Ishraqi Philosophy of Light.

[kmaherali]

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.

When he says the world comprises of 7 planets, that is science and not metaphysics. He says that the Universal Souls comprises of seven creative principles which created 7 planets. That was the wordview of the time.

If he had said that the Universal Soul created the world (without mentioning the 7 planets and the 7 principles), then we could apply it universally, but he mentioned 7 planets (including the sun and the moon)which means he was describing the world as understood in his time.

The scientific community today is quite clear that the sub-atomic world is not comprised of particles but rather subtle probabilities of existence. Hence there is no division between the subtle and the dense (which is the product of the illusory maya).

As I mentioned before, the 49th Imam has said that there is no difference between the soul and body - they are one. The soul is the body and does not cause the body as per Nasir.

The agreement of all the Dais of the medieval period does not make the notion right in today's conditions.

[kmaherali]

Also there is one important difference between Nasir Khusraws view about creation (see the quote I gave from the book) and the modern view as expounded by our 48th and 49th Imams. According to Nasir's view, creation happened at a particular time whereas the present understanding is that creation is continuous.

"The creation according to Islam is not a unique act in a given time but a perpetual and constant event; and God supports and sustains all existence at every moment by His will and His thought. Outside His will, outside His thought, all is nothing, even the things which seem to us absolutely self-evident such as space and time. Allah alone wishes: the Universe exists; and all manifestations are as a witness of the Divine will."

http://www.ismaili.net/Source/0016b.html

[tret]

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.

When he says the world comprises of 7 planets, that is science and not metaphysics. He says that the Universal Souls comprises of seven creative principles which created 7 planets. That was the wordview of the time.

If he had said that the Universal Soul created the world (without mentioning the 7 planets and the 7 principles), then we could apply it universally, but he mentioned 7 planets (including the sun and the moon)which means he was describing the world as understood in his time.

The scientific community today is quite clear that the sub-atomic world is not comprised of particles but rather subtle probabilities of existence. Hence there is no division between the subtle and the dense (which is the product of the illusory maya).

As I mentioned before, the 49th Imam has said that there is no difference between the soul and body - they are one. The soul is the body and does not cause the body as per Nasir.

The agreement of all the Dais of the medieval period does not make the notion right in today's conditions.

Instead of making wrong assumption and wrong assertion, why don't you quote exactly the passage?

His view about creation is not an event in the past, as you wrongly alluded! Please read/understand correctly, instead of wrongly interpreting something, as you do with the Farman of MHI, about body/soul. I have noticed you have done it one too many times now. It tarnishes your own credibility. Be careful!

I would like to ask you first of all, to post the Farman of MHI when referring to Body Soul relationship [Exact Farmaan, and not your paraphrasing!].

Then, how certain are you that Imam really means that body and soul are one?

Did you also know that Imam -- on many occasions -- said that "Your soul is eternal". So, if we take that as base, do you also believe that your body is eternal too, if you consider soul and body the same?

Please, don't invent Farmaan [or rather, don't interpret the Farmaan wrongly].

[nuseri]

Ya Ali Madad.
To both the scholars n readers.Is the debate about creation or the creator.
How creation came into being is well written showing it could have started 3 billion years ago.
As for the creator itself, it would be challenging,maybe real or speculative insight.
Words of any valued Sufi must be acknowledged and may be or not accepted by persons based on its perception intellect to understand the level of those of the Sufi's.
The planet,star n satellites started in gaseous form over a long period n formed into mass n form what the science mentions.
Human body emits light,gas and water and 100 different compound ,the same emitted by
7 heavenly bodies.
Study can be found in livescience.com.and search word of gas emittence from human,body,skin.with words biophotons and thermodynamic.
Some study face tend to glow more with meditation.

This is my third request to kmaherali to repost the lines of Ginan where.
The first line points to Noor being formless and the third line defines the form and matters Xyz the Allah is made of.
Connect the dots,of the dai,Pir,and the scientific findings.
There could be some co relation in it n maybe not.
I personally may not go into those reading xxx hundred years old ,but try to understand in what the living imam said in hidayat to leaders and speech in Harvard just few week back.

[kmaherali]

Instead of making wrong assumption and wrong assertion, why don't you quote exactly the passage?

His view about creation is not an event in the past, as you wrongly alluded! Please read/understand correctly, instead of wrongly interpreting something, as you do with the Farman of MHI, about body/soul. I have noticed you have done it one too many times now. It tarnishes your own credibility. Be careful!].

I posted the quote in the previous page (Page 2 of this thread). In case you are blind or have not read it, here I am reposting

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

"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."

I have highlighted the key words to indicate the past tense, in case you do not know the English grammer!

I would like to ask you first of all, to post the Farman of MHI when referring to Body Soul relationship [Exact Farmaan, and not your paraphrasing!].

Then, how certain are you that Imam really means that body and soul are one?

Did you also know that Imam -- on many occasions -- said that "Your soul is eternal". So, if we take that as base, do you also believe that your body is eternal too, if you consider soul and body the same?

Please, don't invent Farmaan [or rather, don't interpret the Farmaan wrongly].

Again I posted the relevant statements earlier..

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 body is the form or expression of the soul, hence they are one!

Again one must view from what standpoint one is looking at the issue. From the standpoint of elevation, there is no duality - body and soul are one and eternal. From an ordinary standpoint there can be an illusion of the dichtomy.

[tret]

The body is the form or expression of the soul, hence they are one!

Wrong!

Anything subtle doesn't have any form! You are contradicting yourself! Form pertains to matter [dense]. Therefore, they are not one, but rather soul is infused with body.

MHI said our soul is eternal, where as body is transient over a span of time in this physical realm.

When MHI said they are one and part of nature, has a different context and implication. You are most welcome to take it out of context -- to server your purpose, literally -- but, I am sorry, you are not making any sense!

[mazharshah]

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

Consciousness, Imagination, perception, memory are various faculties of brain. Consciousness is related to experiment. I did one, pinched a needle in my arm. It did not hurt me, may be my body was converted into sub atoms.
Is it possible, but I did cry of pain. Oops! Perception is a mental state. I can perceive Justin Trudeau as Obama, or Sophie as Michelle. Any one can perceive a monkey as a donkey. Perceptions are not real that's why they are called maya. Perceptions are deceptions.
As we know matter can not be destroyed, the concept of human shrinking to sub atomic size is impossible. It is not like movie 'ANT MAN" or 'STAR WARS'.
A quark is an elementary particle and fundamental constituent of matter. Quark has various intrinsic properties, including electric charge, mass, and spin. Protons, Electrons, and Neutrons all carry mass. Mass can not be completely destroyed.

[kmaherali]

Wrong!

Anything subtle doesn't have any form! You are contradicting yourself! Form pertains to matter [dense]. Therefore, they are not one, but rather soul is infused with body.

MHI said our soul is eternal, where as body is transient over a span of time in this physical realm.

When MHI said they are one and part of nature, has a different context and implication. You are most welcome to take it out of context -- to server your purpose, literally -- but, I am sorry, you are not making any sense!

Let me try one more time.

I said earlier that the experience is how we interact with the world and not what is out there which in turn is dependent upon the level of our conciousness. An elevated person such as the Imam will see the world differently than an ordinary mortal like myself.

MSMS in his well known Usul-e-Din Farman stated:

"When one is not able to know the origin (asal), what is then gained? Murtaza Ali has made a Farman: “He who knows himself, it is as if he knew God.” Wherever I look, I see the soul-friend. When you look at a man, you see his face. His hands, feet, mouth are all visible, but the soul is not visible to you. You must seek to see the soul (ruh)."(Farman No.160, Dar-es-Salam, 29-09-1899)

So it is possible to see the soul upon elevation of the soul.

Paul Brunton expalins this idea of mind/matter unity very well in his book: "The Wisdom of the Over self" (which I mentioned earlier and provided the information about), says:

Scientists may well tell us after deep research that all physical substance is in incessant motion and that its atoms are congeries of whirling energies, but all the same we really do see solid and stable things. No argument can do away with the plain fact of this everyday experience. We stand in the presence of a startling paradox. How shall it be resolved? Can we take two conceptions which stand so far apart, so widely opposite, and bring them together? The answer is yes. Sunlight, when passed through a clear glass prism, turns out to be not what it seems for it breaks up into seven colours. A diamond scintillates in the light yet it has the same chemical constitution as a piece of black charcoal. First sight is therefore not necessarily true sight. The senses can tell us something about things as they appear to be but little about things as they really are. And if we turn back to the first volume of this work we learn through the investigation of illusions that it is perfectly possible to see different forms and shapes which have no other existence than mental existence.

Again in case you did not see my earlier post the two books that expalin these ideas in terms of the present scientific understanding are:

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]

A quark is an elementary particle and fundamental constituent of matter. Quark has various intrinsic properties, including electric charge, mass, and spin. Protons, Electrons, and Neutrons all carry mass. Mass can not be completely destroyed.

This is not an accurate description of science today.

As per my previous post matter is indeterminant at the sub-atomic level, it behaves like particle and wave, which is paradoxical. See my previous post.

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.

[nuseri]

To Admin:Ya Ali Madad.
Where is my last posting ????

[Admin]

To Admin:Ya Ali Madad.
Where is my last posting ????

Read the Rules of postings. You have been told many times and still you do not respect the rules so obviously your post was deleted.