From tariqas-digest-approval@europe.std.com Sun Jul 21 14:52:42 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 16:16:03 -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 #68 tariqas-digest Tuesday, 16 July 1996 Volume 01 : Number 068 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: frank gaude Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 07:42:41 -0700 Subject: Re: dust, divisions, and Haqq Thomas McElwain wrote: [...] > Kiss the dust until division ceases from the world of illusion. As long as > reality is shattered I live in the house of war. [...] > But why listen to me, I > am only God who once said "I feel so helpless sometimes, a simple mureed > with poetry that obliterates me." > Ali Haydar GAMBLING THE SELF The stakes are high for real prayer. You must gamble your self and be willing to lose. When you have done this, and your self shakes off what you believed your self to be, then no prayer remains, only a sparkle of the eye. Knower and known are one. If you penetrate the center of time and space, you can bypass the adictions of the world: You can become the world yourself. --Shabistari, "The Secret Rose Garden" (Saadi translation) I feel so helpless all the time: this poetry obliterates me, leaving only I AM. tanzen P.S. Thanks, Ali, for the Bektash race piece... I do believe the outcome is a draw! ------------------------------ From: NurLuna@aol.com Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 11:18:48 -0400 Subject: Re: Volume of mail As-salaam aleikum to all my tariqas beloveds! I would second (third? fourth?) the current consideration concerning the volume of mail. Yesterday it took me an hour and a half to get through the mail from the weekend. I too began, for the first time ever, deleting mail without reading it based on who wrote it and my past experience of what they might or might not be saying. I began considering whether or not I could continue participating in tariqas. So I appreciate this discussion. It is a timely one for me personally, and also a good reminder for me personally. I have been known to fall in love with my own words, "wit," and "wisdom." It's not a pretty sight. When I first began to sojourn into the wonderful world of the Net, I learned about Netiquette. One of the "rules" is that "Me, too!" messages are inappropriate for posting to the entire list, because of space and time considerations. These should be sent instead to the writer of the message being responded to. This keeps the "signal-to-noise ratio," as they call it, of the list itself at a much more pleasant level. A relatively minor annoyance for a list such as tariqas, it becomes a *serious* problem in some of the larger usenet groups, where hundreds of one-line messages saying essentially "you go, girl!" (or "guy") can make the list unreadable, charming and sincere though they may be. I feel the following suggestion is a step in the right direction, and wonder if it can be implemented? Habib? In a message dated 96-07-15 21:07:21 EDT, Hudoyo writes: > Another alternative to reduce the overload of mail is for > the server to adjust its procedure so that each time > someone replies to a posting the address of the > original writer will be automatically put in the > "To" field instead of [tariqas' address]. I appreciate and delight in the music of tariqas voices, sometimes harmonious, sometimes wonderfully dissonant. And I would offer the observation that one exquisitely played chord often lingers in the heart and mind longer and stronger than an entire symphony. your sister, Farrunnissa ------------------------------ From: CWoodsong@aol.com Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 11:42:16 -0400 Subject: Re: meditation and sticky threads... >Another way: Love Allah enough and all is accomplished! This sounds simple, >but to love Allah that much requires you to willing love all creation first! Try it. It is simple! just like me... :) God is Love. If I am God... then I must be Love! and all of creation is that too... falling in love.... :)*(: carol ------------------------------ From: Abdkabir Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 11:44:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Shaikh On Mon, 15 Jul 1996 maarof@pc.jaring.my wrote: > BTW, i bought a book "Knowledge Of God" by Ahmad ibn Mustafa ibn al-Alawi. I > haven't read it yet. Is he the founder of Alawi tariqa? > Yes, but, unfortunately, it's a bad translation, to be taken with large grains of salt. ------------------------------ From: Maqam1@aol.com Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 11:56:46 -0400 Subject: Re: Reading (M.R.) In a message dated 96-07-15 13:28:24 EDT, you write: >Anyway, I hope sometime I would be able to know Who is the Real Me >(Who is typing this e-mail), >and also Who is the Real You >(Who is reading this e-mail). > >Love and love and love to all of you... As-Salamu Alaikum Michael, First it is best not to ponder on who is reading your e-mail or why, Fore the Who and the Why can only truly be conceived by ALLAH (swt), The only one who guide you on the truth path of Hakkikah ( Reality) is ALLAH (swt) via your shiekh if you truly are searching. I pray that you may recieve the method from your shiekh in-which you need to begin. Your Brother Sh. J-Kenyatta Maqam-r-Ruh ------------------------------ From: Maqam1@aol.com Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:09:56 -0400 Subject: Re: Allow me to introduce myself... In a message dated 96-07-15 18:58:32 EDT, you write: >I look forward to reading much more of this incomprehensible nonsense, and >perhaps I shall find an occasion to cast my own shadow upon this cave wall >one day... > >In the meantime, keep it coming! > >Salaam, > Bryan Wa-Laikum Salaam, Bryan welcome and I'm glad that you are here share anytime you feel the need. Your Brother, Sh. J-Kenyatta Maqam-r-Ruh ------------------------------ From: Maqam1@aol.com Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:20:21 -0400 Subject: Re: Bismillah In a message dated 96-07-15 22:51:38 EDT, you write: >I have recently been told that the Arabic terms Rahman and Rahim are less >related to compassion, mercy, or grace than to the relationship between >a mother and her unborn child. Can someome confirm and elaborate on this? IMHO you have been given false information these two words are attributes of ALLAH (swt) and are part of the Jala-Jalla, HIS Most Beautiful Names, IMHO no human-being can be more compassionate, or more merciful than the One who created us. Your Brother Sh. J-Kenyatta ------------------------------ From: Hafizullah@aol.com Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:19:19 -0400 Subject: Re: What is immortality? In a message dated 96-07-15 17:24:49 EDT, you write: << Quite right, I remember that this was espically striking to me when we looked at nominal sentences in Arabic 101; I was amazed that, for instance, the sentence * al-qita saghira* means 'the cat (is) little' ; no verb! >> The way it was explained to me, the verb-al part is implicit in the construction of the prefixes, suffixes, and short vowels around the root of the noun. ------------------------------ From: Hafizullah@aol.com Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:21:21 -0400 Subject: Re: Verb: to be In a message dated 96-07-15 21:46:43 EDT, you write: << > As to comments on societies closer to the land, sky, etc. not having the verb to be: poppycock! > > Blessings, Nur Yes, there seems to be this idea about being 'closer to the land'. What exactly does that mean? >> As has been stated, it's romanticized crapola, along the lines of the "noble savage" nonsense of the nineteenth-century Europeans. It's surprising how often this bundle of horsefeathers gets resurrected. ("Ancient matriarchal societies" is another variation.) There's absolutely no evidence to support it, based on observations of present-day hunter/gatherer and marginal-agriculture societies; it just looks like they take better care of things because they live on such a skinny base that the population never reaches a threshold where the innocent damage they do can't be repaired as quickly as they make it. They take only what they need (can't store much) and aren't stressing the system by, for example, harvesting large amounts of stuff and shipping it out of town to other populations. << The truth acording to one source which unfortunately I can not remember is that the Native Americans wiped out hundreds of species of animals. >> Yup. Like mammoth, mastodon, several species of large deer, some large bison species, the list goes on and on. The juxtaposing curves of human population increase and other species' decrease (and finding said species' remains in the garbageheaps of said humans) doesn't leave much room for other interpretations. They also wiped out saber-tooth cats and dire wolves, but I'm sure that was as much in self-defense as anything else --- those beasts were really scary. ------------------------------ From: Maqam1@aol.com Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:21:36 -0400 Subject: Re: the Shaykh (fwd) In a message dated 96-07-15 23:38:29 EDT, you write: >What I understood was that we are each responsible for making this >judgement in choosing whether or not to follow a sheikh. > >Lily ------------------------------ From: Maqam1@aol.com Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:23:42 -0400 Subject: Re: the Shaykh (fwd) In a message dated 96-07-15 23:38:29 EDT, you write: >What I understood was that we are each responsible for making this >judgement in choosing whether or not to follow a sheikh. > >Lily This is true! SH. J-Kenyatta ------------------------------ From: "Michael J. Moore" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 09:25:17 -0700 Subject: Re: Volume of mail NurLuna@aol.com wrote: > I would second (third? fourth?) the current consideration concerning the > volume of mail. - -snip- > I learned > about Netiquette. One of the "rules" is that "Me, too!" messages are > inappropriate for posting to the entire list, ------ snip - Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. I guess I'm out of control. ;-) - -- Michael Moore home page --> http://home.aol.com/michaeljm8 ------------------------------ From: Oudghiri Houria Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:47:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Bismillah > In a message dated 96-07-15 22:51:38 EDT, you write: > > >I have recently been told that the Arabic terms Rahman and Rahim are less > >related to compassion, mercy, or grace than to the relationship between > >a mother and her unborn child. Can someome confirm and elaborate on this? > This comes from the translation of Quran by Andre Chouraki who is a jew. His translation is the first one to give such a meaning to these two words: Rahman and Rahim because he tried to relate them to the arabic word "rahm" (woman's "Matrice in french", I don't know the english word) instead of "rahma" (mercy). These two arabic roots have completely different meanings. Houria ------------------------------ From: Martin Schell Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 23:58:29 +0700 Subject: Re: verb "to be" At 10:04 AM 7/15/96 -0700, you wrote: >In Russian, there _is_ a verb "to be", but it >is often considered unnecessary to use it, so >it is omitted. > True in English, too. [Note the grammar in the preceding sentence.] ;^) Martin ------------------------------ From: Martin Schell Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 23:58:51 +0700 Subject: How to make a personal reply >asalaam brother michael > >how are you doing?? have seen that you are keeping up with the posts on >tariqas...how was your trip to singapore with you guru? successful i hope. >i have been pretty busy here lately...havn't read much from the tariqas net >but i always read your posts as they have content to them and make sense, >not like some posts which i guess seem to me like a lot of psyco-babble. > >ghani > HOW YOU CAN MAKE A PERSONAL REPLY TO YOUR FRIEND: 1. Select the "FORWARD" function of your email software. 2. This brings up a new screen with all of the text from the incoming message you received. You can edit it just like in "REPLY" function. 3. However, the "TO" line at the top is blank. Insert the email address of the individual whom you want to answer "personally": A. Look at the header that is at the beginning of the text section. It is a repetition of the header from the incoming message. B. Find the address of the sender of the incoming message. C. Use your mouse or other editing keys to CUT or COPY that address. D. Move the cursor/pointer to the empty TO line at the very top of your new screen. PASTE the person's address there. 4. Hit "SEND" and your personal reply starts winging its way... NOTE: If you want to reply to more than one person (like a small circle for watering hole jokes), put the other people's names on the "CC" line. Love this freedom of choice as an expression of the ONE! martin ------------------------------ From: Craig Johannsen Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 10:26:37 -0700 Subject: Re: dust, divisions, and Haqq Thomas McElwain wrote: > > [snip] I said suppress all pronouns but I. [snip] Let us reduce the I to zero, at which point there is no distinction, only We, and division ceases in the world. Let every flame bring light to the darkness and reveal the glory of Love's power. May our lives and actions and even our stopgap measures beautify all that is Allah's. ------------------------------ From: CWoodsong@aol.com Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 13:43:18 -0400 Subject: Re: Verb: to be >As has been stated, it's romanticized crapola, along the lines of the "noble >savage" nonsense of the nineteenth-century Europeans. It's surprising how And what of the romanticized crapola along the lines of "noble technology", or even "techno-gods" nonsense of the twentieth-century? >often this bundle of horsefeathers gets resurrected. ("Ancient matriarchal >societies" is another variation.) There's absolutely no evidence to support Yes, and one of these days the RESURRECTION will 'take'! ;) >interpretations. They also wiped out saber-tooth cats and dire wolves, but >I'm sure that was as much in self-defense as anything else --- those beasts >were really scary. Why should i fear that of which i am part? <> blessed Be! love, woodsong ------------------------------ From: Lilyan Kay Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 10:44:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Abrogating and abogated verses asalaam-u-aleikum On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, frank gaude wrote: > The piece by Saadi is meant to cover only the first three words, "Bism-Allahi > ar-Rahmani ar-Rahim" of al-Fatihah... sorry about misleading you. > Thanks, it does make more sense now, and no longer crystallizes the problem for me. > > This for me crystallizes (so to speak) a problem I have with what > > little I know of latter day mysticism, New Age religion, etc. > > I guess the more we know about things the less we are likely to judge them. Actually the more we know about things, the better able we are to make good judgments, I think. Lily ------------------------------ From: Well333@turbonet.com (Jacquie Weller) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 10:52:42 +0100 Subject: Re: volumne of mail The reminder was enough for me to examine myself, and sit back and not write so much. Net-etiquete is something I'm just learning. When I first got on, there was a lot I didn't know. I didn't even realize that you could send individually, and that sounds dumb, but I was pretty lost. And I though if I just hit the reply button it would go to the person that sent the letter, and then found out if they had a cc adress on, it went to everyone. I didn't know how to save nicknames either, and so through trial and error. I learned by the messes I got in. New people do need some help, we all didn't have computer basics in school, e-mail training, or instructions. Thankyou for the reminder. Kaffea Lalla. ------------------------------ From: Thomas McElwain Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 22:00:34 +0300 (EET DST) Subject: zero, I and we Assalaamu-'Alaykum! I was always so terrible at maths. By reducing I to zero I move from one to many. Incomprehensible! I must go back to my zazen, sweat, and call for the whip. We is I and someone else. Is that someone I or not? We exclusive and we inclusive, The circle that shut Me out, Even in Dar al-Harb Imam Ali stops to say Allaho ahad, The circle that took Me in. Good-by Ali Haydar ------------------------------ From: frank gaude Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:14:31 -0700 Subject: Re: Bismillah Oudghiri Houria wrote: > > > In a message dated 96-07-15 22:51:38 EDT, you write: > > > > >I have recently been told that the Arabic terms Rahman and Rahim are less > > >related to compassion, mercy, or grace than to the relationship between > > >a mother and her unborn child. Can someome confirm and elaborate on this? > > > > This comes from the translation of Quran by Andre Chouraki who is a jew. > His translation is the first one to give such a meaning to these two words: > Rahman and > > Houria Yes, but we are still left with the triliteral root word meanings of Rahman and Rahim, i.e., RHM, which equates to "womb"... can we ignore Abjad? Is not womb in Arabic the word "rahmat"? Peace and love, tanzen ------------------------------ From: frank gaude Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:23:27 -0700 Subject: Re: Abrogating and abogated verses Hello, dear one! > > I guess the more we know about things the less we are likely to judge them. > > Actually the more we know about things, the better able we are to make > good judgments, I think. I think? You think, or does God do the thinking? Actually, all is true but nothing is Real, except THAT! Making judgements are of two kinds... one kind leads to exclusivity, the other doesn't and leads to diversity as seen in nature, in the universe. I come from the school that says God is All, and we each have our way of knowing this... so I try to let be... if you are sleeping, you sleep; but if you stir, I nudge! Get it? Thanks, Lilyan, for being you, for I AM also you, tanzen ------------------------------ From: "Michael J. Moore" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:57:46 -0700 Subject: The Noble Savage ( was Verb: to be) CWoodsong@aol.com wrote: > > >As has been stated, it's romanticized crapola, along the lines of the "noble > >savage" nonsense of the nineteenth-century Europeans. It's surprising how > > And what of the romanticized crapola along the lines of "noble technology", > or even "techno-gods" nonsense of the twentieth-century? > Absolutely! we can make idols of almost anything. > >often this bundle of horsefeathers gets resurrected. ("Ancient matriarchal > >societies" is another variation.) There's absolutely no evidence to support > > Yes, and one of these days the RESURRECTION will 'take'! ;) Women raise the children that make the world. Isn't that enough power? > > >interpretations. They also wiped out saber-tooth cats and dire wolves, but > >I'm sure that was as much in self-defense as anything else --- those beasts > >were really scary. > > Why should i fear that of which i am part? Because it will knock you down, bite your head, rip your belly open and chew on your steamy guts and that will really really hurt? ;) > <> > > blessed Be! > > love, > woodsong Blessed Bees! - -- Michael Moore home page --> http://home.aol.com/michaeljm8 ------------------------------ From: Hugh Talat Halman Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 16:13:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Jafer as-Sadiq (AS) On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, Thomas McElwain wrote: > An alchemist!? Oh my God! Jabir ibn Hayyan, his contemporary, and a Harranian (of the SABI'UN OF HARRAN in southern Turkey) has been thought to have studied with him. Jabir's name was borrowed by a later European alchemist named Geber. Wa Salaam, Talat ------------------------------ From: Hugh Talat Halman Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 16:13:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Jafer as-Sadiq (AS) On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, Thomas McElwain wrote: > An alchemist!? Oh my God! Jabir ibn Hayyan, his contemporary, and a Harranian (of the SABI'UN OF HARRAN in southern Turkey) has been thought to have studied with him. Jabir's name was borrowed by a later European alchemist named Geber. Wa Salaam, Talat ------------------------------ End of tariqas-digest V1 #68 ****************************