Ishraqi Philosophy of Light.

[mazharshah]

Were Ismaili Da'is influenced by ISHRAQI philosophy of MAN OF LIGHT.

[Admin]

The reply is in a book named "L'Archange empourpré " by Professor H. Corbin.

[kmaherali]

Can you clarify what you mean by Ishraqi Philosophy of Light?

[mazharshah]

The reply is in a book named "L'Archange empourpré " by Professor H. Corbin.

Thanks for information.

[mazharshah]

Can you clarify what you mean by Ishraqi Philosophy of Light?

My question is related to HIKMAT AL ISHRAQ ( philosophy of illumination ) by
Shihabuldin Yahya Suharwardi, where he has related his theory of man of light to Pole or Qutub or Imam.

[kmaherali]

The reply is in a book named "L'Archange empourpré " by Professor H. Corbin.

Could you provide the essence of what has been said in the book.

[kmaherali]

My question is related to HIKMAT AL ISHRAQ ( philosophy of illumination ) by
Shihabuldin Yahya Suharwardi, where he has related his theory of man of light to Pole or Qutub or Imam.

I think light has been used as a symbol of divinity since the beginning. In fact the term Guru means remover of darkness - Light.

Sloko Nano verse:

satgur kahere nure meendar samaareeyaa
ane nure rachyo aasmaan
te nur maanhethee nur pragatteeyaa
tenu satgur chhe naam re.........................10

The True Guide says: The world originated from the light, and the heavens were created from the light. From the (primordial) light, light manifested. It's name is the True Guide(Pir).

[Admin]

Sorry, I read it 30 years ago.

I just remember the purple symbolism of the Angel with one wing made of Light and one wing made of Darkness in Sohravardi's writtings as described by professor Corbin. The symbol points toward the dichotomy of zahir/batin sharia/haqiqat, the forces of darkness which are this physical world versus the forces of Light which are the Spiritual World and the Angel caught in between trying to reach the Light with the help of the Imam.

I don't want to mix up with other books i have read because of the many decades that have passed, though I still have that book somewhere in a box...

[mazharshah]

My question is related to HIKMAT AL ISHRAQ ( philosophy of illumination ) by
Shihabuldin Yahya Suharwardi, where he has related his theory of man of light to Pole or Qutub or Imam.

I think light has been used as a symbol of divinity since the beginning. In fact the term Guru means remover of darkness - Light.

Sloko Nano verse:

satgur kahere nure meendar samaareeyaa
ane nure rachyo aasmaan
te nur maanhethee nur pragatteeyaa
tenu satgur chhe naam re.........................10

The True Guide says: The world originated from the light, and the heavens were created from the light. From the (primordial) light, light manifested. It's name is the True Guide(Pir).

Can you explain how noor gave birth to matter or physical universe? Noor is subtle and weightless, where as matter is heavy and carry weight. Noor is formless and matter has various forms!

[ismaili103]

Can you explain how noor gave birth to matter or physical universe? Noor is subtle and weightless, where as matter is heavy and carry weight. Noor is formless and matter has various forms!

Your Quran also said that Allah is Noor ( Light ), and that Noor is creator. First tell me how can Noor create physical universe.

My Imaan is good and I don't need any explanation that how Divine Noor can create Physical Universe, when these question arise in my mind, my good Imaan gives me the answer , that this Divine Noor created Thousands of Universe and That Noor can create countless different things then this universe and he can create countless different thing then that different thing .

Because he is QADIR E MUTTALIQ. AND THIS TERM GIVES ALL THE ANSWERS.

[kmaherali]

Can you explain how noor gave birth to matter or physical universe? Noor is subtle and weightless, where as matter is heavy and carry weight. Noor is formless and matter has various forms!

See the video below. It explains how matter is perceived by us and interpreted by our brain/mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6rfIKN ... e=youtu.be

There is also an interesting article which I posted in another thread:

THE TIMES 1980's

Science and religion

Paradoxes of physics and theology

What is light? What is matter? These are questions fundamental to a scientific understanding of the world. Or are they?

Certainly they are questions long known to have no simple answers. Indeed,a recently completed experiment goes so far as to indicate that they might have no answers at all.

If this interpretation is right, science is not what we thought it was; some might argue it has begun to look a little like theology.

Our story begins in the early part of this century. Light was discovered to have a dual nature. Some experiments pointed to it being a wave; others to it being made of particles. But that is odd: How can something be both a spread-out wave - like a succession of ripples on a pond - and at the same time a small solid particle - like a tiny billiard ball? The two descriptions appeared contradictory.

No way out of this dilemma could be found until Niels Bohr, the Danish physicist, came up with a remarkable suggestion. He claimed that science tells us nothing about the world as it is in itself - it does not answer questions of the form: "What is... ?" Instead, it tells us of the way we interact with the world.

Thus, concepts like "wave" and "particle" apply not to objects themselves (light or matter), but to how we interact with them. There are wave-like interactions and particle-like interactions, and that is all. It being physically impossible to perform both types of experiment at the same time, there is never a need to invoke both concepts simultaneously. So provided we stick to interactions, there is no paradox.

Bohr went on to assert that this ability to speak meaningfully only of our interactions was no temporary restriction. This was the frontier of the knowable - a barrier that would never be breached.

This claim did not go unchallenged. Leading the counter-attack was Einsten. As the arguments flowed back and forth, more and more physicists came to side with Bohr, despite the fact that no one relished being in the opposite camp to Einstein!

But enough of the paradoxes of modern physics. What has this to do with theology?

Paradox has been a feature of Christian theology from earliest times. In trying to answer the question "Who, or what, is God?" the Church Fathers came to the conclusion that they had to regard him as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, he was one God, not three. Moreover each of the Persons of this Trinity was not to be thought of as merely a part or aspect, of God; each was fully God. Difficult though it was to see how the apparent contradiction was to be reconciled, they considered any simpler description of God would not do justice to the evidence.

When later they came to consider "Who is Jesus?" they concluded he was both fully God and fully man - another paradox. Thus in Christian theology one deals with paradoxes every bit as puzzling as those that have now surfaced in physics.

It was in response to these paradoxes that Gregory Palamas, the fourteenth-century Archbishop of Thessalonica, decided that God was absolutely unknowable in his "essence", that is to say, as he was in himself. Instead, he was to be regarded as knowable only, through his "energies" - the ways he revealed himself through the three Persons - the ways he interacted with us. This view became official doctrine for the Eastern Church in 1351.

Much the same theme was later taken up by, among others, the Danish theologian Soren Kierkegaard. Pondering the same Christian doctrines he concluded there to be two kinds of truth: objective and subjective truth. When the truth appeared from an objective point of view to be paradoxical, it was an indication, he said, that one should be seeking a more subjective truth, one involving one's own participation.

According to this particular stand of theological thought, one finds it necessary, as in modern physics, to take a step back from the objects of one's enquiry - whether they be God and Jesus, or light and matter -and be content to speak only of one's interactions with those objects.

As a postscipt, it is necessary to note that Bohr was an avid reader of Kierkegaard. Could it be that twentieth century physics owes a modest debt to a nineteenth century theologian's contemplation of a fourth century Christian creed?

Russell Stannard
Professor of Physics, Open University

[mazharshah]

Can you explain how noor gave birth to matter or physical universe? Noor is subtle and weightless, where as matter is heavy and carry weight. Noor is formless and matter has various forms!

Your Quran also said that Allah is Noor ( Light ), and that Noor is creator. First tell me how can Noor create physical universe.

My Imaan is good and I don't need any explanation that how Divine Noor can create Physical Universe, when these question arise in my mind, my good Imaan gives me the answer , that this Divine Noor created Thousands of Universe and That Noor can create countless different things then this universe and he can create countless different thing then that different thing .

Because he is QADIR E MUTTALIQ. AND THIS TERM GIVES ALL THE ANSWERS.

YOUR QURAN! Yes my Quran which is guide for mankind. In preamble Imam wrote" Holy Quran is the final message of Allah to mankind" Obey this farman or discard, it is up to you. My question was directed to Kmaherali and not to you. You have not even said a word on' Ishraqi Philosophy of light', Why so much burning? In ayat e Noor, Allah has spoken in parables. On this forum no one has real defination of Noor.

[mazharshah]

Can you explain how noor gave birth to matter or physical universe? Noor is subtle and weightless, where as matter is heavy and carry weight. Noor is formless and matter has various forms!

See the video below. It explains how matter is perceived by us and interpreted by our brain/mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6rfIKN ... e=youtu.be

There is also an interesting article which I posted in another thread:

THE TIMES 1980's

Science and religion

Paradoxes of physics and theology

What is light? What is matter? These are questions fundamental to a scientific understanding of the world. Or are they?

Certainly they are questions long known to have no simple answers. Indeed,a recently completed experiment goes so far as to indicate that they might have no answers at all.

If this interpretation is right, science is not what we thought it was; some might argue it has begun to look a little like theology.

Our story begins in the early part of this century. Light was discovered to have a dual nature. Some experiments pointed to it being a wave; others to it being made of particles. But that is odd: How can something be both a spread-out wave - like a succession of ripples on a pond - and at the same time a small solid particle - like a tiny billiard ball? The two descriptions appeared contradictory.

No way out of this dilemma could be found until Niels Bohr, the Danish physicist, came up with a remarkable suggestion. He claimed that science tells us nothing about the world as it is in itself - it does not answer questions of the form: "What is... ?" Instead, it tells us of the way we interact with the world.

Thus, concepts like "wave" and "particle" apply not to objects themselves (light or matter), but to how we interact with them. There are wave-like interactions and particle-like interactions, and that is all. It being physically impossible to perform both types of experiment at the same time, there is never a need to invoke both concepts simultaneously. So provided we stick to interactions, there is no paradox.

Bohr went on to assert that this ability to speak meaningfully only of our interactions was no temporary restriction. This was the frontier of the knowable - a barrier that would never be breached.

This claim did not go unchallenged. Leading the counter-attack was Einsten. As the arguments flowed back and forth, more and more physicists came to side with Bohr, despite the fact that no one relished being in the opposite camp to Einstein!

But enough of the paradoxes of modern physics. What has this to do with theology?

Paradox has been a feature of Christian theology from earliest times. In trying to answer the question "Who, or what, is God?" the Church Fathers came to the conclusion that they had to regard him as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, he was one God, not three. Moreover each of the Persons of this Trinity was not to be thought of as merely a part or aspect, of God; each was fully God. Difficult though it was to see how the apparent contradiction was to be reconciled, they considered any simpler description of God would not do justice to the evidence.

When later they came to consider "Who is Jesus?" they concluded he was both fully God and fully man - another paradox. Thus in Christian theology one deals with paradoxes every bit as puzzling as those that have now surfaced in physics.

It was in response to these paradoxes that Gregory Palamas, the fourteenth-century Archbishop of Thessalonica, decided that God was absolutely unknowable in his "essence", that is to say, as he was in himself. Instead, he was to be regarded as knowable only, through his "energies" - the ways he revealed himself through the three Persons - the ways he interacted with us. This view became official doctrine for the Eastern Church in 1351.

Much the same theme was later taken up by, among others, the Danish theologian Soren Kierkegaard. Pondering the same Christian doctrines he concluded there to be two kinds of truth: objective and subjective truth. When the truth appeared from an objective point of view to be paradoxical, it was an indication, he said, that one should be seeking a more subjective truth, one involving one's own participation.

According to this particular stand of theological thought, one finds it necessary, as in modern physics, to take a step back from the objects of one's enquiry - whether they be God and Jesus, or light and matter -and be content to speak only of one's interactions with those objects.

As a postscipt, it is necessary to note that Bohr was an avid reader of Kierkegaard. Could it be that twentieth century physics owes a modest debt to a nineteenth century theologian's contemplation of a fourth century Christian creed?

Russell Stannard
Professor of Physics, Open University

I watched the video on U tube and read the article you posted but could not find answer to my question. Peter Russel talked about CONSCIOUSNESS, but did not come up with my question. Conscious in other words is to awake/attention/awareness. The article is about the idea of God how developed. Is there any ginan or part of ginan which shed light 'How Noor which is subtle gave birth to matter/universe'.

[tret]

Can you explain how noor gave birth to matter or physical universe? Noor is subtle and weightless, where as matter is heavy and carry weight. Noor is formless and matter has various forms!

See the video below. It explains how matter is perceived by us and interpreted by our brain/mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6rfIKN ... e=youtu.be

There is also an interesting article which I posted in another thread:

THE TIMES 1980's

Science and religion

Paradoxes of physics and theology

What is light? What is matter? These are questions fundamental to a scientific understanding of the world. Or are they?

Certainly they are questions long known to have no simple answers. Indeed,a recently completed experiment goes so far as to indicate that they might have no answers at all.

If this interpretation is right, science is not what we thought it was; some might argue it has begun to look a little like theology.

Our story begins in the early part of this century. Light was discovered to have a dual nature. Some experiments pointed to it being a wave; others to it being made of particles. But that is odd: How can something be both a spread-out wave - like a succession of ripples on a pond - and at the same time a small solid particle - like a tiny billiard ball? The two descriptions appeared contradictory.

No way out of this dilemma could be found until Niels Bohr, the Danish physicist, came up with a remarkable suggestion. He claimed that science tells us nothing about the world as it is in itself - it does not answer questions of the form: "What is... ?" Instead, it tells us of the way we interact with the world.

Thus, concepts like "wave" and "particle" apply not to objects themselves (light or matter), but to how we interact with them. There are wave-like interactions and particle-like interactions, and that is all. It being physically impossible to perform both types of experiment at the same time, there is never a need to invoke both concepts simultaneously. So provided we stick to interactions, there is no paradox.

Bohr went on to assert that this ability to speak meaningfully only of our interactions was no temporary restriction. This was the frontier of the knowable - a barrier that would never be breached.

This claim did not go unchallenged. Leading the counter-attack was Einsten. As the arguments flowed back and forth, more and more physicists came to side with Bohr, despite the fact that no one relished being in the opposite camp to Einstein!

But enough of the paradoxes of modern physics. What has this to do with theology?

Paradox has been a feature of Christian theology from earliest times. In trying to answer the question "Who, or what, is God?" the Church Fathers came to the conclusion that they had to regard him as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, he was one God, not three. Moreover each of the Persons of this Trinity was not to be thought of as merely a part or aspect, of God; each was fully God. Difficult though it was to see how the apparent contradiction was to be reconciled, they considered any simpler description of God would not do justice to the evidence.

When later they came to consider "Who is Jesus?" they concluded he was both fully God and fully man - another paradox. Thus in Christian theology one deals with paradoxes every bit as puzzling as those that have now surfaced in physics.

It was in response to these paradoxes that Gregory Palamas, the fourteenth-century Archbishop of Thessalonica, decided that God was absolutely unknowable in his "essence", that is to say, as he was in himself. Instead, he was to be regarded as knowable only, through his "energies" - the ways he revealed himself through the three Persons - the ways he interacted with us. This view became official doctrine for the Eastern Church in 1351.

Much the same theme was later taken up by, among others, the Danish theologian Soren Kierkegaard. Pondering the same Christian doctrines he concluded there to be two kinds of truth: objective and subjective truth. When the truth appeared from an objective point of view to be paradoxical, it was an indication, he said, that one should be seeking a more subjective truth, one involving one's own participation.

According to this particular stand of theological thought, one finds it necessary, as in modern physics, to take a step back from the objects of one's enquiry - whether they be God and Jesus, or light and matter -and be content to speak only of one's interactions with those objects.

As a postscipt, it is necessary to note that Bohr was an avid reader of Kierkegaard. Could it be that twentieth century physics owes a modest debt to a nineteenth century theologian's contemplation of a fourth century Christian creed?

Russell Stannard
Professor of Physics, Open University

I watched the video on U tube and read the article you posted but could not find answer to my question. Peter Russel talked about CONSCIOUSNESS, but did not come up with my question. Conscious in other words is to awake/attention/awareness. The article is about the idea of God how developed. Is there any ginan or part of ginan which shed light 'How Noor which is subtle gave birth to matter/universe'.

Nasir Khusraw in his Gushayesh want Rehayesh (Knowledge and Liberation) explained this.

Dense matter is actually created (tarkib) by The [Universal] Soul.

[kmaherali]

I watched the video on U tube and read the article you posted but could not find answer to my question. Peter Russel talked about CONSCIOUSNESS, but did not come up with my question. Conscious in other words is to awake/attention/awareness. The article is about the idea of God how developed. Is there any ginan or part of ginan which shed light 'How Noor which is subtle gave birth to matter/universe'.

By the way of the video and the article I was trying to point to you that the universe is not out there but it is how you interact with it. In other words you are the co-creator of the world in the manner in which you perceive it. The video demonstrated that although the worldly objects are percieved by us as being solid, they are not at all solid at the sub-atomic level. Infact they are not objects at all but a range of probabilities of existence. We perceive the world to be constituted of solid matter because that is the way we are conditioned to perceive it.

The video was demonstrating that all perception arises from the consciousness which is really the Light or the Noor and is the ground of existence. Through Ibadat one can elevate himself/herself to become one with the Light. Hence for an elevated person the experience will be only Light and no material connsciuosness as mentioned by MHI in his Baitu Khayal.

MHI quoted Rumi in his speech:

As the poet Rumi has written: “The light that lights the eye is also the light of the heart… but the light that lights the heart is the Light of God.”(MHI Speech by Mawlana Hazar Imam At the Foundation Ceremony of
The Ismaili Centre, Toronto, The Aga Khan Museum and their Park Friday, 28 May 2010)

The above quote tells us that our experience of the world is ultimately related to the Light of God through our perception.

There is a verse from the frequently recited Ginan : hetesu milo mara munivaro http://ismaili.net/heritage/node/22878 which states:

jeere viraa rahennee ajvaallee chaa(n)d su(n)
ane divas ajvaallo sur
tem ghatt ajvaallo imaansu(n)
chaudise varase nur...................................8

Dear brothers: The brightness of the night comes from the moon and the
brightness of the day comes from the sun. In the same manner the
brightness of the body comes from 'Imaan' (faith). It lights the four directions
(everywhere; zaahir, baatin, awwal, aakhar).

In other words your whole experience is dependent upon the degree of the Light of Iman. The more Iman, the more enlightened your existence.

Paul Brunton in his books "The Hidden Teaching beyond Yoga" and "The Wisdom of the Overself" explains the notion of 'from things to thoughts' very well.

The Hidden Teaching Beyond Yoga: The Path to Self-Realization and Philosophic Insight

http://www.amazon.ca/Hidden-Teaching-Be ... 1583949100

The Wisdom of the Overself

http://www.amazon.ca/The-Wisdom-Oversel ... 1446514013

[kmaherali]

Nasir Khusraw in his Gushayesh want Rehayesh (Knowledge and Liberation) explained this.

Dense matter is actually created (tarkib) by The [Universal] Soul.

This is based on the science of his time. Today, according to modern physics there is no dense matter at all at the sub-atomic level. I have explained how we percieve the world to be of dense material through our conditioning.

[tret]

This is based on the science of his time. Today, according to modern physics there is no dense matter at all at the sub-atomic level. I have explained how we percieve the world to be of dense material through our conditioning.

BTW, have you read what/how Nasir Khusraw explained this? Or you simply assumed so? Please state what/how Nasir Khusraw explained it, then go about refuting him. If you don't understand [or have not read his work], then it begs the ignorance in your part!


Second, do you believe that Hujjat of the Imam preaches the knowledge of the Imam? I am going to assume your answer would be "YES", because according to us, Ginans reflects the knowledge of the Imam. In this case, so does the work/knowledge of the Hujjats. If we agree on this notion, then what you are basically saying is that the knowledge of the Imam -- which is transmitted through Ta'yid to thier Hujjats [in this case Nasir Khusraw] -- is only valid in the context of a specific time/space, and can be invalidated later on. This position of yours, has a very serious flaw, looking from the Ismaili position. Because the knowledge of the the Imam is timeless and not bound by Time or space. And the Hujjats of the Imams preaches the knowledge of the Imam.

On a funny note, your position is that things are not solid at the particle level, but still they appear solid, such as stone, wood. Then, why you would not stand in front of a moving train? Why everyone perceives things they way they do [similarly]? BTW, it doesn't explain how dense comes to existence from subtle, which is what exactly Nasir Khusraw explained beautifully, should you care to give it a read.

Last, if I had a choice to choose between Nasir Khusraw's explanation and yours, I would stick with the Hujjat of the Imams. BTW, I have observed some serious inconsistencies with your framework of belief system. But, again, who am I to judge anyone. But, I wish you well in your soul searching journey.

[agakhani_1]

Nasir Khushru was not a official 'pir' as long as Ismailism and its fundamental principal of 'piratan' are concern, he was good dai, good preacher, good author and good poet but not an appointed pir from imam of his time. period. this topic has been discussed earlier

[kmaherali]

BTW, have you read what/how Nasir Khusraw explained this? Or you simply assumed so? Please state what/how Nasir Khusraw explained it, then go about refuting him. If you don't understand [or have not read his work], then it begs the ignorance in your part!.

I read this work many years ago and it did not at that time capture my interest based on the current sciences. I will however revisit it based on your comments and perhaps may come up with a different opinion. In the meantime since you have read the work why don't you explain how the dense was created from subtle according to Nasir Khusraw.
quote="tret"]
Second, do you believe that Hujjat of the Imam preaches the knowledge of the Imam? I am going to assume your answer would be "YES", because according to us, Ginans reflects the knowledge of the Imam. In this case, so does the work/knowledge of the Hujjats. If we agree on this notion, then what you are basically saying is that the knowledge of the Imam -- which is transmitted through Ta'yid to thier Hujjats [in this case Nasir Khusraw] -- is only valid in the context of a specific time/space, and can be invalidated later on. This position of yours, has a very serious flaw, looking from the Ismaili position. Because the knowledge of the the Imam is timeless and not bound by Time or space. And the Hujjats of the Imams preaches the knowledge of the Imam..[/quote]
Knowledge is in constant flux especially that pertaining to the dunya. The laws of science have evolved since the Fatimid period and hence we need to adapt to changing outlook as per the statement of the Imam:

"There is no need to discard the great traditions of our faith. There is every need to adapt and invigorate them in the light of the quite altered circumstances of today." [Speech 12 Feb. 1958]

MHI made the following Farman in Toronto June 8, 2005

"We will not look backwards and draw only experience and learning from our history. We will develop new knowledge, bring it to the Jamat as far as they are, as isolated as they may be."

On a funny note, your position is that things are not solid at the particle level, but still they appear solid, such as stone, wood. Then, why you would not stand in front of a moving train? Why everyone perceives things they way they do [similarly]? BTW, it doesn't explain how dense comes to existence from subtle, which is what exactly Nasir Khusraw explained beautifully, should you care to give it a read.!.

As I explained earlier our experience is based upon the level of our consciousness. Hence from an ordinary standpoint to most of us things such as wood and stone will appear solid. However for elevated persons, they can create and destroy objects at will. I will also relate an anecdote of an advanced sage stopping a moving train through the power of his thought and will. This is because they are one with the consciousness which is the essence of all existence. Things are really thoughts which can be manipulated at a higher level. For further reference you may read the books that I mentioned in the earlier post.
I also posted an amazing story about a monk moving a SUV by his ears!

Shaolin monk pulls SUV with his ear

Amazing Footage of a monk of the famous Shaolin Temple in China performing martial arts by pulling an SUV with one ear. While the video was captured by a visitor in Henan Province in July, it has only recently emerged online.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/video/viral/sh ... lsignoutmd

Last, if I had a choice to choose between Nasir Khusraw's explanation and yours, I would stick with the Hujjat of the Imams. BTW, I have observed some serious inconsistencies with your framework of belief system. But, again, who am I to judge anyone. But, I wish you well in your soul searching journey.

You are entitled to your opinion. I have no problem with that. I wish you well in your search.

[tret]

The laws of science have evolved

Not the law of nature! Coming into existence of dense from subtle is not in a state of influx! Knowledge of the Imam is not in the state of influx. 'scientific community' may disagree with our [Ismaili] viewpoint, but that's not the basis for our [or at least my] arguments. Because pure science, eventually agrees at last.

[kmaherali]

I have revisited Nasir Khusraws book that you have alluded to - Knowledge and Liberation (pages 38-40). The following are my observations regarding the relevance of it's knowledge for today's circumstances

MHI has made the following statements regarding the soul (the subtle) and the body (the dense).

1.The soul is created and is given physical form. (Bombay, 27th november, 1973)

2. Islam does not deal in dichotomies but in all encompassing unity. Spirit and body are one, man and nature are one.(Ismaili Centre Opening Ceremony (Houston, Texas, USA), 23 June 2002)

The statements above state that the soul is created and is given a physical form. It means that the soul/spirit and body are one, and their natures are one. As I have alluded earlier according to the modern science, at the sub-atomic level matter does not exist, it is all probabilities of existence, hence it is subtle. The perception of the denseness is due to the illusion of maya.

The book indicates that the soul and the Universal Soul create their respective bodies:

"And just as human soul did not need instruments to create its body, the Universal Soul did not require instruments for making its body...

This contradicts MHI's statements above.

Also it states:

"the Universal Soul also, in the gift of prime [matter] from which its body came into existence, had those seven powers from which came the seven planets Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury and the Moon - to make the world which is the body of the Universal Soul."

Do you think that the above view of the world is valid today? People will laugh at you if you literally believe that!

Nasir Khusraw's knowledge was relevant for his time. We cannot apply that knowledge in today's changed circumstances.

[kmaherali]

I cannot edit my post...

I meant Nasir's knowledge about the physical sciences only. Of course his theology, ethics and poetry are very much alive today.

[nuseri]

Ya Ali Madad.
Studying spiritual management of Ali is trying oneself to push forward.
This at time are called as Occult Science.
I remember Kmaherali posting a ginan verse which Allah is formed from some elements
.
One need to align with holistic view.
In vedic, yunan n astrological study.that each part of body correlates to object in universe.
Planet, star etc.
So element mentioned by pirs n dai are meta physical observations which a person may not believe.
Like that mental attitude of a person co relates to moon.
Word like lunatic came from this premise.
Power of a person co relates to Sun.
Any debate on this should be avoided till one becomes the part if that depth.

[tret]

I have revisited Nasir Khusraws book that you have alluded to - Knowledge and Liberation (pages 38-40). The following are my observations regarding the relevance of it's knowledge for today's circumstances

MHI has made the following statements regarding the soul (the subtle) and the body (the dense).

1.The soul is created and is given physical form. (Bombay, 27th november, 1973)

2. Islam does not deal in dichotomies but in all encompassing unity. Spirit and body are one, man and nature are one.(Ismaili Centre Opening Ceremony (Houston, Texas, USA), 23 June 2002)

The statements above state that the soul is created and is given a physical form. It means that the soul/spirit and body are one, and their natures are one. As I have alluded earlier according to the modern science, at the sub-atomic level matter does not exist, it is all probabilities of existence, hence it is subtle. The perception of the denseness is due to the illusion of maya.

The book indicates that the soul and the Universal Soul create their respective bodies:

"And just as human soul did not need instruments to create its body, the Universal Soul did not require instruments for making its body...

This contradicts MHI's statements above.

Also it states:

"the Universal Soul also, in the gift of prime [matter] from which its body came into existence, had those seven powers from which came the seven planets Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury and the Moon - to make the world which is the body of the Universal Soul."

Do you think that the above view of the world is valid today? People will laugh at you if you literally believe that!

Nasir Khusraw's knowledge was relevant for his time. We cannot apply that knowledge in today's changed circumstances.

I had no idea you are literalist!

I guess that's the end of the discussion, then.

[kmaherali]

One need to align with holistic view.
In vedic, yunan n astrological study.that each part of body correlates to object in universe.
Planet, star etc.
So element mentioned by pirs n dai are meta physical observations which a person may not believe.
Like that mental attitude of a person co relates to moon.
Word like lunatic came from this premise.
Power of a person co relates to Sun.
Any debate on this should be avoided till one becomes the part if that depth.

This discussion has nothing to do with the holistic approach and the relationship of the human body and the universe. It specifically deals with the issue of the subtle (Universal Soul) creating the dense (the world).

I suggest that you read the book first and then make your comments. The book is available in most ITREB libraries.

[nuseri]

Ya Ali madad.
Does IIS award degree in copy pasting.If one would have followed just two lines of SMS farman then 89% of unwarranted reading,copy pasting would not have been here. For example mullah,kazi verse.
For reading one need not have to go to China but to Google site.
Reading in creation of soul n then body of Imam it self is trying to go beyond one's mandate.
Science does prove solidification of Gas.
So for example sun n some heavenly object are in gaseous state till now,
What planet having some mass study has shown they were in gaseous state.A billion year process.
To form any opinion on it.one need to accept the science and even if something just came of thin air it can rationally observed as solidification of Gas.
I will put my own observation with predictions in future.
A couplet,a copy paste from Sama Veda 446,the holy Vedas.

REMEMBER ,THE EARTH,SEA,SKY,STARS ARE ALL WOVEN TOGETHER BY THE SOFT STRAINS OF THE DIVINE MUSIC.

[mazharshah]

]Can you explain how noor gave birth to matter or physical universe? Noor is subtle and weightless, where as matter is heavy and carry weight. Noor is formless and matter has various forms!


Nasir Khusraw in his Gushayesh want Rehayesh (Knowledge and Liberation) explained this.

Dense matter is actually created (tarkib) by The [Universal] Soul.

To Tret,
I was looking for Gushayish wa rahayish by Nasir Khusraw. You are well aware that Nasir was follower of Neoplatonic philosophy as our other Da'is of Fatimid era. Nasir was a great philosopher and he refined further Neoplatonic ideas. His explanation of dense material out of noor was may be according to his atmosphere and knowledge of science at that time. Pure soul merges with pure soul, like pure water merge with pure water, but a stone or a brick can not merge with water. Individual souls can merge with Universal Soul but not the mountains, planets or stars. Nasir's assertion that human soul making its body is not valid because he is equating soul with sperm, and for production two bodies are needed. In paragraph 35, he wrote," the prime matter from which the Soul made this world as its body was a gift from God". This statement shows the matter existed before and was gifted to universal soul is not solving the problem of dense matter from noor. Also as Kmaherali mentioned in his post, what Nasir wrote," in the gift of prime from which its body came into existence, had those seven powers from which came the the seven planets namely Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, and the Moon to make the world which is the body of the Universal Soul". This does not fit in today's scientific knowledge or we need deep explanation of the this paragraph.

[tret]

]Can you explain how noor gave birth to matter or physical universe? Noor is subtle and weightless, where as matter is heavy and carry weight. Noor is formless and matter has various forms!


Nasir Khusraw in his Gushayesh want Rehayesh (Knowledge and Liberation) explained this.

Dense matter is actually created (tarkib) by The [Universal] Soul.

To Tret,
I was looking for Gushayish wa rahayish by Nasir Khusraw. You are well aware that Nasir was follower of Neoplatonic philosophy as our other Da'is of Fatimid era. Nasir was a great philosopher and he refined further Neoplatonic ideas. His explanation of dense material out of noor was may be according to his atmosphere and knowledge of science at that time. Pure soul merges with pure soul, like pure water merge with pure water, but a stone or a brick can not merge with water. Individual souls can merge with Universal Soul but not the mountains, planets or stars. Nasir's assertion that human soul making its body is not valid because he is equating soul with sperm, and for production two bodies are needed. In paragraph 35, he wrote," the prime matter from which the Soul made this world as its body was a gift from God". This statement shows the matter existed before and was gifted to universal soul is not solving the problem of dense matter from noor. Also as Kmaherali mentioned in his post, what Nasir wrote," in the gift of prime from which its body came into existence, had those seven powers from which came the the seven planets namely Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, and the Moon to make the world which is the body of the Universal Soul". This does not fit in today's scientific knowledge or we need deep explanation of the this paragraph.

Nasir Khusraw explains it in accordance with meta physics and not scientifically. Even today the scientific community doesn't have a concrete answer to this [dense coming into existence from subtle].

And this outlook is shared between all the Ismaili philosophers/thinkers/Dais and Hujjats of the Ismailis, including Tusi, Al-Sijistani. As Al-Sijistani explains that the function of the Universal Soul is Tarkib [Composition] of the matter with form, as Nasir Khusraw explained in his Knowledge and Liberation.

[kmaherali]

I had no idea you are literalist!

I guess that's the end of the discussion, then.

The cover flap of the book states: "It is the first major treatise by him (Nasir) to be translated into English. Consisting of a series of thirty questions and answers, it addresses some of the central philosophical and theological issues of his time from an Ismaili perspective,..."

So the work is about his time and it is not meant to be universal in time.

So if you consider his work as authoritative today, I am afraid you are living backward in time.

Of course we can draw inspiration from Nasir - that he used his intellect to under the creation of God both from the external (world) and the internal (the spiritual dimension). But it is inappropriate to consider his knowledge in the domain of the world as being relevant today. The scientific understanding of the world is very different.

[kmaherali]

Ya Ali madad.
Does IIS award degree in copy pasting.If one would have followed just two lines of SMS farman then 89% of unwarranted reading,copy pasting would not have been here. For example mullah,kazi verse.
For reading one need not have to go to China but to Google site.

I am afraid I don't understand your English.

Admin, please can you elaborate so that I can try to answer, Thanks