From tariqas-digest-approval@europe.std.com Mon Oct 7 22:12:22 1996
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 07:20:41 -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 #169
tariqas-digest Sunday, 29 September 1996 Volume 01 : Number 169
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zainuddin Ismail <sham@pacific.net.sg>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 17:41:37 +0800 (SGT)
Subject: Re: Moral Theology of Satan
Salam.Yes that was indeed food for thought.Thank you. One can have the
Kingdom of God on Earth / Islamic Theodemocracy but if egoistic individuals
run it , you get the same thing. Jazak Allah bil Khair.
At 21:34 9/28/96 -0700, you wrote:
>Brother Zainuddin,
>
>Agreed. But the issue of Merton's words are not one of doctrinal theology
or metaphysics per say. They concern a genre of psychological types of
so-called or presumed religious individuals. For the moment forget what the
truth of a religion says, and look it as the ego-truths we create for
ourselves with respect to our mind sets. Quoting me what Islam says about
Satan, the devil, whatever is not the point -- you don't need to, i familiar
with it well enough. These are cosmological theories, albeit sacred. How
they operate in the psyche of a person is a different matter. For me, i do
not limit such a psychology to only being found in particular movements such
as those you mentioned in Afghanistan and Iran, which one may generally
characterize as *fundamentalist*. They are found in all traditions,
contemporary, modern, traditional, past, present, and will continue in the
future. Esoteric initiates in Christianity, Buddhism (take the example of
the Japanese guru responsible for the poison gas attacks), Judaism, Hinduism
(some of Gandhi's would-be assasins were members of a Hindu fundamentalist
yogic tantric group peripherally affiliated to the present VHS party), and
Sufism (one of my informants on the Kashmir crisis and an ex-commander of
the militant wing of the JKLF party, informs me that Wahhabi money for
weapons to the militants in Kashmir was being channeled through a Pakistani
Sufi group in the Sind). Rather than look at *fundamentalism* as simply a
social group with a religious-political agenda, if we look at it as a type
of deep seated psychology, it will be found everywhere.
>
>i do not disagree with shariah or the laws of any tradition, but i do
disagree with unhealthy relationships and interpretations individuals
develop with respect to it, and which in turn shape their attitudes,
motivations, and behavior in a way that is adversarial toward healthy
communication and respect between people. This is what Merton is really
referring to (to post the entire essay would have been too long). Yes, we
can say that at times past and present the shariah was used to enslave
people such as in Iran, but Christianity has the same history. Look at
Calvin's Protestant community in Geneva during the Reformation -- a real
hell on earth -- all in the name of the Law. But it doesn't have to be
through social movements only. Such a psychology in fact keeps others
enslaved in the heart-mind, damning them as it were. This is what i abhor,
because what we do with our thoughts is far more dangerous than simply
killing this bag of flesh. Qadiri, Naqshabandi, Chishtiyyia, Ibn Arabi,
Suhrawardi, non-Islamic Sufi or Islamic Sufi. Our affiliations with any of
these groups are bullshit, and mean nothing, unless we are diligently making
efforts to transform ourselves, and questioning ourselves first before
judging others. With God there is another side to every story, and to see
stereoscopically is more desireable than poking one eye out with the rod of
the Law or veiling it with an illusion of No-Law. If all human beings were
wiped off the planet, there would be no need for a written law because
humanity would be wasted. The Law is present because there are still human
beings hanging around this place. If it lives in us as a means of spiritual
transformation, it is a blessing and grace. If it lives in us but in a
stale, rigid manner in order to distance ourselves from others in
self-righteousness and lack of compassion then it is a curse, and we would
have been better off never having ever heard about spirituality, religion,
etc because we won't be judged for something we never had an opportunity to
hear about or be exposed to. But once we have been exposed to such spiritual
food, and begin to ingest it, we are partaking of poison because we are then
responsible for what we do with it. It all depends on us whether our
spirituality will be sweet nectar or a serpent's venom.
>
>Blessings,
>
>Nur
>
------------------------------
From: Zainuddin Ismail <sham@pacific.net.sg>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 17:52:37 +0800 (SGT)
Subject: Re: Time to separate? (fwd)
CathieL.Great information.For Muslims we accept that there is a whole matrix
of influences acting on the individual including the cosmic/ planetary (not
conventional astrology of any school), the ecological/environmental/the
angelic/ the biological and genetic / the educational and the manifestation
of the attributes and names of God which actually encompasses everything ,
and Yet in spite of this whole matrix the human being still has Moral
Freedom .The saints however of a high station influence the environment and
the cosmos and not the other way around.Human Beings have not gone beyond
the ABC of all available knowledge and that is why it is necessary to follow
some Prophetic revelation because it comes from the Source of all Being and
Existence.
At 21:52 9/28/96 -0800, you wrote:
>All lists go thru this
>ignore it and happy useful posts will recur
>don't feed the flames
>heed the astrulogy
>la illlah but God
>to decide is to divide God from yourself
>
>
>
>Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 11:25:10 -0700
>To: Multiple recipients of list LIST-THEWIRKS <LIST-THEWIRKS@TOADHALL.COM>
>Reply-To: List-TheWirks@TOADHALL.COM
>Resent-From: List-TheWirks@TOADHALL.COM
>Sender: root@TOADHALL.COM
>Subject: Re: Eclipse
>From: CathieLeav@aol.com
>Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 11:21:18 -0700
>Organization: Toad Hall High Octane BBS 415-595-2427
>
>Hi Jonathan & listers,
>
>>Well I don't know how it was for you all, but from my vantage point (on top
>of Mt. Tamalpais, high over the Bay Area), Saturn was only about a couple
>of moon diameters away, not six; the eclipse lasted much longer than news
>reports suggested; the manner in which the shadow moved was baffling; and I
>realized how little I knew about celestial mechanics.
>
>>The show was however extraordinary.
>
>>Many people gathered on Tam, bringing their drums, ice chests, boom boxes,
>>cellular phones...When in doubt, we humans make noise.
>
>I walked up the corner 7-Eleven parking lot, since my view of the moonrise
>was "eclipsed" by the hill behind my house. I found a small gathering of
>locals (mostly with young children) comparing notes about the phenomenon and
>passing around bags of chips to munch. When in doubt, we humans also share
>food!
>
>It was impressive, and the timing did seem to be misreported in the paper.
>The red-hued shadow was eerie, although later, as the sky darkened, the red
>glow diminished and the shadow appeared grayer and more focused. I thought it
>was interesting that here we were, watching our planet's shadow being
>projected on the moon. There must be some archetypal significance to it.
>
>Here is a forwarded message from Carol Willis's e-mail astrology column
>regarding the eclipse:
>---------------------------
>Subj: Briefing on Today's Eclipse
>Date: Fri, Sep 27, 1996 12:45 AM EDT
>From: cbwillis@netcom.com
>X-From: cbwillis@netcom.com (C. B. Willis)
>To: cbwillis@netcom.com (C. B. Willis)
>
>
> NOTES ON THE LUNAR ECLIPSE SEPT 26 1996
> by Carol Willis
>
> (C) Copyright by Carol Willis, 1996. All rights reserved.
>OK to redistribute this file in its entirety for non-commercial purposes,
> so share with friends ad lib.
>
>
> It has been speculated that the period from Sept 26 thru
>Oct 12, 1996 is a very dangerous time, perhaps the most dangerous time
>in human history. If so, we can correlate events to the lunar eclipse
>occurring 9/26/96. This eclipse is unusual in that not only is this a
>Full Moon with the Sun and Moon in opposition, the Moon is also
>conjunct Saturn, and of course the Moon's Nodes are also involved.
>Mercury goes stationary direct today as well.
>
> The situation is dicey. Sun will be at 4 Libra, Moon at 4 Aries
>conjunct Saturn. The Sun at 4 Libra is conj the previous Rx station
>of Mercury. So this gives 4 planets in an adversarial lineup,
>affecting relationships between people, organizations and/or nations.
>
> The issues are: what we say to each other, how we judge or assess
>each other, criticize each other, invalidate each other, what do
>certain actions symbolize for us -- with big problems from narrow
>mindedness, willfullness and not granting others the space to just be
>themselves as long as they're not hurting others. International relations
>could be strained, misunderstandings abound, and key nuances may get lost
>in translation. Make no assumptions; more communication is better than
>less. Ask questions. Strive to maintain everyone's dignity in the
>process, especially the other guy's. Flying off the handle will backfire
>bigtime now, resulting in injustices.
>
> The upside is that the energy is very high now and many people will
>experience ecstatic states, spiritual breakthroughs, boundless love,
>extraordinary spiritual light, inspiration, and initiation.
>Those who are on a spiritual path are preparing to handle more energy,
>power, responsibility in times ahead. Simplify you life so you're ready
>for action, and spirit can sweep through your life without obstruction.
>
> Who will be most attuned to the eclipse? Those people who have
>planets in their own chart in the first 6 degrees of Aries or
>Libra. Of course, the houses that the eclipse falls in will be "lit up"
>for everyone, and there will be more intense activity there,
>especially near 4 Aries where Saturn is now transiting.
>Reality checks and sober taking care of business are in order in
>the house Saturn is transiting for you. If you want a chart update
>with special attention on this eclipse in your chart, give me a call,
>and we can do a short reading over the phone with visa/mc if
>you're not able to come into the studio: 408-734-9110.
>
>The times to watch around an eclipse include:
> 1) the day of the eclipse itself,
> 2) 1 week later when the Moon squares its eclipse position, and
> 3) 3 months later when the Sun squares its eclipse position.
>These are action trigger points.
>
> Advanced note: the previous solar eclipse was Apr 29, 1995 at 8 degrees
>Taurus, mars was at 19 Leo then. On *Oct 12 1996*, Mars will be at 19 Leo
>again, so anyone with a planet, Asc, or MC at ~19 Leo will be especially
>attuned to Oct 12. The Sun is then in Libra, sign of harmony and justice.
>Where diplomacy fails and a key player is headstrong, there can be war.
>With Middle East situations heating up again, and politics and military
>tenuous in Russia, more action in those locations is a strong possibility
>during October. Will President Clinton run a war from a campaign bus
>parked on a roadside? I rather hope not - his most impressive venue will
>be the Oval Office.
>
> Election prediction: Clinton will in all likelihood be re-elected, since
>he has the higher, brighter energy when compared to Dole, he carries
>the Presidency well, Dole has Neptune opposing his Sun, and Uranus
>opposing his Mars, which drains his energy and constantly keeps him
>off balance in competitions. Perot will not be a factor in the election.
>
>The eclipse falls on Clinton's Ascendant/Descendant axis, nearly on his
>Mars/Neptune conjunction on his Asc, and on his Vesta on the Desc.
>He will prevail in competition, and may find himself engaged in war,
>a crusader and keeper of the flame of freedom, which is not the freedom
>to abuse one's own people or neighbors - a distinction and theme you
>are likely to hear him speak in public as a way to orient people to the
>central issue.
>
>The eclipse falls close to Aries Al Gore's Pallas asteroid, so he will be
>heavily involved in strategy in foreign affairs in the times ahead.
>Gore is very intuitive, he and Clinton are usually on the same wavelength,
>and Gore may do much reading of the energy in meetings behind closed
>doors, and will initiate or suggest strategies for action during
>brainstorming sessions.
>
>
>Carol Willis, MA
>Astrologer in private practice since 1970
>Sunnyvale CA USA
>408-734-9110
>cbwillis@netcom.com
>
>To subscribe free to my astrology column online, plus supplemental
>articles, send note: SUBSCRIBE ASTROLOGY to cbwillis@netcom.com
>
>"When all hell is breaking loose, invite the witch to the party,
>and invite her to do Latin dancing -- Cha cha! Pasadoble!!" - CBW, 9/96
>----------
>
>.-
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Zainuddin Ismail <sham@pacific.net.sg>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 18:26:05 +0800 (SGT)
Subject: READINGS FROM SUFI MASTERS
Firstly I assume that we are familiar with the Hadis Jibril in which Prophet
Muhammad detailed the basis of religion i.e Al-Islam , Al-Iman and
Al-Ihsan.Al-Islam refers to the Foundations of Submission which are 1)The
Confession that there is nothing worthy of worship but God 2) the five daily
salat3)the Ramadan fast 4)Zakat or the Purifying Social Tax 5)Pilgrimage to
the House of God if one has the means.
Al-Iman is Belief in the Oneness of Allah,2)Belief in the Angels 3)Belief in
the Scriptures 4)Belief in the Prophets and 5)Belief in the Day of
Accountability and 6)Premeasurement .
Al-Ihsan is to worship as if one sees Allah but if one cannot do that then
know that Allah sees one.Worship or ibadah means doing all one's actions for
the sake of Allah.It is upon Ihsan that tasawuf is built and Sufism is
merely the English term for tasawuf.
Sufism is the kernel of Islam.Muslims who attempt to follow Sufism but not
its Shariat
Having defined Ihsan above , one can appreciate the scholar Syed Naquib al
Attas's definition of Sufism as " Practice of Shariat at the level of Al-Ihsan "
After the early age of Islam the scholars who were mystics were responsible
for teaching tasawuf to the masses.And they include people such as Gazzali,
Rumi,Abdul Qadir Jailani, Bahauddin Naqshband, Ibn Arabi....but their role
model and Exemplar has always been the Prophet Muhammad saLlahu 'alaihi
wassalam !
There have been great mystics but the relation of the great mystics to the
Prophet can be understood from this simple text on Jalaludin Rumi :
Samsuddin (Tabrizi) came up, took Mawlana's horse by the bridle and asked "
Leader of the Muslims, was Bayazid(Bistami) greater or the Prophet?"
Mawlana later said "Due to the tremendousness of that question, it was as
though the seven heavens were ripped apart and came crashing down to earth.A
great conflagration rose from within me and set fire to my brain, whence I
saw a colum of smoke rising to the pillars of God's Throne .I replied "The
Prophet is the greaest of all human beings.Why speak of Bayazid ?"
"He asked ,"Then how can the Prophet have said, "We have not known Thee as
Thou ought to be known," while Bayazid said "Glory be to Me ! How great am I
!" and, " I am the power of Powers!" ?
"I answered ," Bayazid's thirst was slaked wih one gulp.He spoke of being
full and the jug of his comprehension was filled.His illumination was only
as much as came through the skylight of his house.The Prophet on the other
hand, sought to be given much to drink and thirsted after thirst.... He
spokeof thirst and was ever beseeching to be drawn later."
Samsuddin uttered a cry and fell unconscious.
(From Introduction to Signs of the Unseen , The Discourses of Jalaluddin
Rumi Translated by W.M.Thackston.Jr)
>From the above we gather the following points
Rumi the Sufi was considered as the Leader of the Muslims
He held all spiritual issues to be of the utmost importance.
He held the Prophet Muhammad in the highest of esteem.
------------------------------
From: James McCaig <jmccaig@worldweb.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 07:19:11 -0400
Subject: Who are these people?
Several have asked the question, "who are these groups espousing the
teachings of Hazrat Inayat Khan? Below is a short history:
<fontfamily><param>PalmSprings</param>Hazrat Inayat Khan originally
founded a group in England which he called the Sufi Call. This was
shortly after his return from America.
</fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>PalmSprings</param>
Then later he registered the Sufi Order in England. In 1922 he went to
Geneva and with the help of the Ambassador of Cuba in Switzerland, Mr.
Zaneti, a lawyer, he established the Sufi Movement in which was
incorporated the old Sufi Order of London, plus the Brotherhood, the
Healing groups and The Universal Worship and Symbology activities. All
together constituted what Hazrat Inayat called the Sufi Movement.
After the Master died, Sheik ul Masheikh was elected as head of the
INTERNATIONAL SUFI MOVEMENT. After him Pir-o-Murshid Ali Khan was
elected, who was followed as elected leader by Pir-o-Murshid Musharaff
Khan, who was succeeded by Murshid Fazal who resigned and prior to his
resignation in 1982, suggested the leadership be entrusted to the
combination of Murshid Fazal, Murshid Karimbakhsh, Pir Vilayat and
Pir-o-Murshid Hidayat.
Both Vilayat and Fazal left that committee, then in 1992, Hidayat was
elected Pir-o-Murshid and General Representative of the INTERNATIONAL
SUFI MOVEMENT.
During the period that Pir-o-Murshid (around '56 or '58) Ali Khan was
General Representative Pir Vilayat journeyed to the US and worked with
Murshid Sam Lewis, who had formed the Ruhaniat Sufi organization (SIRS).
When Murshid Moinudddin succeeded Murshid Sam Lewis as leader of the
Ruhaniat organization there was a break between Pir Vilayat and Murshid
Moinuddin (Vilayat sought to be the successor to Sam Lewis) and Pir
Vilayat began to concentrate on building the Sufi Order in America.
</fontfamily>
Maharaj James McCaig | Sufi Center of Washington
Brotherhood/Sisterhood Representative | Keepers of Sufi Center Bookstore
United States | http://guess.worldweb.net/sufi
jmccaig@worldweb.net
------------------------------
From: James McCaig <jmccaig@worldweb.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 07:19:12 -0400
Subject: Inayat khan on Belief (long)
<fontfamily><param>PalmSprings</param>Belief and Faith August 3, 1926
Beloved Ones of God,
This evening I would like to speak on the question of belief and faith.
Very often we confuse the word belief with faith. Belief is a settled
thought; as long as thought is wavering, it is not belief. When a person
says, "I wonder, is it so or is it not so?", that does not mean belief.
He may appear to believe but he does not believe. Belief means the
thought has settled in the mind and it is difficult to root it out. And
yet belief is not necessarily faith, because faith is the culmination of
belief. Faith is that belief which is no longer settled thought, but is
in the very being of the person. Although we use the words faith and
belief for the same thing in our everyday life, when we come to analyze
and understand them from the metaphysical point of view, belief and faith
are quite different.
People have used the word faith for a person's religion, but that is
another thing. It is very good to say that one has a Christian faith,
another a Muslim faith, and another a Jewish faith. If a Christian has a
Christian faith, if a Muslim has a Muslim faith, if a Jew has a Jewish
faith, what more do you want? Because faith is no longer Christian or
Muslim or Jewish; once a person has reached faith, he no longer needs a
faith, he is above all religions. In the Eastern languages, in the
Hindustani language, they separate the word faith which is used in
everyday language from the other word, which is used in connection with
one's spiritual evolution. That faith is called iman. Yaqin is a settled
belief; iman is the culmination of faith. When you say, "It is so," that
means belief. But when you say, "It cannot be otherwise," that means
faith. And when you say, "I wonder," it is imagination.
There are four stages of iman, which means four stages between belief
and faith.
The first stage is called by Sufis iman mujmal, which means faith of the
crowd. Where there are ten persons standing, the eleventh person goes and
stands with them also, and if there are fifty persons waiting for an
airplane, waiting to come from the South, there may be nothing in that
airplane, but because there are fifty persons standing, there will be a
hundred in fifty minutes' time. They only have to make up their mind:
there is something coming and we should wait for it, and then you will
see a thousand persons standing by their side, not knowing whether it is
coming or not coming. But because there are fifty persons standing
looking at the sky, that is quite enough. That is the psychology of the
crowd, and so the crowd is attracted and so the crowd is led.
And when it comes to spiritual things, it is therefore that success
before the crowd is not always the sign of spiritual progress. Besides,
what is approved by the crowd as something beautiful is not necessarily
beautiful. What is approved by the crowd to be something valuable, may
not be so valuable. If it is considered by the crowd that it is something
good, it may not be good. Or what is considered great by the crowd, it
may not be great and yet it has the appearance of being great, because
the crowd calls it great; but what the crowd holds does not remain
longer.
Remember that day when Kaiser was esteemed high. Can you imagine the
belief of the people that day? Numberless souls were ready to give their
lives for him. Before the Tsar was dethroned, every shop in Russia had
Tsar and Tsarina's picture. And the day when he went away, they made a
crown and hammered it in the street and people looked at it and laughed.
What was President Wilson one day in America? It did not take long for
everyone to turn their backs to him. What was once praised was blamed at
the other time. That is the crowd. It does not take them long to raise a
person, it does not take them time to throw a person. Because it is not
faith. They call it faith in the church, but the faith of the crowd is
not faith.
And then there is a second step. The second step in belief is belief in
authority. They do not say, "Because this person says this, and that
person says that, therefore I believe it;" or, "Some scripture in which I
have trust, in that scripture it is written and therefore I believe it."
Among these people there has come a division. There is one kind of people
who will believe anything that history, geography, mathematics, or any
book in the library of the university tells them. But they will not
believe anything that tradition tells them, that religion tells them,
that a priest tells them, that a prophet has told. They do not see the
reason in one thing and they do see the reason in the other. This shows
that today the authority has changed. The material authority is
considered to be something, but a spiritual authority is not recognized
by the intelligent.
And now coming to the third stage of belief. That belief is that it is
not because. someone says so, nor is it because the crowd says so, but,
"I think so, that is why I believe it." That is a wonderful belief. But
if a person who is simple and unevolved thinks that what he believes or
what he reasons is the right thing, and does not believe in the authority
or in the crowd, instead of going upwards he will be going downwards. And
very often it happens that a simple one is more fixed in his ideas than a
person who is reasoning.
Very often a simple person has no reason, and he is fixed on his idea;
and you may bring before him any reason, and yet he will not listen to
it. He says, "That is what I believe; what the crowd believes, I do not
care. If it is written in the scriptures, in history, if professors,
doctors, scientists, priests, or clergy say it, I do not believe it."
That becomes a kind of illusion, a kind of madness, because a person who
believes in his reason independently of the crowd and of the authorities
must be ready to understand the reason of another and must be simple
enough to give up his reasoning when another person's reasoning appeals
to him. Very often reasoning becomes rigid in the case of the simpleton,
because he covers the reasoning with his personality. He calls his reason
his own reason and the reason of another is another person's reason, and
there is no relation between another person and himself. He thinks
another person's reason is his property, his own reason is his property,
and therefore he is not ready to understand.
And then we come to reason. Reason is as a cover, a cover behind which
there is another cover. And if we go on penetrating one cover after
another, there are numberless covers we can penetrate, and yet there will
be another reason behind it.
And now coming to the fourth belief, which is called inul iman, the
perfect belief. This belief is as good as if one has seen something with
one's eyes and one cannot deny it. When someone sees that this is a
table, he cannot say, "This is not a table." And when he begins to see
the truth from the inner eye, he cannot deny it; he sees it. But even
that iman, that belief, culminates into a belief where you do not have to
hold a belief; you yourself become truth. Truth becomes your being. Your
belief is no longer your idea, your belief is your own self. That is the
perfection of belief. It is that which is called faith and it is those
who have reached that stage who are called faithful in the spiritual
sense of the word.
Now I would like to speak about what attitude one has to have towards
the teacher on the spiritual path, towards the clergy on the spiritual
path, and towards the prophet on the spiritual path. Because there are
these three directions: the priest is one direction, the initiator is
another direction, and the prophet is another direction. And towards
these three the attitude must be distinct, peculiar, and different.
Towards the priest there ought to be an attitude of respect, not only
respecting the person, but respecting what is taught, the direction that
is given by the priest. By this I do not mean to say the priest of this
particular religion or that particular religion. I am especially telling
you of these three different persons who come into one's life. One is the
authority of religion, the other is the authority of esotericism, and the
third is the prophet.
Only, when on the spiritual path what one has to be careful of is this,
that too much conventionality and rule and direction may bury a soul.
Very often when people regard the rigid rules and conventionalities they
become so narrow and so external that everything must be just like this,
and if it is not like this then it is a sin. Hands must be washed at a
certain time, feet must be washed at a certain time, clothes must be in
this way, one must stand in that way, look in that way, act in a certain
way. And if it is not done, then it is not right, it is a sin. And in all
parts of the world you will see the minister with his whip raised when a
person has not done things that he ought to do rightly in his life.
But when there is an insolence and a contempt and a prejudice towards a
religious authority, it means that this person is not respecting that
which is something spiritual. It is a step higher. And if one has no
respect for it, it only means the person is going downhill. The soul who
is guided from within will always find instinctively a desire to respect
a religious man, no matter what religion he belongs to, be he a rabbi, a
Catholic priest, or a clergyman from the Protestant Church. No matter
what religion he is, you cannot but feel respect towards that person when
intuitively there is a leaning towards religion. And if we have to
criticize them, of course there are many faults, but have we not great
faults ourselves? Can a human being be perfect?
God alone is perfect. If we look at their faults we gain nothing, except
the fruits which we have looked at, we collect them. But we can just as
well look at the good side of it. Besides, in respecting a religious man,
it need not be that we are respecting every belief or dogma or idea he
has to teach. Is it not enough to think of religion as something sacred,
and have a respectful attitude towards every person who is doing the work
of religion? It is also necessary to think of those in our Sufi Movement
who are made Cherags and Sirajs. If we ourselves will not respect them
and will not appreciate their devotion to the Cause and their service
towards it, we are just like a child who is not inclined to respect the
elder ones in his own family. It is for the dignity of the Cause, it is
for the honor of the Message, of the Movement, that those who are
ordained as Cherags and those who are made Sirajs be given due
consideration. There is no pleasure in not doing it, but in doing it
there is a great pleasure.
I will tell you my own experiences of childhood. In the different
kingdoms of India, the Orientals especially have more conventionality,
more bowing and bending and greeting. And with new ideas in my head, I
thought, "Is it necessary?" It was a question. But at the same time one
cannot help it; where there is a conventionality so much spread one
cannot keep from it. But the moment I began to greet people in that
conventional way I began to enjoy it. The more I did it the more I
enjoyed it, because it brought joy to another, but to yourself just the
same. For by the very fact that you give joy to another, you get it back
ten times. It is automatic. That proudness, that conceit, that hardness,
that rigidness of "Oh no, I shall not respect him, I shall not bow or
bend before anyone," only makes him as a brick: he is turned into a rock,
more rigid every time.
And now coming to the question of what attitude one must have towards
one's initiator. If a person will not stand like a child before his
initiator, he will not derive benefit out of his teaching. The one who
comes before his initiator with a thought that, "I have brought before
him certain knowledge which I already had, and now I want more to be
added," is wrong; it should be thrown away. The one who comes to his
initiator with the thought that he must find out if it is right or wrong
or he must find out what will happen, he is wasting his time and fooling
himself; he will never gain by it. He could just as well have gone and
done some business and got some money.
What the initiator gives as an instruction, as an exercise, must be
taken just like the prescription of the doctor. And if one says, "No, I
will not do it today, I am tired now and I do not know how it can do me
any good," one's mind is not in the right place. One should not have
taken the trouble of going to the initiator and having given him the
trouble. And if a person does the practices and has no faith in them, nor
in the initiator, then he will not receive benefit just the same. It is
very easy to say, "I know this," but it is very difficult to say, "I know
nothing." And the moment one says, "I know nothing," that is the moment
one begins to learn and to know what is worth knowing. Never go to your
initiator therefore with knowledge. No matter how much knowledge you
have, it is of no use, it is not wanted there. It is not the path that
requires knowledge to be taken to the initiator. The best thing is to
keep it away and go like an empty cup that may be filled. The cup that is
already full with something will not be filled.
And one might ask, "Are they not all initiated in the Sufi Order,
whoever comes? Are they examined, are they tested, are they tried before
their coming, that they come without anything?" It must be known that the
method of the Sufi Order is different. The method of the Sufi Order is
that the first initiation is to welcome, to admit. But after that every
step one takes is examined more. One does not know it, but it is so
Besides that, it must be understood that what you can take from the
initiator by sympathy you cannot take by discussion. It is your sympathy
which draws out the sympathy of your initiator, and what comes through
that is the real knowledge.
The spiritual knowledge is never taught. Even the initiator cannot teach
it in words; it is imparted, and that comes without words. It comes by a
current of sympathy from the teacher to the pupil. Those who understand
the real meaning of esoteric teaching, the initiator and the pupil, know
that this is the most blessed friendship that there is. A friendship in
the path of God, in the path of light, in the path of truth. And besides
that, every worldly point of view must be kept away in connection with
your initiator. One must know that what comes to one from the initiator
cannot be valued, it cannot ,be priced, it cannot be made limited. And
therefore there must not be a thought of reckoning, of give and take.
And there is an attitude that one can have towards the prophet. The
attitude towards the prophet must be so sacred that you cannot put it
into words, an idea which you cannot express before another person. As
soon as you express your idea before another person and put it into
words, you only limit it. For instance, a Buddhist who, in order to
convince a Hindu says, "Lord Buddha was the World Teacher,"--do you think
he is raising Buddha? No, he is pulling him down. What is the world?
The universe is greater than the world. One cannot raise the prophet
high enough. And as soon as one makes efforts by words--if a Muslim says
that Muhammad was one of the many great prophets, only he was a little
greater than the others--he brings him lower in the listener's
estimation. Why compare? Comparison is not necessary. Our mouth is too
small to compare the Great Ones. We are not entitled to fix them as so
and so, saying that there are four masters coming, or ten masters coming,
or eight masters in the world, and that to each master we assign an area
on the map of the world. It is all insolence.
At all times, whenever the Message was given, the thoughtful have always
refrained from limiting their prophet by words. And if there ever came a
question of comparison of one teacher with another, they have always
said, "Is it not one Soul, not one Spirit, the Spirit of Guidance?" No
matter in how many names and in how many forms the Spirit of Guidance
comes, it is the same. Why compare the outward appearances? And what are
we to compare with our limited knowledge? Those who happen to live in the
time when the prophetic message is given and those who are brought into
the presence of the prophet to listen to the living words, if they will
not seal their lips, who should seal them? Hafiz says, "Think of the
shell in the sea. No sooner the dewdrop from Heaven falls into it, then
it closes its lips. And what comes out of it after a time? A pearl, which
is most valuable!" God Bless You.
</fontfamily>
Maharaj James McCaig | Sufi Center of Washington
Brotherhood/Sisterhood Representative | Keepers of Sufi Center Bookstore
United States | http://guess.worldweb.net/sufi
jmccaig@worldweb.net
------------------------------
End of tariqas-digest V1 #169
*****************************