now I'm sure all are yawning, as this is just basic netiquette. 

But, as is said time and time again in Sufi stories and teaching materials,
discussion has limited usefulness. (However, listening to discussions 
can be good material! So why can't I keep <my> mouth shut?:))

Love to all,
Jules




------------------------------

From: Bob King <bking@guilford.k12.nc.us>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 16:14:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: relationships, flaming, and enlightenment

On Sun, 30 Jun 1996 ASHA101@aol.com wrote:

>   Now, if you are at this point, having accepted the burning coals and sharp
> edged arrows as if they were flowers, then you might try mastery.

>   In the first instance there is inclusiveness, in the second instance all
> that has been included is husbanded to fulfillment. 

> Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan stated "the
> crowning enigma of the implications of the awakening attained 'beyond the
> existential level' " (is) " when we face the critical turning point of real
> life situations again, without losing sight of that transcendent awakening."
> He quotes Ibn 'Arabi: "When one does not see anything other than God, the
> void (khala) is impossible ... for such a being, a retreat (khalwa) is not
> possible"

As usual, Asha, I think you state things very beautifully and clearly.  I 
must say I have for a long time been suspicious of any kind of 
transcendence or awakening, not seeing how it might emanate from a 
place of real contact/connection.  

Your phrase, "all that has been included is husbanded to fulfillment" 
speaks to me of transcendence/awakening in terms which I can understand and 
appreciate as not being about "retreat" or disconnection -- thus you 
allay  my suspicions about enlightenment :)  Thanks.  If "rising above" 
arises as a consequence of deep involvement, then I'm all for it, and 
again I appreciate your insightful writing about this topic -- a 
beautiful message, for me anyway. . .

Bob

------------------------------

From: haybat@rummelplatz.uni-mannheim.de
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 22:34:36 +0000
Subject: A Question

As salam alaykum,

I heard, that it is told in the Holy Quran, that man didn't want to 
go into the body, but the music of the angels moved him into it. Does 
anybody know, in which sura and ayat this is written?

Love to all

Hueseyin Haybat

------------------------------

From: JHulvey@aol.com
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 16:44:06 -0400
Subject: Re: It is not all sugar and light

>The mystery needs a greater stance I think to answer the question in the
>authors poem above.  The mystery requires not caring about whether you >are
>accepted, liked, acknowledged.  It requires you give up friends, >treasures,
>lovers and family.  It requires a love so giving that nothing can be held on
>to, it requires complete self abandon, and if you are asking me Tanzen >who
>told me so, just begin to review Rumi's material.  But Rumi, Peace be >upon
>him does not matter.  My heart tells me.

I think one should be careful about telling others what the "mystery"
requires of them. Unless you are guiding that person, you can only speak for
yourself. (Whoever that is!)

The path would seem to have different requirements of us at different times.
For a while I've felt a strong pull to "retire" from the list, and it now
seems time. I have enjoyed your companionship, all of you, and learned much.
 

(Now if I can just get the unsub thing to work right <grin>!)

Love and blessing to all,
Julie  

------------------------------

From: CWoodsong@aol.com
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 16:50:10 -0400
Subject: Re: It is not all sugar and light

Hiya Jabriel,

Alright, dear friend.  I think we're getting close! :)  Thank you for your
reply. I don't know why i wrote those words... but, now maybe we can get down
to really understanding something... even if it is to only finally realize
that there is no thing i can know!  

>Woodsong said:
>>when it is the Beloved that yearns for me! > > IS>is that of which I am 
>>>I am the Love that pours through You>>I am You... >and only through You
>can i see>the Beauty that is me. 
>
>Does the Beloved yearn?  Now I know that imagery would have one think so,

yes...  /My/ Beloved does. :)  My Beloved is that which i Love... that Ideal
which i've ... created, perhaps? But, please understand, this is only /me/,
my very limited understanding and experience.  I AM my Beloved... and my
Beloved is me...            

>and I know that the demand for equality which comes from a sense of lack
>would also have one think so.  But I would ask what is this you, this
>pronoun which out of habit we all call ourselves to be.  If I am the love
>that pours through you what good am I?  What good is sugar to the diabetic
>who craves sugar but knows nothing of diabetes, what good is heroin of coke
>for the addict?  

I am.  As You are...  that which WE are...
That which is behind the veils!  That which i have not an inkling about,
other than this absolute insane, burning, crazy, desire to know, to Be!  ...
the Great Mysterious...  

>The greatest Shaykes will say I am nothing.  I am not that which the Beloved
>yearns for, I am the fool who is a slave, who surrenders, who annihilates

But what is it that i REALLY AM?  

>what he or she is so that I may rise in life to praise with gratitude.  I am
>here to give up I, to give it all up every last morsel of what is me, only
>than can seeing begin to occur; only then can the transparency which allows
>the Great Work to evolve and visit occur.

but what is it we 'give up'?  Certainly not our "True Nature"... right? 

>The sap, sweetness and light and sugar normally speaks to a ploy at best
>called "won't you please accept me I am starving, I am empty, see how
>wonderful I am, see how much I need your love."

<<smile>> yes, maybe this is my 'stuckness' right now... help me out of it,
please? 

>The mystery needs a greater stance I think to answer the question in the
>authors poem above.  The mystery requires not caring about whether you are
>accepted, liked, acknowledged.  It requires you give up friends, treasures,
>lovers and family.  It requires a love so giving that nothing can be held on
>to, it requires complete self abandon, and if you are asking me Tanzen who
>told me so, just begin to review Rumi's material.  But Rumi, Peace be upon
>him does not matter.  My heart tells me.

/My/ stuckness is one thing.  It's where i do not see clearly... it's where i
am not understanding, not loving, giving up (false self) completely.  But, my
'requirement'.... for /me/ this is to LOVE.  I'm not required to give up...
anything... but i do so joyfully!     
Your heart matters to me, friend. (and, sorry <<grin>>... but i can't help
(right now at least! :) offer sugar and light.... I tried! You know! :)   

My Heart leads me in a certain direction... and that's where i stay... and
with you to help me SEE where my confusion lies.... i get beyond this
stuckness... and move into more Love... (less sweetness? :) 

>There is a rigor to this business of Chivalry, a rigor to walking through
>the fire which trues the metal it is not all sweetness and light.

Bring it on! <<smile>> 

>While there is much truth to the notion that the heart of a child is
>required to enter the gates of heaven ,and thus a state of innocence,  this
>is a different type of child then the one who will sell themselves out for a
>cup of poison they call love.

I don't sell that which i do not possess...  to me, love is all there is!
 There is no thing to sell!  <<white coats are coming!<<  :)   

You know me, friend Jabriel...  let's quit pretending we don't.  
 
      love... the kind the cuts to the quick! :) 
         your friend always, carol

       

------------------------------

From: Simon Bryquer <sbryquer@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 17:26:22 -0700
Subject: Re:i It is not all sugar and light + Lets Really get personal

Jabriel Hanafi wrote:
> 
> >----- Forwarded message (jabriel@peoples.net (Jabreil  Hanafi)) -----<

Salaams to one and all--------------

I will not quote what Mr.Hanafi wrote for I'm sure everyone
is quite familiar with it.

All I want to say regarding his posts is that: 
'Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of
vanities; all is vanity.' Hebrew Bible. Ecclesiastes 1:2 passim.

Also George Elliot said:

Vanity is as ill at ease under indifference as tenderness is 
under a love which it cannot return.

I believe what we have here is a semblance of Attar's infinitely 
verbose Peacock (fantasizing mystic? dreams)combined with the
reality of the Duck.

Mr.Hanafi I believe you have become deceived by your own (mystic)
performance.  In the lingo of the street 'You can do the talk(though 
for me it's more like rambling and in your responses to Lilyan--
doubletalk)but can't do the walk.

Mr.Hanafi if you're given to one of your long meandering replies,
don't bother, I've stopped reading most of your output awhile
back.

Greetings to one and all

Simon Bryquer

------------------------------

From: CWoodsong@aol.com
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 17:30:26 -0400
Subject: Re: relationships and a view of flaming

>(However, listening to discussions 
>can be good material! So why can't I keep <my> mouth shut?:))

But if we all keep our mouths shut... there's no discussion! :) 

    love & peace,
        carol




------------------------------

From: maarof@pc.jaring.my
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 05:42:14 +0800
Subject: Re: It is not all sugar and light

On Sun, 30 Jun 1996, JHulvey@aol.com wrote:

>
>The path would seem to have different requirements of us at different times.
>For a while I've felt a strong pull to "retire" from the list, and it now
>seems time. I have enjoyed your companionship, all of you, and learned much.
> 
>
>(Now if I can just get the unsub thing to work right <grin>!)
>
>Love and blessing to all,
>Julie  

I'll miss reading your words of wisdom. Walk happy dear friend and keep that 
smile. Insha-Allah, 10 years from now, I'll comb the Lysator archive and re-live 
these moments :)

salam
from an admirer of your words
maarod

------------------------------

From: Well333@turbonet.com (Jacquie Weller)
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 14:42:53 +0100
Subject: It is not all sugar and light

Dear Jabriel:

You have said it is not all sugar.  I agree.  I also know or view things
differently than you my brother.  The nothing to me is the false self that
continually drops away, and then what is left is not nothing.  It is the
sparkle of My Beloved whatever i choose to call this since i must call it
something other than nothing.

Whatever form revealed to someone from the one source may not particulary
fit in to your ideal.  Woodsong, sing on, sing on the song you know.  Some
will say it is not God because it doesn't add up.  Some will say your cup is
empty when you know it is not.  It doesn't matter what any of us think as
long as you know and sing whatever the inner ear listens too, and knows.

i know how to wear a mask, and i may have many masks left, and ideas that
are totally false, presumptuous, and illusive, but they drop eventually.
my ego self is nothing, my intellect is nothing, my words fail at translating,
my emotions can be a tangle, but a candle burns clearly....and i see there that 
"hu" ...a simply breath...the tiny sip of that...will split the atom of my soul.

Of course all this is imagination perhaps, but i know peace that i did not
know or could not know before.
Kaffea Lalla







------------------------------

End of tariqas-digest V1 #39
****************************