Mysticism : A Truth , A Reality, a path

[usman.khawar]

How did prehistoric Man discover God? 1/2

Archaeological experts and scholars of antiquity have devoted an immense amount of time to understand the lifestyles, economic activities and social systems of ancient civilizations. After tireless and painstaking effort they have pieced together the evolution of early human societies and identified their levels of intellectual development. But they have deliberately ignored a fundamental dimension of this study. Under the pretext of objective research, investigation and reliance on facts they allow no possibility of religion, let alone the suggestion of any divine inspiration, to be considered as a potential factor in their explanations. Detailed descriptions of priests and temples in these ancient societies are given, but there is refusal to acknowledge the possibility of any external source of guidance on earth directed by a creative force.

Instead these experts insist that in prehistoric societies the innate fear and terror felt by early human beings from natural threats and disasters led to the invention of religion. This was a direct consequence of their limited intelligence and understanding. However, the researchers of antiquity rarely display the courage to go beyond the period of polytheism. It is a general principle that the concept of ‘divine unity’ can be glimpsed in every pagan belief system. Idol worship in most societies came after a period of devotion to a single, universal deity. Looking at the Greed gods, we notice that before the families of Zeus and Hera and in the backdrop of all the gods of Mount Olympus, there was the great God Cronus who had the ability to swallow up all others. According to Greed mythology Cronus was later dethroned by Zeus. The explanation behind the spread of idolatry amongst ancients is that as long as the belief in One God, remained the worship of idols and the creation of images and statues was strictly prohibited. Prophets and priests of that period followed supra-human, metaphysical guidance, worshipping one universal deity and shunning polytheism.

The concepts of divine unity can also be found in the mythology and belief system of Hinduism. This states that the Aryans started with the One God Indira, the God of paradise, thunder and lightning. In the cultural period that followed, they linked the One God in the trinity of Mithra and Verona. In another conception of the trinity, the God of the Brahmans is the one and Absolute. According to the description of Manu he is alone and has no partners. However, it is attributes of this One God that are manifested in the forms of gods such as Vishnu and Shiva. It is a fact that all idol-worshipping mythologies end with the sovereignty of One God. Perhaps, the abstract and inaccessible concept of One God, led shortsighted and unprincipled priests, driven by greed and wealth, to create means of intercession so that they have a share of the Absolute Sovereignty of God.

The flood of Noah is mentioned in almost every ancient mythology. The Bible, Torah and the Quran, all confirm that this was a universal flood that did not spare any unbeliever or polytheist. The passengers of Noah’s Ark were the ones who witnessed this major event and passed it on. It is certain that this mighty flood was not confined to the region of Mesopotamia, nor that it was the consequence of the transgression of the inhabitants of the Euphrates and Tigris. The fact is that as a result of this flood the children of Noah spread all over the world; the boundaries of human civilization reached all the places where the human race is found today. If this had been an ordinary and localized flood its reports would not be found in all world mythologies which roughly originate around the same period after the flood and in similar societies. It is possible to acknowledge that due to the intermingling of societies, the legend of the great flood entered the mythology of many cultures. However, this would have had to happen at a much later stage of mass human migration. This theory cannot explain how Manu, the founder of the human race in Hindu mythology, talks about the flood; how the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh mentions it in detail; how Scandinavian mythology is full of the stories of the flood. The reality is that that source of the stories of the great flood can only come from the survivors of the Ark, and this also explains how the story is found in myths and legends of cultures separated by time and space.

To be continued..

Note: Hello all respected ones! i have to type this stuff manually and i try my level best to share u the same copy, accept apology for typing errors. Thanks

[MANICHAEAN]

The Quran is the only book in the world which reflects ultimate knowledge and reality. (This is, if you will excuse me saying, a blinkered approach, in not even considering the beliefs and validity of other religions.) The responsibility of carrying this perfect knowledge was given not to an unstable person, but to the human being who manifested the most perfect personality. It was therefore, revealed to Muhammad the Messenger of God. Through this, God has indicated a fundamental principle relating to knowledge. He who has the greatest knowledge will also be the one who is the most perfectly balanced. (Knowledge is not a prerequisite of a balanced personality. There are many responsible, balanced individuals, who have had no real education. But they exhibit basic human qualities of love & fairness, through the way they were raised or the values they have acquired. By knowledge, you obviously mean experience & judgment.) Knowledge in this context does not mean the various branches and departments of learning. The fact that some people may become distinguished in a particular specialism or field does not confer on them any real greatness, unless they are able to identify the purpose of self-realization in accordance with the ultimate priority of knowledge. Human perfection and balance can only occur when a person endeavours to discover who they are within the broader context of God’s knowledge. This must be coupled with efforts to curb the excesses of the reptilian ego so that this does not act as a barrier between you and the recognition of God (Taqwa), which in turn is the perfectly balanced character. It is possible that you may attain temporary balance of character, but unless you constantly remain watchful over the Nafs, there is no guarantee that it may not revive its negative character traits and plunge you back into the abyss of chaos and catastrophe.

Self-realization can easily become self-deception if you yourself are its only yardstick. The measure of self-realization can never be based on subjective standards. Just as the human race has produced many specialists in the various branches of science, it has also produced experts in the field of self-realization. The objective manner in which the great prophets have explored and clarified all aspects of this area cannot be ignored. Their findings have been verified by the friends of God (Saints) whose lives are a testament to the research of the Prophets. Ignorance led to the separation of Tassawwuf (Mysticism) from ordinary life. The fact is that not all human beings are of the same skill and caliber in every field of learning. It is only a few who succeed in mastering a particular area and are regarded as an authority in that field. Why is it that Tasawwuf was regarded as an exception to this?

The number of Prophets and saints produced by human societies is far greater than the number of philosophers and scientists to whom human intellectual development is attributed. The difference however, is that the latter were never the source of compassion and generosity for society in the way that a prophet or saint became. (Very true. It is also important to recognize, as laid down in Holy Scripture that “Some have entertained angels unawares.” This is a fascinating aspect in many of the main religions and is based on the universal principle of:
Being not forgetful to entertain strangers or, be not forgetful of hospitality. The virtue of hospitality is not distinctively Christian. It appears with the very beginnings of history, largely as the result of nomadic conditions. It was peculiarly an Oriental virtue. In the Egyptian Book of the Dead, commendatory judgment is awarded to him who has fed the hungry and clothed the naked. The Old Testament. abounds in illustrations, and the practice of hospitality among the Arabs and Bedoueen is familiar through the writings of travelers in the East. Great stress was laid on the duty by the Greeks, as appears constantly in Homer and elsewhere. Hospitality was regarded as a religious duty. The stranger was held to be under the special protection of Zeus, the God of the stranger. The Romans regarded any violation of the rites of hospitality as impiety. Cicero says: "It seems to me eminently becoming that the homes of distinguished men should be open to distinguished guests, and that it is an honor to the Republic that foreigners should not lack this kind of liberality in our city."
The allusion to the unconscious entertainment of angels is probably to Genesis 18, 19, but the idea was familiar in Greek literature. The Greeks thought that any stranger might be a God in disguise.)

It is because of these experts of the Self and due to God that society has arrived at this point in its civilization. The deceit of the reptilian ego has in every age held the majority of men captive to extremism, anarchy and destruction, and in every period the masters of self- understanding have ensured the survival of humanity through moderation. The Day of Judgment will occur only when the realizers of God are no more. It is possible that many experts of different fields may exist for a long time, but none of them are essential for the continuation of the human species.

Scientists have given Mankind a small (really!) number of materialistic benefits, but at the same time they have created the technology which could destroy the entire human race. They do not possess balance and moderation. The means of survival and destruction are poles apart. Ten thousand years of known human history can be wiped out in a matter of ten minutes. Even the philosophers have not advanced to a level which would entitle them to lead society. In reality, many of them cannot satisfy the condition of balance. In relation to self-realization it is impossible to find a single piece of work written on this subject by a philosopher or scientist. Who amongst them can teach us how to attain ‘balance’ in our thoughts and actions? Is there anyone who can lead us to the station of peace and tranquility? (Roger Bacon, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbs, John Locke, George Berkeley, David Hume, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Henry Sidgwick, G.E.Moore, Bertrand Russell & A.J.Ayer, to name but a few of the English ones.)
The prevalence of anxiety, agitation and restlessness indicates that science cannot find a solution to the emptiness of the human heart. The absence of experts on self-realization is acutely being felt. It seems that humanity is crying out for the masters of self-awareness to come and ease their pain. The tragedy is that knowledge of the self has become the victim of many false and self-proclaimed ‘master’ who have exploited ordinary people and sucked them dry like some wild bulls on the rampage. Every street, town and city, is littered with mounds of pseudo-Sufis who are completely ignorant of the knowledge of self-realization and can just about pronounce its name. these quacks fear neither God nor His creatures. A new type of colonization based on deceit and deception is under construction. Unfortunately this time it is religion that is under attack and especially Islam, (There are a lot of Christians Usman that feel the same. Having spent many years in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Dubai & Iran, it grieves me sometimes, the way the animosity has grown. There must be a meeting point somewhere?) and it does not matter whether it is Bush, Blair or the local fabricator of magical amulets. In fact the danger is greater when this wave of colonization is led by the Mosque Mullah, hereditary Sheikh, or the well-groomed scholar of the Madrasah.

to be continued with very informative chapter solving a big question " How did prehistoric Man discover God?"

[MANICHAEAN]

I believe that the variety of applications of the term "mysticism" forces one to restrict oneself to a discussion of that philosophical type of mysticism which concerns itself with questions of ultimate reality.

If a definition of a mystic is "one who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths beyond understanding," it is important to also recognize that the term can in many instances be regarded with contempt as mysticism is often used in a way to denote vaguely any kind of occultism or spiritualism, or any specially curious or fantastic views about God and the universe.

The word itself was originally taken over by the Neo-Platonists from the Greek mysteries, where the name of μύστης given to the initiate, probably arose from the fact that he was one who was gaining knowledge of divine things about which he must keep his mouth shut. Hence the association of secrecy or "mystery" which still clings round the word.

Two facts in connection with mysticism are undeniable whatever it may be, and whatever part it is destined to play in the development of thought and of knowledge. In the first place, it is the leading characteristic of some of the greatest thinkers of the world—of the founders of the Eastern religions of Plato and Plotinus, of Eckhart and Bruno, of Spinoza, Goethe, and Hegel. Secondly, no one has ever been a lukewarm, an indifferent, or an unhappy mystic. If a man has this particular temperament, his mysticism is the very centre of his being: it is the flame which feeds his whole life; and he is intensely and supremely happy just so far as he is steeped in it.

Mysticism is, in truth, a temper rather than a doctrine, an atmosphere rather than a system of philosophy. Various mystical thinkers have contributed fresh aspects of Truth as they saw her, for they have caught glimpses of her face at different angles, transfigured by diverse emotions, so that their testimony, and in some respects their views, are dissimilar to the point of contradiction. Wordsworth, for instance, gained his revelation of divinity through Nature, and through Nature alone; whereas to Blake "Nature was a hindrance," and Imagination the only reality. But all alike agree in one respect, and this is that unity underlies diversity. This, their starting-point and their goal, is the basic fact of mysticism, which, in its widest sense, may be described as an attitude of mind founded upon an intuitive or experienced conviction of unity, of oneness, of a likeness in all things. From this source springs all mystical thought, and the mystic, of whatever age or country, would say in the words of Krishna—

There is true knowledge. Learn thou it is this:
To see one changeless Life in all the Lives,
And in the Separate, One Inseparable.

The Bhagavad-Gîtâ, Book 18.

This fundamental belief in unity leads naturally to the further belief that all things about us are but forms or manifestations of the one divine life, and that these phenomena are fleeting and impermanent, although the spirit which informs them is immortal and endures. In other words, it leads to the belief that "the Ideal is the only Real."

Further, if unity lies at the root of things, man must have some share of the nature of God, for he is a spark of the Divine. Consequently, man is capable of knowing God through this godlike part of his own nature, that is, through his soul or spirit. For the mystic believes that as the intellect is given us to apprehend material things, so the spirit is given us to apprehend spiritual things.

We can know a thing spiritually only by becoming it. We must be the thing itself, and not merely talk about it or look at it. We must be in love if we are to know what love is; we must be musicians if we are to know what music is; we must be godlike if we are to know what God is.

The distinguishing mark, this is what differentiates the mystic alike from the theologian, the logician, the philosopher, and the man of science, for he bases his belief, not on revelation, logic, reason, or demonstrated facts, but on feeling, on intuitive inner knowledge.

Symbolism is of immense importance in mysticism; indeed, symbolism and mythology are, as it were, the language of the mystic. It is worthwhile, in this connection, to ponder the constant use that Christ makes of nature symbolism, drawing the attention of His hearers to the analogies in the law we see working around us to the same law working in the spiritual world. The yearly harvest, the sower and his seed, the leaven in the loaf, the grain of mustard-seed, the lilies of the field, the action of fire, worms, moth, rust, bread, wine, and water, the mystery of the wind, unseen and yet felt—each one of these is shown to contain and exemplify a great and abiding truth.

It is the feeling that Blake has crystallized in the lines:
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a Heaven in a wild flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.

It is as incommunicable to those who have not experienced it as is the odour of a violet to those who have never smelt one. In its highest consummation it is the supreme adventure of the soul: to use the matchless words of Plotinus, it is "the flight of the Alone to the Alone."

The desire of wisdom, or the love of beauty, is but the yearning of the soul to join itself to what is akin to it. This is the leading conception of the two great mystical dialogues, the Symposium and the Phædrus. In the former, Socrates, in the words of the stranger prophetess Diotima, traces the path along which the soul must travel, and points out the steps of the ladder to be climbed in order to attain to union with the Divine. From beauty of form and body we rise to beauty of mind and spirit, and so to the Beauty of God Himself.

Plato may therefore be regarded as the source of speculative mysticism in Europe, but it is Plotinus, his disciple, the Neo-Platonist, who is the father of European mysticism in its full sense, practical as well as speculative, and who is also its most profound exponent. The influence of Plotinus upon later Christian mysticism was immense, though mainly indirect, through the writings of two of his spiritual disciples, St Augustine (354-450), and the unknown writer, probably of the early sixth century, possibly a Syrian monk, who ascribes his works to Dionysius the Areopagite, the friend of St Paul.

The fusion of Eastern mysticism with Christianity finally brought about the great change which constitutes the difference between Eastern and Western mysticism, a change already foreshadowed in Plato, for it was in part the natural outcome of the Greek delight in material beauty, but finally consummated by the teachings of the Christian faith. Eastern thought was pure soul-consciousness; its teaching was to annihilate the flesh, to deny its reality, to look within, and so to gain enlightenment. Christianity, on the other hand, was centered in the doctrine of the Incarnation, in the mystery of God the Father revealing Himself in human form. Hence the human body, human love and relationships became sanctified, became indeed a means of revelation of the divine, and the mystic no longer turned his thoughts wholly inwards, but also outwards and upwards, to the Father who loved him and to the Son who had died for him. Thus, in the West, mystical thought has ever recognized the deep symbolism and sacredness of all that is human and natural, of human love, of the human intellect, and of the natural world. All those things which to the Eastern thinker are but an obstruction and a veil, to the Western have become the very means of spiritual ascent.

[usman.khawar]

thank you again for sharing ur views and objections Mr. M.

--------------

How did prehistoric Man discover God? 2/2


If this had been a localized flood, there would not have been any need to gather all the different animals, especially animals that are harmful to humans and have never been ‘befriended’ by Man. Looking after scorpions and snakes on a ship is not the most sensible thing to do. It is clear that this flood was a universal flood and God wanted to save the different types of species through His prophet – irrespective of whether these species were friends or enemies of Mankind.

Centuries later the report of this event reached other societies; but what need was there for these cultures, who had not experienced the flood themselves, to make this story part of their religious traditions in a very diligent manner? There seems to be only one explanation. To the survivors, this flood was a historical event of such magnitude that, like a terrifying threat, it seeped into the unconsciousness of Mankind. The terror it produced in their minds was so intense that even future generations could not forget it. Perhaps, God-fearing elders narrated the story of the flood to warn and caution the heedless of future generations so that the intellect could witness the consequences of misguidance.

There were two major trends after the great flood. First, the dispersal of the human species across the globe was accelerated. Crossing the boundaries of a specific region the descendants of Noah spread to every corner of the Earth-even building homes in regions of boundless ice and snow like the Eskimos (Inuit). Second, the worship of One God became the custom of every human society for a considerable period of time. Modern research into pre-history is still confined to the age of polytheism. Were we to advance beyond the period of statues and idols, we would discover the reality that monotheism came before polytheism. Existing civilized societies have their origin in the second period of the Neolithic or Stone Age. As yet there is little anthropological evidence of polytheism and idol worship in these early societies.

Another fact that cannot be ignored is that all early societies were religious communities, structured around a priestly class. At a time when the human race was preoccupied with seeking the means of survival, religious consciousness seems to be an exceptional phenomenon. Its presence cannot be explained by the usual workings of the mind. Early Man was not driven by the fear of death. Experience shows that when a single idea dominates every aspect of a person’s life, and when life and death are witnessed on a regular basis, the mind does not fear death; instead it is eager to forget its existence and not be reminded of it. It is impossible to imagine that the concept of an after-life, fear of Creator, and philosophical and metaphysical ideas are the product of an uncivilized and underdeveloped human mind. Yet, the highly advanced and developed human mind of the modern age regards this life as the only and final stage of existence, and the thinkers of our time have reached the conclusion that religion and the notion of an afterlife are figments of the imagination. This shows that left to its own devices the human mind cannot develop such metaphysical notions. How then did the primitive minds of early cultures arrive at such conclusions? A plausible is that the cultures of that time have received some external supra-human guidance. Their intellectual growth and development was influenced by a power greater than Man. In this way, the wild and untamed groups of humans were given the means to culture their minds.

Prehistoric Man does appear to be different from other animals, but not to the degree that one of our ancestors was able to develop the intelligence to undertake a Ph.D in rocked engineering. Educational advances were slow and rudimentary, requiring many centuries, not years to make small steps of progress. The human mind was like that of a child whose hand had to be held in order to teach them anything, or like that of an undisciplined student who has to be taught through understanding, coaxing and gentle threats. But who was there to teach the wild and undisciplined human being of prehistoric times? There is only one answer to the question: God.

To be continued with a chapter explaining the question " Does Man submission to God support his contemplative, intellectual and practical faculties to recognise a goal and meaning to life? Does Man allow his real creator to play a rightful part in his life? ... " Making the Most of Life"

[laidbackperson]

Hi, Usman.khawar

I liked your arguments about how did pre-historic man discover God.
I also wonder that whether underlying somewhere there was a more direct push by God?

[MANICHAEAN]

Metaphysics, or the attempt to conceive the world as a whole by means of thought, has been developed, from the first, by the union and conflict of two very different human impulses, the one urging men towards mysticism, the other urging them towards science. Some men have achieved greatness through one of these impulses alone, others through the other alone: in Hume, for example, the scientific impulse reigns quite unchecked, while in Blake a strong hostility to science co-exists with profound mystic insight. But the greatest men who have been philosophers have felt the need both of science and of mysticism: the attempt to harmonize the two was what made their life, and what always must, for all its arduous uncertainty, make philosophy, to some minds, a greater thing than either science or religion.

Mysticism is, in essence, little more than a certain intensity and depth of feeling in regard to what is believed about the universe; belief in the possibility of a way of knowledge which may be called revelation or insight or intuition, as contrasted with sense, reason, and analysis.

The second characteristic of mysticism is its belief in unity, and its refusal to admit opposition or division anywhere.

A third mark of almost all mystical metaphysics is the denial of the reality of Time. This is an outcome of the denial of division; if all is one, the distinction of past and future must be illusory.

The last of the doctrines of mysticism to consider is its belief that all evil is mere appearance, an illusion produced by the divisions and oppositions of the analytic intellect. Mysticism does not maintain that such things as cruelty, for example, are good, but it denies that they are real: they belong to that lower world of phantoms from which we are to be liberated by the insight of the vision. Sometimes—for example in Hegel, and at least verbally in Spinoza—not only evil, but good also, is regarded as illusory, though nevertheless the emotional attitude towards what is held to be Reality is such as would naturally be associated with the belief that Reality is good.

Four questions thus arise in considering the truth or falsehood of mysticism, namely:

I. Are there two ways of knowing, which may be called respectively reason and intuition? And if so, is either to be preferred to the other?

II. Is all plurality and division illusory?

III. Is time unreal?

IV. What kind of reality belongs to good and evil?

On all four of these questions, while fully developed mysticism seems to be mistaken, yet one can believe that, by sufficient restraint, there is an element of wisdom to be learned from the mystical way of feeling, which does not seem to be attainable in any other manner. If this is the truth, mysticism is to be commended as an attitude towards life, not as a creed about the world.

[MANICHAEAN]

Metaphysics, or the attempt to conceive the world as a whole by means of thought, has been developed, from the first, by the union and conflict of two very different human impulses, the one urging men towards mysticism, the other urging them towards science. Some men have achieved greatness through one of these impulses alone, others through the other alone: in Hume, for example, the scientific impulse reigns quite unchecked, while in Blake a strong hostility to science co-exists with profound mystic insight. But the greatest men who have been philosophers have felt the need both of science and of mysticism: the attempt to harmonize the two was what made their life, and what always must, for all its arduous uncertainty, make philosophy, to some minds, a greater thing than either science or religion.

Mysticism is, in essence, little more than a certain intensity and depth of feeling in regard to what is believed about the universe; belief in the possibility of a way of knowledge which may be called revelation or insight or intuition, as contrasted with sense, reason, and analysis.

The second characteristic of mysticism is its belief in unity, and its refusal to admit opposition or division anywhere.

A third mark of almost all mystical metaphysics is the denial of the reality of Time. This is an outcome of the denial of division; if all is one, the distinction of past and future must be illusory.

The last of the doctrines of mysticism to consider is its belief that all evil is mere appearance, an illusion produced by the divisions and oppositions of the analytic intellect. Mysticism does not maintain that such things as cruelty, for example, are good, but it denies that they are real: they belong to that lower world of phantoms from which we are to be liberated by the insight of the vision. Sometimes—for example in Hegel, and at least verbally in Spinoza—not only evil, but good also, is regarded as illusory, though nevertheless the emotional attitude towards what is held to be Reality is such as would naturally be associated with the belief that Reality is good.

Four questions thus arise in considering the truth or falsehood of mysticism, namely:

I. Are there two ways of knowing, which may be called respectively reason and intuition? And if so, is either to be preferred to the other?

II. Is all plurality and division illusory?

III. Is time unreal?

IV. What kind of reality belongs to good and evil?

On all four of these questions, while fully developed mysticism seems to be mistaken, yet one can believe that, by sufficient restraint, there is an element of wisdom to be learned from the mystical way of feeling, which does not seem to be attainable in any other manner. If this is the truth, mysticism is to be commended as an attitude towards life, not as a creed about the world.

[billl]

Four questions thus arise in considering the truth or falsehood of mysticism, namely:

I. Are there two ways of knowing, which may be called respectively reason and intuition? And if so, is either to be preferred to the other?

II. Is all plurality and division illusory?

III. Is time unreal?

IV. What kind of reality belongs to good and evil?

On all four of these questions, while fully developed mysticism seems to be mistaken, yet one can believe that, by sufficient restraint, there is an element of wisdom to be learned from the mystical way of feeling, which does not seem to be attainable in any other manner. If this is the truth, mysticism is to be commended as an attitude towards life, not as a creed about the world.

I mean to applaud your last few posts all together, but I'll just point to this section in particular as being a very good commentary on a topic that is quite difficult to meaningfully speak about.

[MANICHAEAN]

I luckily was drawn into this Bill, because:

(1) I felt some of the original presentation required refuting and that an alternate, or more varied viewpoint was required.

(2) There appeared to be little or no discussion in the thread, apart from a few dipping their toes into the water.

Please feel free to contribute.

Best regards

M.

[MANICHAEAN]

REASON AND INTUITION

Insight, untested and unsupported, is an insufficient guarantee of truth. It is common to speak of an opposition between instinct and reason; in the eighteenth century, the opposition was drawn in favour of reason, but under the influence of Rousseau and the romantic movement instinct was given the preference, as the purely rationalistic defense of traditional theology became increasingly difficult, by all who felt in science a menace to creeds which they associated with a spiritual outlook on life and the world.

In fact the opposition of instinct and reason is mainly illusory. Instinct, intuition, or insight is what first leads to the beliefs which subsequent reason confirms or confutes; but the confirmation, where it is possible, consists, in the last analysis, of agreement with other beliefs no less instinctive. Reason is a harmonizing, controlling force rather than a creative one. Even in the most purely logical realm, it is insight that first arrives at what is new.

Where instinct and reason do sometimes conflict is in regard to single beliefs, held instinctively, and held with such determination that no degree of inconsistency with other beliefs leads to their abandonment. Instinct, like all human faculties, is liable to error. Those in whom reason is weak are often unwilling to admit this as regards themselves, though all admit it in regard to others.

It is such considerations that necessitate the harmonizing mediation of reason, which tests our beliefs by their mutual compatibility, and examines, in doubtful cases, the possible sources of error on the one side and on the other.

It is most striking that instances of intuition in animals relate directly in many cases to a survival value. The fact is, of course, that both intuition and intellect have been developed because they are useful. Intellect, in civilised man, like artistic capacity, has occasionally been developed beyond the point where it is useful to the individual; intuition, on the other hand, seems on the whole to diminish as civilisation increases. It is greater, as a rule, in children than in adults, in the uneducated than in the educated. Probably in dogs it exceeds anything to be found in human beings.

It can be argued that intellect can only deal with things in so far as they resemble what has been experienced in the past, while intuition has the power of apprehending the uniqueness and novelty that always belong to each fresh moment, But it is neither intellect nor intuition, but sensation, that supplies new data; but when the data are new in any remarkable manner, intellect is much more capable of dealing with them than intuition would be.

Thus in advocating scientific restraint and balance, as against the self-assertion of a confident reliance upon intuition, we are only urging, in the sphere of knowledge, that largeness of contemplation, that impersonal disinterestedness, and that freedom from practical preoccupations which have been inculcated by all the great religions of the world.

The conclusion, however it may conflict with the explicit beliefs of many mystics, is, in essence, not contrary to the spirit which inspires those beliefs, but rather the outcome of this very spirit as applied in the realm of thought.

[MANICHAEAN]

UNITY AND PLURALITY

One of the most convincing aspects of the mystic illumination is the apparent revelation of the oneness of all things i.e. that the universe is one indivisible Whole, and that what seem to be its parts, if considered as substantial and self-existing, are mere illusion.

The logic used in defense of mysticism seems to be faulty as logic, and open to technical criticisms. It would be more pertinent perhaps, to attempt an analysis of the state of mind from which mystical logic has arisen.

Belief in a reality quite different from what appears to the senses arises in certain moods, which are the source of most mysticism, and of most metaphysics. While such a mood is dominant, the need of logic is not felt, and accordingly the more thoroughgoing mystics do not employ logic, but appeal directly to the immediate deliverance of their insight. But when the intensity of emotional conviction subsides, a man who is in the habit of reasoning will search for logical grounds in favour of the belief which he finds in himself. But since the belief already exists, he will be very hospitable to any ground that suggests itself. The paradoxes apparently proved by his logic are really the paradoxes of mysticism, and are the goal which he feels his logic must reach if it is to be in accordance with insight.

The impulse to logic, not felt while the mystic mood is dominant, reasserts itself as the mood fades, but with a desire to retain the vanishing insight, or at least to prove that it was insight, and that what seems to contradict it is illusion. The logic which thus arises is not quite disinterested or candid, and is inspired by a certain hatred of the daily world to which it is to be applied. Such an attitude naturally does not tend to the best results. Everyone knows that to read an author simply in order to refute him is not the way to understand him.

[usman.khawar]

Hi, Usman.khawar

I liked your arguments about how did pre-historic man discover God.
I also wonder that whether underlying somewhere there was a more direct push by God?

Rabi adkhilni mudkhla sidqanw wa akhrijni wa mukhraja sidqanw wja alni mila dunka sultan nasira ...

Hello my dear...thanks a lot for being here. yes i think the same that there was a more direct push by God only due to one reason. As my teacher said that human kind as a whole was like a child. whose maturity is gradually growing. the knowledge which was started from Adam was not completed. humankind was not reached at the stage where it could be taught through logic and reasons. so there was the need to show humankind miracles. and i think miracle is like a direct push by God to show Man that there is a big power than him, who can do the things out of the way as well. but now as the knoweldge has been completed at Muhammad which was started from Adam so there is no further need for miracles.

Thank you very much to read the arguments and ur patience. what if u dont mind, let me write the remaining part or if u dont mind we can discuss the things in anyother thread like enemy within..

Mr. M u are good and have much to share, why dont u start another thread for it if u dont mind?

[usman.khawar]

Making the Most of Life 1/2

Man hold dear all the trappings and pleasures of life. But the most dearest is the desire to live. It is said that greed and lust for eternal life led to Man’s expulsion from Paradise, a weakness that Shaytaan (Devil) was quick to exploit. This was true then. The question now is: has this desire for immortality lost its appeal for humanity with the passing of time? It seems that the pull of physical reality had led Mankind to the conclusion that eternal life is a romantic and baseless notion.

The desire for everlasting life has now been replaced with the idea that ‘you only live once’. From the moment a person is born and fact is certain: each of us will die one day. The contemporary human mind knows only one way of viewing the time between life and death. During our teenage years the reality of death does not even cross our minds. In adulthood, our behavior and lifestyle displays a willful disregard for death. Yet our old age is overshadowed by the continual fear and expectation of our demise.

It seems that suicide is the logical outcome of the ‘you only live once’ philosophy. Why should a person put up with a deplorable life of suffering, pain and misery on the faint chance of happiness? The idea of seeking release from a life of poverty and destitution is not difficult to comprehend. Despite the natural desire to live, human beings cannot tolerate a life of unending grief and anguish, with no future hope. Death as a means to end suffering is an unforeseen consequence of ‘ you only live once’. It should come as no surprise when a person in full possession of their mind and senses concludes that this life is not worth living and decides to take their life.

Perhaps not society as a whole, but on an individual level many people, when faced with tragedy, may be inclined to make a similar choice. This way of thinking can no longer be regarded as isolated and unrepresentative. The more you think about it, the feelings of fear and hope engendered by a religious outlook can prevent such a utilitarian approach to life. Religion provides the possibility of an everlasting life beyond death, warning of the consequences of irresponsible actions. In life and death, God is the only focal point of hope, ascribing to Himself the responsibility for Mankind during their life and He announces the news of an eternal life after their death. He gives them the hope of forgiveness, true knowledge and eternal happiness in Paradise.

A brief glance at this religious view of death and afterlife reveals that it can be explained in two ways. First, that it is a product of the wishful thinking of the human mind, driven by a desire to cheat death; it created the concepts of God and ‘life after death’. Second that based on some form of cosmic inspiration and vision they were compelled to acknowledge that human life was a short an irreversible moment on the tapestry of universal time. Death was a temporary event or gateway which led us to experience the expansiveness of cosmic time.

The extent, to which human thinking can become confined without religion and God, is plainly visible. All human values can seem totally worthless (except the ‘value’ of self-love). The wall of self-interest reduces a person to a life driven by aspirations, centered on extreme self-gratification. The aim of all arts and sciences is now the same: to prolong life and promote ease and comfort. This aim is not as simple as it seems. The comfort and longevity of one person comes at the cost of hardship and loss of life to another.

The psychopathic obsession with living longer and better can lead to a process of killing and bloodshed which will result in the extinction of the human species, similar to that of some animal species. History shows that in ancient times, humanity came to adopt a similar self-indulgent approach to life. The destruction of countless civilizations and societies is a proof of this. Putting aside those cultures which were destroyed by natural disasters, the number of nations and societies wiped out as a result of pride and ambition is enormous.

To be continued...

[MANICHAEAN]

Dear Usman
Because it is a forum, because its relevant, but most of all because debate is healthy.
Best regards
M.

[usman.khawar]

Making the Most of Life 2/2

The situation is not that different. All human values have been subsumed by the obsession to live a life of pleasure and plenty. It seems that without God, values underpinning life will remain prisoners to the philosophy of power and force: power that gives meaning to everything; power that decides the outcome of everything. It is a lust for power which has no value except the desire to weaken all others, a hunger for power which wants to survive and dominate others. Power is system devoid of any moral values, and leaves no room for individual or collective accountability. It has no religion. It has no ethics. The acceptance of God is what it fears the most, since accountability is its biggest weakness, after the lust for life. Of course, any self-obsessed and arrogant individual or society will declare a system given by God as its biggest enemy. Yet again, it is possible that slavery and weakness may have led to the creation of religion. This conception of a real metaphysical existence after death and the concept of God is either an actual reality or a way of mental escapism.
However it has always puzzled me why, throughout history, the human race has always been attracted to the lives of spiritual and God fearing personalities - making their stories part of their tradition and heritage? In contrast, the stories of tyranny and oppression have not become the favorite narrations of humanity. If you only live once, then it makes sense that our ultimate goal should be to become like those who possessed pomp and glory, power and control. They were personalities who resorted to every type of deceit and deception, oppression and injustice, declaring life and power as the ultimate goal. Based on this, it is hard to explain the inclination of humanity towards the virtuous and ‘fairy-tale’ stories of the prophets and saints. This should not have formed a natural part of their cultural legacy. This contradiction points towards the conflict which exists within the human mind. Perhaps, it is a screed from behind which the human mind informs us that it does not really believe in the ‘you only live once’ philosophy. It may be that despite its continuous denial and rejection, the human mind cannot disregard the truth brought by the Prophets. The denial of God seems ludicrous. How can any person, in this short and painful life, deny themselves the last chance of hope that God has given to them to ease their sufferings?

However the mere thought of God does not prove the existence of God. There are many things which can be conceived by the mind, but not a trace of them is found in reality. The real issue is whether there is another idea or concept that is as powerful, constructive and pivotal as the concept of God? Is it possible for any idea to transcend the boundaries of time and space? Can a single concept be so powerful that it has control over both life and death? Sovereignty and power lie within its governance. Events and circumstances cannot occur without its consideration. Smiles, thoughts and laughter are all subject to the flicker of its eyelid (control). Many other gods and deities have existed over time: no ancient civilization was complete without its idols carved from stone. But why has the influence of these ancient gods been confined to periods in history? These sophisticated and highly structured families of gods were not able to advance a single step beyond the limits of their times and cultures. Yet the concept of God has never been separated from human thought, from first Man until the crises-ridden mind of modern times. God and His religion are still the most valuable possessions of the human race.

The views of academic researchers about God have all been within the context of the supernatural belief systems of human societies, within the confines of anthropology. Not a single ‘expert’ has approached the study of God with even the remote possibility that God could be more than just a concept: that He could be a reality. Regarding God as merely a concept was an act of irrationally which many thinkers committed. When it came to God they abandoned the principles of impartial research, relying instead on bias and prejudice. These weird and wonderful thinkers did not consider the slimmest possibility that God may be a reality. They regarded the idea of God as an uncontrollable weed which kept springing up in different societies. Some viewed God as a human necessity, others as the product of human fear. It is astonishing that sociologists, anthropologists, mathematicians, astronomers, self-styled experts of philosophy and literature, all discussed God in a cursory manner as though they were describing an antique displayed in their living room. Their aim was not self-realization, nor was it to comprehend the reality of God. In their own words, they were trying to diagnose and eradicate an old and hidden illness of the human mind.

To be continued....next chapter is already shared namely " Is God Myth or reality" so i'll use copy paste for the sake of continuity and save my time