It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Occult versus Esoteric - The Correct Meanings

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell




Originally posted by
The Quran says

God's throne is upon water


Gods spirit or Hebrew “Ruach”, has wind and water characteristics…

Often in the Bible the description of a dry and desolate land or wandering in the desert, signifies being far away from God, or being “poor in Spirit”…

We connect to God through the Spirit, which comes in like rushing wind or water when it’s received…so it makes perfect esoteric sense, that Gods throne would be upon the water.


- JC




posted on May, 6 2017 @ 09:32 PM
link   
I was able to find out why Ibn Arabi was a heretic and according to who.

The most respected scholar of Islam I found wad a man called "Shayk al-Islam", I believe, Ibn Tayymiyya, declared him shirk and a heretic for saying things like Noah was wrong for teaching his generation to forsake idol worship because all is God and God is all, in all, so by worshipping the idols, a tree, anything, they were worshipping God.

That's a good paraphrase of what Arabi said, just one of his many pantheistic and heretical innovations that the Qur'an clearly forbids and condemns even.

He claimed his writings were received in a dream from the Prophet(saws), essentially saying that his own writings are the Word of God from the Messenger of God himself, a wannabe Paul and equally atrociously in teaching against the teachings of their respective Prophets (pbuh saws).

He really meant "Illuminations" when he wrote "Mekkan Illuminations" as if he was revealing secret prophetic but unrevealed teachings.

There is more but Ibn Taymiyyah does a great job exposing him as an evil charlatan and if he claimed what is said he did, and he wrote about himself so he did, I agred, charlatan and fraud, Islam is not pantheistic, God created all but is also transcendent​ and separate from all things, not in them. He can communicate with us in different ways but never face to face and to worship anything that can be sensed apart from God is idolatry and not compatible with Islam.

And you don't openly criticize a Patriarch for doing exactly what Mohammed (saws) did and would have done too, Noah.

Or tell tall tales about dreams that contradict the Qur'an and say the Prophet (saws) told him, UNLESS, you want to be known forever as a lying heretic, justly.
edit on 6-5-2017 by Disturbinatti because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft


Blessed are the poor in Spirit!

Not poor regarding Spirit, but blessed by the Spirit for being Ebionim, the poor ones.

Blessed are the poor..., in Spirit! I think is how it goes.

Azazel was considered to reside in the desert before the deluge and now is trapped in a mountain upside down and in chains until Judgement Day, he was even ordered to be sacrificed to with one goat by letting it free in the desert and this would redeem Israel from sin every Yom Kippur.

The release of Jesus Barabas is a mockery of the scapegoat sacrifice, and Jesus is sacrificed to God.

What is weird is I have a Syriac Rec. of Clement translation, the oldest dated MS. in the world and only (412AD) extant Aramaic language Christian MS. old enough to matter as its Greek version is even older and as old as the oldest Bible Sainaiticus, 4th century.

And their is an Apostle named Barabas, which is odd, it is not clear but the book has Peter choose 12 of his own Apostles after leaving Jerusalem and this Barabbas is one I think.

But I am pretty sure it was a book used by Ebionites and Syrian and Jewish Christians who didn't care about Paul. It features Simon Magus but it doesn't have the same dialogue as the Greek which seems like it is using Simon Magus as a person to put Paul's teachings into's mouth, more so.

Azazel is mentioned in Enoch and the Old Testament if translated properly, again in the Talmud.



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Disturbinatti


With all due respect, you sound a little too inquisitional my brother or sister…
That’s my perception, maybe I’m wrong.

Personally, it will be a cold day in hell before I accuse someone of heresy. I could disagree with someone but that’s all.

I don't judge people by someone else's interpretation of exterior religious law.

Now to ibn Arabi

First off, I don’t claim to be an expert on Ibn Arabi, I have studied his works in earlier years and have a high opinion of him. Read some works by authors such as William Chittick and many others…

www.ibnarabisociety.org...

If you study the life of Ibn Arabi, something I have done, you will be amazed at the respect he garnered from the renowned religious teachers and authorities of his time and later times

www.amazon.com...

Therefore, if your going to rely on some religious authority to believe what I think is a calumnious charge at Ibn Arabi then you should go to the numerous authorities who vouch for his sanctity.

Many authorities say Ibn Arabi’s experiences were examples of the highest level of consciousness any human being can reach.

Many Sufis throughout history have been attacked by exoteric religious bigots, nothing new here, all the way from Rumi, Mansur Hallaj, who was murdered by religious bigots, Ghazali, and many others.

These are two of my favorite lines from some of ibn Arabi’s poems

If I bow to her as is my duty and she return not my salutations…have I just cause for complaint. Beautiful woman have no obligation…Text



And among the wondrous things is a veiled gazelle: A Divine Subtlety, veiled by a state of the Self, Referring to the States of those who know. Unable To explain their perceptions to others, they can only indicate them to whoever has started to feel something similar
…Muhiyuddin ibn Arabi.

books.google.com...

As for you taking me serious or not. Well that’s up to you.

But understand this, my opinions are not second hand anything…there first hand from me.










edit on 7-5-2017 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
It funny how the occult usually gets classified as black magic when really it science saturated and coated in mysticism. It odd how usually it religious people that act xenophobic towards it. Esoteric, well that might as be divided into two categories like that baby Solomon was supposedly going to kill. Objective and wubjective.

It no different then a stop sign, round and sqaureish, bright red almost the colour of blood saying look at me, because if somebody doesn't do what the sign says, well, the ign going to be a dark red.

Another example is the popular snake, it almost everywhere.

Buddha and Vishnu had it, there statues of Mary and Jesus crushing or handling a snake , and the Aztec murdering thousands for some Snake like Sun God that should be a women cause she never easy to please.

Why, who's know...kundalini perhaps. The story of Moses involves snakes, one where he turned his staff into one challenging the powers of pharoah to a healing ward. However after realizing it more or less a cheap, knock off that haf no bearing to reality. Then their the leviathan being the primal instincts of the brain, i.e the ocean. Or Satan being a horny snake beating around the bush might as well be Adam having a fight with one heart but two heads is no different then man battle against his own nature. And getting kicked out heaven, had kids, and a future divorce lawsuit ain't ominous enough saying he should kept Satan in his cage.

See tons of this crap
edit on 7-5-2017 by Specimen because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-5-2017 by Specimen because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-5-2017 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Disturbinatti



Originally posted by Disturbinatti
Blessed are the poor in Spirit!

Not poor regarding Spirit, but blessed by the Spirit for being Ebionim, the poor ones.


Apparently Origen referred to the (Ebionites) “poorness” for their supposed (from Origen's perspective) lack of understanding and refusal to accept the theology of the early RCC…

The correct “poor” label seems to stem from the fact that they lived in a self imposed poverty.



Originally posted by Disturbinatti
Blessed are the poor..., in Spirit! I think is how it goes.


Yeah, Matthew adds the Spirit part, but Luke leaves it out…I think it means those who don’t know they’re in the Kingdom of God i.e. they haven't received the Spirit yet…

Which I think is why the verse reminds those (and others) that are poor in spirit, that they are still in the kingdom and that it will be theirs, even if they don’t realise it internally…




Originally posted by Disturbinatti
Azazel was considered to reside in the desert before the deluge and now is trapped in a mountain upside down and in chains until Judgement Day, he was even ordered to be sacrificed to with one goat by letting it free in the desert and this would redeem Israel from sin every Yom Kippur.


There’s tons of esoteric symbolism in the above too…Azazel being in the desert, is again symbolic of lacking Spirit and water theme i.e. far from God and following his own ego.

Trapped in a mountain invokes the imagery of a fiery volcano, where the negative aspects of the soul will be purified on Judgement day. He hangs upside down because the negative aspects of the ego/serpent travels downwards on Jacob ladder, in relation to the Kabballah.

Goat and desert matches up again, with the negative ego side of things…The goat wandering in the desert, also ties in with the punishment known as “banishment”…which symbolise getting rid of the evil within oneself…



Originally posted by Disturbinatti
The release of Jesus Barabas is a mockery of the scapegoat sacrifice, and Jesus is sacrificed to God.


As in Jesus Barabbas represents the goat, and Yeshua Ben Yoseph represents Azazel…?

That’s quite a deep symbolic mockery, if it was indeed put in there deliberately…

Interestingly, the name Barabbas translates to “son of the Father”. Together “Jesus Barabbas” = “Jesus, son of the Father”…

It’s looks pretty much like a symbolic representation of Keter and Malchut…




Originally posted by Disturbinatti
What is weird is I have a Syriac Rec. of Clement translation, the oldest dated MS. in the world and only (412AD) extant Aramaic language Christian MS. old enough to matter as its Greek version is even older and as old as the oldest Bible Sainaiticus, 4th century.

And their is an Apostle named Barabas, which is odd, it is not clear but the book has Peter choose 12 of his own Apostles after leaving Jerusalem and this Barabbas is one I think.



Barabbas an Apostle, Yeah, that is weird!…


- JC



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft


They even invented a man NAMED Ebion!!!

But it definitely refers to poverty and the communal living of the people of the DSS, and to later Jewish Messianics alike.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft


I am certain it was a deliberate mockery because it is said, though not true, that the Jews had a custom of letting one prisoner go on the passover.

They don't have this tradition with a human or on passover, it is on the Day of Atonement or Yom Kippur in the OT. Obviously intentionally symbolic of the supposed atoning for sin allegedly accomplished on the cross as to fit a Pauline theology and make it look prophetic even. Of course Azazel is translated "scapegoat" in your less honest translations and when it should say Azazel, not the goat sacrificed to Azazel which is the scapegoat.

Also it turns a red string white if Israels sins are forgiven.

"Make your sins white as snow."

The tradition of letting a prisoner go is not authentic and sounds like a Roman custom, like Oskar Schindler said, "I pardon you",..."That is power Amon, that's what the Roman Emporers had...this is not power." Or whatever that Nazi character's name was, Goeth.

But it is not a recorded Jewish custom to pardon criminals at passover.

The only answer is the most obvious one, Jesus was made into a scapegoat, literally in the Gospels, and the other Jesus (Barabbas/Barabban some say, which changes the meaning to son of Masters, and might explain why a Barabbas is in H&R in Syriac, or it could be a misspelled Barnabas because in a western codex of Acts, I think Bezae, but I will check, it has Joses Justus, the defeated candidate for Apostle, as Joseph Barnabas Justus, meaning Joses brother of Jesus and James, Judah-Thomas, ASLO surnamed "Zaddik" or "The Just/Righteous One" like James is called, and Jesus, by James in his Epistle I believe. Peace be upon Jesus and the 12, which I want to believe includes Barnabas but it was altered to install a nobody because Barnabas dissed Paul for Mark and for Peter, seperate occasions, so they "demoted" him, is my theory. Because Luke actually does call Barnabas an Apostle later and Matthias is never heard from again. Barnabas has an Epistle and a pretty interesting Acts, Matthias piggybacks on other Apostle's Acts, barely. Luke doesn't mind contradicting himself at all either, like the Damascus conversion stories and their irreconcilable differences. He is either being cryptic, my preference, or it is sloppy and not worth reading. I think it was deliberate.

If s and n were confused in Barrabbas/Barrabban in Acts, why not the same thing but with Barsabbas in H&R?

I forgot, it is Barsabbas, not Bar abbas . Whoops.

Symmachus the Ebonite, who is mentioned with Nazarene followers, is the only recorded name of an actual Ebionite, except James and his "Poor Saints in Jerusalem."

Ebion was made up, I think by Iraneus, so these lies are told for the reason all lies are told, to hide the truth.

I take it the truth is Jesus(pbuh), wasn't God, was only begotten at Baptism in the way King David was, quoting him in Psalms actually in both Gospel of the Hebrews and earliest Luke MSS both, "this day I have begotten you."

And "My Mother the Holy Spirit" is another quote.

Peter calls the Holy Spirit "She" in Syr. H&R.

Syriac is Aramaic, a different dialect though. Clement is a superstar in the Syriac Christian Church which has an odd tradition of ascribing to his writings, including the 1 Clement to Corinth Epistle, of speaking against Paul, in the Syriac 1 Clement it says he causes contention and should step down as a leader if he means peace, not in the other languages.

Same goes with the "Secret books of Clement" in Syriac or Arabic, book 8 of Kitab al Magall, all next to impossible to find in books, though I have one on pdf and one bookmarked from Amazon so the book 8 is the hardest to find because it calls Paul a forger and says not to trust him.

Quite interesting, Titus Flavius Clemens, relative of the Emporer, son of Titus Flavius Sabinus (Saba???), an important Roman, was loyal to the Asian faction, not Paul, the Roman spy...



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell


Inquisition​al, that's hilarious, and clearly personal but not factual.

You have a grudge because I made you look bad, I get it, but don't make it my fault that you think Ibn Arabi, who said it was the same thing to worship a tree as it was to worship God, was a "great sage."

Even though you have never read his works.

A heretic is a heretic, that's not Islam and he tries to pass it off as Islam, factually speaking he is contradicting Islamic theology regarding God and worshipping just God, the Qur'an, and basic common sense.

I think it is stupid, not worthy of death.

A charlatan is a charlatan, you tell people you met Mohammed (saws) in a dream when you didn't and would have likely repulsed him if knew him when...

You deserve to be called a charlatan and a heretic for lying, contradicting your own religion and saying that it came from the Prophet (saws) of said religion, makes you all kinds of scumbag.

You clearly need to say something negative about me in all your messages so, you do that and I will ignore it, you can vent your frustrations and I will not bother you or read whatever you want to say to get it out of your system.

You ARE the Inquisition. Stop inquiring into things you know nothing about unless you are going to just observe until you know what you are talking about.

Or don't, I actually don't care. I just needed you to know your comment was hilarious but not accurate in any way, I don't care about heretics, but I don't deny their existence either.

Because I am not ignorant of the facts of life.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell


You have not studied Ibn Arabi, couldn't tell the difference between Sahabi and him even, Sahabi is not an internationally known author from the past, Arabi is.

And you can't read more than 2 vols of Mekkan Revelations because it is all that has been translated out of 35.

And that IS ibn Arabi. He wrote other books but nothing is as popular as that, and you don't speak Arabic or Urdu, do you now?

You know I said this already right? About 2 out of 35 or so have been translated.

So you just look like you are trying to save face by presenting enough quasi information so you can dissapear and go read books that aren't the kind, as you said that, "Make you feel drunk."

Which is an obvious admission you could never sit through one of Arabis books, because Ghazali was what you were commenting on and he is a man of sound reason, that you couldn't understand...and made you feel drunk.

Arabi would be something stronger than booze, to give you an analogy, absinthe but the REAL kind. Ayahuasca even.

You Googled an Arabi sympathizer and put together a bunch of nothing about a guy who said that worshipping a tree, stone, statue, anything at all, was worshipping Allah.

So you clearly don't know Islam, which can't stand idolatry, and you clearly didn't read what I recommended you did, or probably even what I wrote about him on this page.

Because you would have learned exactly why the man was an idiot, not a "great sage" because he reduced Islam to tree worship and pantheism and was an all around degenerate scumbag.

It took you four days to respond to me telling you that I know you have not read ANY Arabi, I know you are not familiar with his works, don't front.

Four days of Googling doesn't change anything or make you an expert, it's obvious you have never read his books because I asked you simply for your favorite quotes from your personal collection, naming the book, and you came with links and Googled content.

If you were a fan you would have his books.

But you don't, haven't read them and are fronting about it.
edit on 8-5-2017 by Disturbinatti because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Disturbinatti


With all due respect, you sound a little too inquisitional my brother or sister…
That’s my perception, maybe I’m wrong.

Personally, it will be a cold day in hell before I accuse someone of heresy. I could disagree with someone but that’s all.


It's a word with a definition, accurately applied to Arabi. You aren't being tolerant by denying it your being ignorant of the facts, he was factually a heretic according to his own contemporaries.

You didn't mind insulting Mohammed (saws)though, over something he didn't write, that was passed on via word of mouth for 300 years, which didn't stop you from pronouncing judgement.

It is because he is a heretic AND Muslim allegedly, although we don't worship idols or condone it so he can't properly be defined as a Muslim, that you are defending him.

Your first comment to me, because I said something about Plato that Plato himself said, was a response that insulted Mohammed (saws), so you might think you are something because you refuse to acknowledge a heresy as a heresy and pretend it doesn't exist, that it makes you tolerant.

But you are obviously not tolerant of Islam and that is worse than just stating a fact, that Ibn Arabi was so deviant from the Qur'an he can not be considered a true Muslim. Technically making him a heretic.



I don't judge people by someone else's interpretation of exterior religious law.


No you just insult the Prophet's of those religions, or at least Mohammed (saws), and you judged word of mouth 300 year old unreliable information as accurate because you had an agenda.

Insult me by insulting Mohammed (saws).

You are not fooling me with your rhethoric.



Now to ibn Arabi

First off, I don’t claim to be an expert on Ibn Arabi, I have studied his works in earlier years and have a high opinion of him. Read some works by authors such as William Chittick and many others…

www.ibnarabisociety.org...

If you study the life of Ibn Arabi, something I have done, you will be amazed at the respect he garnered from the renowned religious teachers and authorities of his time and later times


And at the ones he repulsed which are far more than the one's who admired him.

He did time.



www.amazon.com...

Therefore, if your going to rely on some religious authority to believe what I think is a calumnious charge at Ibn Arabi then you should go to the numerous authorities who vouch for his sanctity.

I know how to buy a book.

Unlike you I actually read the one's I say I read. I don't need Amazon, I have a shelf full of books.

Not Arabi. I was curious, not now. I don't like charlatans and religious personalites, cult personalites like Arabi are a dime a dozen.




Many authorities say Ibn Arabi’s experiences were examples of the highest level of consciousness any human being can reach.


You find his life fascinating but can't recall a single detail. AND:


Like who? What authority is so forgettable you can't remember his name? Or "Many" names, not remember one. Go Google it!




Many Sufis throughout history have been attacked by exoteric religious bigots, nothing new here, all the way from Rumi, Mansur Hallaj, who was murdered by religious bigots, Ghazali, and many others.


You do realize I already said Ghazali was Ash'ari Sufi, right? Maybe I didn't say it.

But he WAS!!! I don't see how you say he attacked his own faith!!! He defended it, vigorously, and is honored for it, called "Proof of Islam."

Ghazali was no bigot, he was Ash'ari Sufi, and he wrote against people who would have destroyed Islam and successfully made peace, like a middle man between literalist and extreme esotericists.

My esoteric and mystical quotes were FROM HIS BOOKS!!!
Did you just make that up BECAUSE I am quoting Ghazali!!! That's the only option really because he didn't do what you said he did whatsoever and nobody thinks he did, nobody sane.

And Arabi was born later.

Ghazali is called "Proof of Islam" and didn't do anything of the sort. He wrote the truth, if someone went too far he said so, both sides, you haven't read a single thing I have written have you?

He dedicated his life and 400 books TO SUFISM.

You just don't know when to keep your mouth shut, because now would be good, you have no idea what you are talking about and are definitely on the side of evil if you think Arabi had ANYTHING on Ghazali in terms of pure Islamic mysticism.

You obviously didn't even know HE WAS A SUFI MYSTIC!!!!




These are two of my favorite lines from some of ibn Arabi’s poems

If I bow to her as is my duty and she return not my salutations…have I just cause for complaint. Beautiful woman have no obligation…Text



And among the wondrous things is a veiled gazelle: A Divine Subtlety, veiled by a state of the Self, Referring to the States of those who know. Unable To explain their perceptions to others, they can only indicate them to whoever has started to feel something similar
…Muhiyuddin ibn Arabi.

books.google.com...

As for you taking me serious or not. Well that’s up to you.

But understand this, my opinions are not second hand anything…there first hand from me.











You should just stop, you are embarrassing yourself.

Nice try buddy, a couple days ago you couldn't distinguish Ghazali from Arabi, a crime itself if you know either, or tell either from ATS member Sahabi, who was the author of the words you asked, "is that Ghazali or Arabi?"

Now you are an expert on both!!!!LOL.

Which means you didn't read anything from him until I called you on it, and are no expert but a gatherer of websites gathered already information, on the quick.

Any Arabi fan would know he was and why he was considered a heretic from reading bio that would be in almost any preface.

You didn't know he WAS, forget WHY!!!

You thought I PERSONALLY declared him a heretic but s contemporary of his who is one of the most respected Muslims of all time did, information I have already supplied that you must be ignoring.

Just because you can't admit that you said something about someone whose books you never read and therefore were not qualified to judge him a great sage, which is hilarious when you think of REAL great sages.

Like actual Prophets (pbut saws) and not lying mystics.
edit on 8-5-2017 by Disturbinatti because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-5-2017 by Disturbinatti because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
It is for certain literalist sects like the modern Wahhabis, nurtured into prominence by British intelligence in the 70's, obscure prior to that, despise Sufism, outlawed it even.

I love mystical literature, the Zohar being probably the best example that I know of personally, and Ghazali who is more rational but still a Sufi mystic and author of hundreds of books, I only have about 40 in a set called , "Revival of the sciences of religion."

As in mystical science, Sufism, and in 40 subjects he covers just about everything one needs to know to live as a pious Muslim and Sufi, using the Qur'an, Hadith and even the logoi of Christ as well as quotes from the "Companions" (pbut) of the Prophet(saws) and not imaginary visits from Al Khidr and dreams of Mohammed (saws) with fake "Revelations."

Whatever this supposed high state Arabi achieved, it has nothing to reveal about Islam.

We don't worship inanimate objects because we are not like the ancient Egyptians who worshipped cats, crocodiles, phallic pillars and essentially anything, because those things are CREATIONS.

Arabi claims to worship inanimate objects is equivalent to worshipping the Creator who actually says not to do that, beginning with the Bible and ending with the Qur'an.

But Arabi is "enlightened."???

Well, I will pass on the idol worship, and on Arabi, because you have to be dense to think Islam is compatible with that which it condemns, literally condemns, in every possible way.

People like Arabi read whatever they want in to things and render the true meanings, exoteric and esoteric, void in so doing.

And as I quoted Ghazali saying earlier the most important part of esoteric interpretation is to nor render invalid the exoteric in doing so.

And all anthropomorphisms are allegorical or symbolic, never literal.

It's not like that is so restricting to an actual sage who can do it no problem because they are intelligent.

If not misinterpreted, most of the time, the Zohar does this well for the Torah, and I would not call the practioners of Kabbalah or Sufism heretics, but there are always your Ibn Arabis and Shabbatai Svis who give mysticism a bad name and CAUSE people to attack TRUE mystics, because of the frenzied state of the followers people like Svi are driven to, madness even.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Disturbinatti

I wonder what I did to run into you.

I guess its some bad Karma I have to get rid off!


God help you brother, I cant.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   
To be fair lets let Arabi speak for himself.



Al-Fusoos al-Hikam 1/95

"So the person with complete understanding is he who sees in every object of worship to be a manifestation of the truth contained therein, for which it is worshipped. Therefore, they call it a god, along with its particular name, whether it is a rock, or a tree, an animal, or a person, a star or angel."


If that is "complete understanding", to worship nature, people, as a Muslim who is supposed to be against the deification of even Jesus (pbuh), has been told by the Qur'an and Sunnah that idolatry and polytheism are one of the worst sins, you don't understand the Qur'an or Islam.

If that is Arabi's belief so be it, it just isn't Islam and he claimed to be a Muslim.

And he is not that popular, the Ibn Arabi website tries to defend him has to resort to calling Taymiyyah "angry" without saying why, and struggles to find him quoted in authors who are said to have been admirers and quoted from people like Ghazali, mentioned specifically by this author along with others, and doesn't even say what Taymiyyah said regarding Arabi for obvious reasons.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   
In further defense of Ghazali, who was a theologian, philosopher and mystic of pure Islam and to quote whoever Wikipedia quoted, "a reviver of religion" and advocate of Sufism as Orthodox and essential savior of it from the literalists and equally from the extremist philosophers who veered to far from the teachings of the Prophet (saws) and advocated the study of legitimate science as independent from philosophical speculation.

Another quote, "After the Prophet probably the single most influential figure in the history of Islam."

He is maligned by Salafis and Wahhabis, but I can tell you another thing just from Wikipedia, just to show how easily available this information is, it says that one of the people who Ghazali influenced was one ''Ibn Arabi."

There is also an Ibn Arabee, but this is not who they meant.

I only say this because it was falsely ascribed to Ghazali that he attacked mystics like the Sufis, and I know I already stated he WAS a Sufi so that doesn't make sense whatsoever, but to show the extent of his impact I wanted to expound further how much Ghazali was a proponent of philosophy and mysticism so long as it was Islamic and Orthodox.

Something he proved to the literalists was possible thus practically saving Sufism from being outlawed, so the statement is so ridiculous I can only literally laugh out loud, to say Ghazali was one who attacked mystics, when he was also the only person mentioned and Taymiyyah would have been a much better example if you knew anything about Islam, as one who attacked mystics and Sufis, though he wasn't so bad to Arabi as to others who were even more extreme, he actually even condemned the works of Al-Ghazali as well.

So I don't agree with him on much but his quotes I did speak of are accurate, I don't hold his opinions or like him for the fact he is revered by Wahhabis and Salafis, but he was so vocal he was a good source.

I have nothing against Arabi, personally, I do feel he was not properly a Muslim, more of a pantheist who believed in his own vision of Islam, I have no problem with that either.

His literary contribution is immense and undeniable as having had an influence on metaphysical Islamic thought, through other authors who wrote equally deliberate cloaked poetry and other forms of literature, definitely expanded some minds and from all accounts actually was, like Basilides or Valentinus, a pious aesthetic with unorthodox views.

I have never had a problem with either or their likely descendants the Sethians, I have no reason to have anything against anyone who is righteous regardless of religious views.

That said I like the pure Orthodox mysticism of Ghazali better than any author I have ever read because it makes the mystical practical, has sound logic applied to quotes from the people mentioned earlier and is not an obscure puzzle.

I say that because Arabi was known to have admitted to deliberately compiling his work out of any order that could be understood without figuring out how it actually is organized.

But for lovers of metaphysical Greek philosophy I can see the appeal, I happen to be a fan of Plotinus, but he was Greek, and the major influence of many mystics today, his Enneads is a classic and his only work, not an easy or quick read. But available for free on pdf, it's 800 something pages.

Thomas Aquinas was an admirer of Ghazali, most Greek phisophical texts came to Europe via Byzantium via Islam via Spain and were translated into Latin with Arabic Alchemical texts, many influenced by Hermetic writings from Harranian Sabians and Greek philisophy as well as new ideas from Muslims, Jews and Christians also got in on the Hellenistic ressurection which is odd, Christians of Rome ridiculed them and Jews disowned anything Greek like 900 years earlier, incorporating what was useful into the Talmud and washing their hands of Greek culture.

It was this movement of literature from the Muslim world that supplied the knowledge to get Europe out of the Dark ages, without the science of the Islamic Empire Europe would have had no Renaissance or Enlightenment period.

A fact that Europeans are loathe to admit.

Except H.G. Wells "'And with a fresh vigor it (the Arab mind) took up that systematic development of positive knowledge which the Greeks had begun and relinquished."

And Dr. J.W. Draper: "One of the most deplorable things in history is the systematic way in which European writers have contrived to put out of sight their scientific obligation to the Arabs." The Intellectual Development of Europe."

Might not have happened had Al Ghazali not advocated for the acceptance of mystical Islam by calling for the separation of real science from philosophy (Greek) and keeping pure the theology of the Qur'an and Sunnah.

It didn't stop metaphysical thinking in Sufism but it made peace so it was possible to keep pursuing new thought by proving to the literalists the Orthodoxy of Sufism, which relaxed conditions so even the people Ghazali didn't support still had the opportunity to continue doing what they were.

I don't think the Greek texts would have been so influential otherwise, and that they certainly were. For good reason, the Greeks were not dumb by any means. Nor the pre Christian Romans or Indians, they also got knowledge via India and old Roman books.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell


I am uninterested in your help, but thanks.

You just should, next time you want to discuss something from the perspective of one knowledgeable in a subject, actually know the subject, specifically Arabi.

I see no reason to bother me for relating a historical fact, I probably would have ignored it had you not claimed a man whose writings you know you are not familiar with and know that I know it too, was one of the greatest sages.

It's a matter of opinion, but of one familiar with his works, not someone who can't name the source of the one quote you provided as "one of my favorites." Not even the title of the book, never mind page or reference number for the quote.

It's too obvious what you are doing. Don't pretend it's my problem.
edit on 8-5-2017 by Disturbinatti because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Disturbinatti

Assalamu’alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh

First, understand this, if you were of another mind, a truly sinister pest, and I have dealt with many accordingly, then I would deal with you accordingly, but you have problems my friend and that calls for compassion.

Chill out!

Forget the issue about Ibn Arabi and try to first be human before you come out and flex your knowledge.

Don’t use knowledge as a sledge hammer to try to wound people.

Learn to use it to help people. Enlighten people. Make life better with it not worst!

And believe me my friend you don’t have as much knowledge as you think you do.

Love, empathy and compassion is the key

You will not ever benefit from knowledge until you learn how to love and then you may be given the chance to serve

You say you are some kind of Muslim

Then you should know the Quran at the beginning of every Surah begins

In the Name Of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful

That has great meaning, think about it.

Ma Saalam, brother or sister




posted on May, 9 2017 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Some more quotes from Ghazali:

"Declare your jihad (struggle) on 13 enemies you can not see, egoism, arrogance, conceit, selfishness, greed, lust, intolerance, anger, lyi g, cheating, gossiping and slandering.

If you can master and destroy them, then you will be ready to fight the enemy you CAN see."

A great quote, before you battle the forces of evil from without, you must conquer that which is within.

An example of slander as well as gossip is when Willtell said, having no idea who he was talking about, that Ghazali was one who "attacked Sufi mystics" which there were many who did, however Ghazali wasn't one of them and clearly preached tolerance as you can see here, not intolerance.

"To get what you love, you must first be patient with what you hate."

Indeed.

"Do not allow your heart to take pleasure with praises of people, nor be saddened by their condemnation."

Indeed again.

"Knowledge without action is wastefulness and action without knowledge is foolishness."

Absolutely. Like when I first mentioned that traditionally speaking, while reserving personal judgement as I had not read word one of Arabi, he was considered a heretic. That was just a statement of fact which didn't deserve a hostile reply but recieved many regardless.

Factually speaking he was and is by many, I didn't, until I actually read WHY he was called that, speak on it and when I did I ONLY spoke with regards to the quotes I DID read.

In other words I did not act without knowledge, the only knowledge I had at that point was the fact that he was considered to be a heretic. Subsequently I have to concur he spoke heretical words, and he said some beautiful things. At the end of the day I like mysticism but I also like it to not violate any of the five pillars of my faith which I believe in strongly as the literal pillars of Islam.

Now action without knowledge is to say "Sufis were attacked by people like Ghazali" who is the most important Sufi, arguably, ever to have lived, not as famous as Rumi, but as important at least.

And Al-Ghazali influenced Arabi, the person we were discussing regarding his heretical notions of pantheism, yet it was claimed Ghazali was a persecutor of people like Arabi when he was a major positive influence. I don't know what he himself would have thought of Arabi, I can only guess. He was dead by the time of Arabi.


Speaking is acting, acting without knowledge when you make statements that are false just to disturb a person in debate. Which, since I have until this moment quoting straight from his Magnum Opus, it should have been deduced by Willtell that I was not going to let such slander go unresponded to. Foolishness

"Those who look for seashells find seashells, those who open them find pearls."

I will use this as a perfect analogy for people who seek to discuss books they "found" out about but never "opened" to read what was in them.

You have yourself a shell, which may or may not have a pearl inside. But you tell people it does anyway, even though you don't actually know. When the shell is opened and has a grain of sand instead you end up looking foolish.

The reason I can't provide reference numbers for these quotes is because I got them from AZ quotes, which also has Arabi quotes that I read as well.

I would say that is the same reason Willtell could not with Arabi if I had to guess.

Only difference is I actually do own almost 3,000 large pages of Al-Ghazali, his Magnum Opus "Revival of the Sciences of Religion."


Stay wise people. Disturbinatti out.
edit on 9-5-2017 by Disturbinatti because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I have to add another comment because while researching Al-Aqsa Masjid in Jerusalem, the third Holiest site in Islam at Muslimmatters.com and it said it an article "8 things you didn't know about Al Aqsa" that Al-Ghazali lived there at the time he composed his masterpiece "Ihya Ulum Ud Din", the book from which I have been quoting.

But what I wanted to share most was that, unknown to me even, well I will give you the quote in full:

"A building in the Masjid marks the site of his room." That's quite the honor.

Also said was:

"He's (Ghazali) a man revered in all schools of thought for his ability to plunge into the depths of the human soul whilst remaining anchored to the Quranic and Prophetic teachings."

That's a rarity in Islam, to be so revered as to be called "Proof of Islam", as well as to be revered by (almost, obviously not Wahhabis but they are less than 1% of all Muslims and nobody cares what Britains stooges in S.A. think anyway and that is hardly a free country) all schools of thought, a rarity in any field of study, and to have his room in Al Aqsa commemorated to this day speaks for itself, all of it.

I would be embarrassed if I had accused such a great and respected man, BY Arabi at that, if I was pretending to be familiar with the works of Arabi and invented a slanderous allegation against someone who actually inspired him, Ghazali, of being one of the men who "attacked Sufi mystics, men such as Ghazali." To paraphrase slightly as I don't remember word for word, I do remember that he was accused of being one of those men who atracked Sufis and mystics of Islam and was actually the only name mentioned amongst those men.

That tells me he who spoke such a fabrication doesn't know anybody who actually attacked Sufism by name (Ibn Tayymiyah for one), but only said that so as to include the person myself and most of Islam, certainly Sufis admire a great deal, among the enemies of a sect he was actually a member of and wrote in defense of and dedicated his life to.

I would guess because I was using him as a source and this person felt if he could get away with slandering Ghazali it would make me look like an adherent of the teachings of a literalist and intolerant persecutor.

But it backfired because Ghazali is a revered figure in Islam and in Sufism especially, highly honored by all but the most vile forms of Islam, Wahhabism and Salafism mostly.

And he never attacked Sufism. He wrote against certain philosophers for incorporating Hellenistic religous ideas into Islam and were doing damage to the purity of Islam's Prophetic teachings by rendering void the true meaning of Scripture by contradictory "inner" interpretations that didn't jive with their equally true outer interpretations which only allows for one to be true.

A genius like Ghazali, as all wise men, sages of the esoteric tradition, had no trouble with using esoteric interpretation and had no need to contradict the exoteric meaning in the process, this is how true "inner and outer" or eso/exoteric interpretation is done.

If you aren't clever or intellectual and spiritual enough to be able to interpret Scripture two non contradictory ways, you are not a sage or mystic because the Word of God doesn't have contradictions, and the literal interpretation is complimented by the metaphorical, not rendered meaningless.

This is dishonesty by any standard true to the actual definition of dishonest.

Now in the case of the Tanakh, it has 4 levels of interpretation in Kabbalistic tradition.

In Hebrew they make the word PRDS, Paradise, each letter being the specific mode of interpretation. It is also done at any point of anthropomorphisms in the Tanach, like Ghazali says, as if 100% allegorical or metaphorical, with the exception of Moses (pbuh) at Sinai, and many things like Sodom and Gomorrah too, it is said it is an allegory in Vaera when Lot's wife looks back and turns into a pillar of salt, explained as she dared to look the angel of destruction in the face, against prior warning not to.

I love the Zohar because it features a lot about Abraham (pbuh) and reveals a lot too. It is not just nonsensical ramblings that are "impossible to comprehend" like some say, but actually had some very practical and comprehensible while also mystical ideas.

Like the Gospel of Thomas it say, "Zaddik, for whom heaven and earth came into existence" meaning righteous one(s) called Pillars also. As is James the Just/Zaddik in Hebrew, Peter and John and Joses (Barnabas) Justus/Zaddik must also have been one.

Those were super-sages, Zaddiks/Zaddikim, which goes back at least as far as the DSS community so named "Zaddikim", "Hasidim", "Nosrei ha-Brit (Keepers of the Covenant)" and "The Way." And they had a 12/3/1 hierarchy of leadership like the 12 Apostles and James, who wasn't one of the 12 but the successor to Jesus(pbuh) because even Simon-Peter deferred to him as final authority.


Anyone looking to solve the riddle of where was Nazareth it was actually at Qumran, there is a little known document called the Harran Gawaitha by the Mandaeans(Nazarenes Gnostics, Manda=Gnosis in Aramaic/Mandaic) of John the Baptists sect, who survive today as a small but ancient sect mentioned in some of the earliest church records.

It's available at Gnosis.org or Gnosticism.org, go to the "Mandaeans" section and you will find a very brief document called Harran Gawaitha that says, almost conclusively, that "Qum" is Nazareth."

I will get a link because it's important to read rare documents like this. These people hate "Adonayy" and believe Jesus(pbuh) was a false messiah who corrupted John's teachings(like Paul did to Jesus), believe a demiurge name Fetahil is the creator but is not God, who is called Hayyi.

Give me a few. You can easily Google it too though.

I am pretty sure "Damascus" as in "Damascus Document" and Paul's trip their to kill or imprison disciples, is code for Qumran, or Nazareth, which wasn't a town, more like an esoteric tradition within Judaism with a Commune for instructing.

One chapter in my Bible is called "Jesus secret stay at Nazareth", same is true of John the Baptist earlier. Of course the titles are not from the MSS., but it's good to title chapters, it isn't like the chapter is about something else than what it says.



edit on 9-5-2017 by Disturbinatti because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Another interesting bit of information:

Ghazali has a book, "Alchemy of happiness."

Now, it would sound to (even my own) English speaking person like it was talking about the Alchemical tradition of the European pseudo-chemists, some who must have discovered literal chemical knowledge in the process but most being either philosophers/mystics, some, in both the Muslim world of Ghazali's time and later with the Europeans tried making weird potions and trying to turn base into precious metal.

But while "from Khem/Egypt" is the best accepted meaning of Alchemy, and may be the case...

Alchemy also translates to, "(how) to obtain."

So I figured this out because "Alchemy of happiness" is now sold as "How to obtain happiness." I think there are two forms of the word in Arabic that have different meanings, or one word with two meanings that are mystical in both respects, possibly an exoteric and esoteric meaning that compliment each other.

Because "To obtain" is equal to the "To receive" that Kabbalah is said to mean, I thought this well worth mentioning.

As Kabbalah has an obvious connection to Sufism, with the tefillin cube being wrapped around the arm seven times and the Kabba of Allah is circled 7 times, as, I believe also was done at Jericho, where 7 plays an important part in the story of the Walls of Jericho which was also circled.

In fact both Rabbis and Sufis acknowledge this similarity, it's one thing that reminds of both of our shared heritage and cultural influences.

I see the Cube has become a Theosophical object of interest to literal Theosoohists and mystics in general.

What I know is that the Phoenicians called Cronos, El, who is Saturn (Herodotus, Eusebius) to the Greeks and God/El of the Abrahamic religions today.

The star of Saturn was, even in the time of Herodotus, the Hexagram, Seal of Solomom of today.

Now a Hexagon is found at the pole of Saturn, and a Hexagon is the center of a Hexagram from which you can draw infinite hexagrams only limited by space to draw on, like a portal to infinity.

A cube viewed from the right angle appears to be a hexagon. And if you draw an Octagram, two overlapping squares that form an 8 pointed star which is the architectural basis of many Mosques and called a Rub el Hizb, a symbol in Islam that is older than their usage of the Byzantine Crescent Moon symbol with the star adopted by the Ottomans from Christian Byzantium.

And the freakiest thing? In both the Bible and the Cannanite(proto-Phoenicians) Ugaritic texts "El" has 70 "sons." So does Israel at the time of the 12 Patriarchs who combined # 70.

At Babel as recorded in Dt. 32 Elyon divided the nations according to the number of the Sons of El, which is 70 according to the "Table of Nations."

1,000AD the Masorah of Babylon altered Dt 32 to read "sons of Israel" to replace "sons of God" for reasons evident to anyone who has read the two fragments of Dt. 32 from the DSS which have YHVH as a Son of El who received an inheritance, Israel, from Elyon or "Most High." LXX agrees with DSS proving the text was altered.

I will come back to that in a minute.

NASA says that Saturn is the size of 70 earths, which either means NASA is pulling of a hoax to make space fit mythology or the ancients knew that Saturn had a hexagon on it and designed the hexagram to represent "As above, so below", 666 (Solomon's gold), and God who was at this point a planet that they knew more about than us until recently in history.

Back to sons of Israel.

I think it was Herodotus who said the Jews worship a god called Israel, who is Saturn.

Now let's examine the name Jacob.

YacHV, as o didn't exist yet, Yakov or Yachv is how it would be written.

That is, Yahu, as in YHUH, or Eliyahu(Elijah in Hebrew). V/W/U are one letter in Hebrew, Vav, sometimes transliterated to b, but is a Vav in Hebrew and not Bet.

The only leftover letter is the c half of ch, so it would have a slightly different pronunciation, Yachu instead of Yahu.

But when Yachv wrestels with El/God, he gets a new name, Israel! Meaning "wrestles with God(and overcomes) because Yachv...WINS!!!

Classic adaptation of the overthrow of Uranus by Cronus, Cronus by Zeus, Baal over El which earns him a palace and the title Elyon in Ugarit, even though El is technically superior.

So maybe Herodotus was on to something!

After all, replacing the word "God" with "Israel" would seem to lend authority to Herodotus claim.

Eusebius, quoting Berosos and Philo of Byblos quoting Sancuniathon said Israel was a King who replaced Abraham in the story of Isaac who was replaced by Judah, I believe.

Judah's clan is mostly of half Cannanite-Phoenician blood and I think Tamar was Canaanite too.

Either way, reas Eusebius "Preparation for the Gospels", the part about the Phoenicians leaves one baffles as to why he included what essentially is a prototype of the OT Torah stories. It essentially is a later version of Ugaritic mythology with the same gods and some new ones too.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join