Rumi and the Vision of the Qur'an

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

The peerless God has made all the six directions a theater
for the display of His signs to the clear-seeing,
so that, whatever animal or plant they look upon,
they may feed on the meadows of divine Beauty.
And so He said to the mystic companions,
“Wherever you turn, there is the face of God.”

To read more:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/livingtradition/2018/07/1036/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Muslim&utm_content=49

The poem is just a small part of the article, but it so well expresses my own view that I put it at the beginning of the link.

[Major Nikon]

1. Meanwhile others who read the same book have their own vision

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/middleeast/isis-enshrines-a-theology-of-rape.html

[MineralMan]

3. And so it is with all scriptures and all religions.

People find what justifies their actions in whatever scripture they have. That's how it works, and why scriptures contain so much text.

Philosophers and poets also use scripture, carefully curated to inform their own work. It's the same principle.

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest." -Paul Simon

[MineralMan]

2. That's how theists view the world around them.

Non-theists see it differently, but are equally amazed at what they see.

Theists give credit to deities. Non-theists see the process that led to what they observe.

The universe, however, is the same regardless of how one looks at it.

Creator or no creator - There it is all the same. What we think is irrelevant to that.

[edhopper]

4. This part is rich

In that sense, the Qur’an and the Masnavi are also not books to be read in the sense of gleaning information. Rather they are more like maps or codes, with their own symbols and decryption keys pointing the way to the other world from this world.

Because either God doesn't understand that humans can come to multiple, opposing conclusions from the same cryptic source.
Or God knows this and doesn't care that different groups will come to multiple opposing conclusions that they will fight and kill for.

[guillaumeb]

6. Or..............

the Creator actually believes in free will.

[trotsky]

7. What about the free will of people who don't want to be murdered in a religious dispute?

Does their free will not matter?

[guillaumeb]

12. You seem confused about the concept of free will.

It does not refer to the ability to be "free" from the consequences of the actions of others.

[trotsky]

13. I'm not "confused" about anything. Typical personal attack from you.

It does not refer to the ability to be "free" from the consequences of the actions of others.

Well done. You just destroyed the "free will" excuse for your god. Of course, the story of the pharoah's heart being hardened destroyed that long before you arrived on the scene, but better late than never I guess!

[guillaumeb]

14. You still seem confused about the concept. eom

[trotsky]

16. And you can still only engage in personal attacks.

Expected.

[guillaumeb]

18. So your constant invocation of my "humiliation"

is not a personal attack?

If you have no interest in actual dialogue, you can always freely choose to not comment.

[trotsky]

20. It is not a personal attack to reference threads where your own quoted text contradicted your claim,

thus humiliating you.

And I would suggest you take your own advice. Show others how you want dialog to proceed, instead of spitting insults and attacks. Show everyone how you think Christians should behave.

Ooh... but perhaps that's the problem. You already are.

[guillaumeb]

22. You demonstrate and reveal much about yourself.

If you feel that what you demonstrate and reveal are positives, you have that right.

[Act_of_Reparation]

70. Uh-huh.

[trotsky]

71. As I have told you repeatedly...

I am perfectly content to let everyone who browses this forum decide for themselves what kind of Christian you are, and what kind of atheist I am. The more you post, the more content I get in fact.

[marylandblue]

15. That's why free will is a terrible form of theodicy

People have so much free will, they can take it away from each other, but not so much free will that they can choose to live without consuming other living things. So God doesn't really believe in free will so much as he believes in an unlimited right to make other beings suffer, and crrated a world where suffering is inevitable, but free will is limited and unequally distributed.

[guillaumeb]

17. Free will does not imply

the freedom to act freely, or the freedom to be free from the consequences of one's actions. Nor does it mean that one cannot be affected by another's exercise of free will.

[marylandblue]

19. What does it imply then?

[guillaumeb]

21. The freedom to choose to act.

It implies that sentient beings have the freedom to act.

[marylandblue]

23. Then the second option in post 4 is correct nt

[Voltaire2]

43. Current neurological research strongly suggests

that free will, meaning conscious choices, is an illusion, that instead we create a narrative that explains the unconscious choices we make as our “intentions”. Lewis Carroll would be happy with the inversion of events.

[edhopper]

24. Why does God make the

free will of those who do evil more important than the death and suffering of their victims.

"If God is able to prevent evil but does not, he is malevolent."

[guillaumeb]

26. What makes you feel that you have this insight into the mind of the Creator? eom

[edhopper]

29. What makes you feel that you

understand why he acts as he does?

[guillaumeb]

31. Faith.

[edhopper]

32. So you know why God does things?

But you question my interpretations.

What hubris.

[guillaumeb]

33. I have faith, and base my opinion on that.

I have never said anything different.

But again, on what do you base your view?

[edhopper]

34. reality

[guillaumeb]

36. Reality,

or your perception of what constitutes reality?

[edhopper]

38. objective

reality. There actually is one.

[guillaumeb]

46. But can any of us determine what that objective reality is? eom

[Voltaire2]

51. Yes, for the last 300 years or so we've managed

to build a rather awesome catalog of knowledge about objective reality. Disciplined skeptical empiricism has transformed human understanding of reality.

Glad you asked.

[marylandblue]

35. It does not require mind reading the Creator

We would call malevalent any conscious being that has power to stop suffering at no cost to itself but failed to do so.

[guillaumeb]

37. It requires projecting an opinion as to the motivation of the Creator,

and claiming, based solely on that opinion/projection, to state what the Creator's motivations are.

[marylandblue]

39. I believe Donald Trump is malevalent

I don't know what is really going on in his mind, except that it probably does not resemble normal human psychology. The determination is based solely on his actions.

[guillaumeb]

48. I share that belief. eom

[marylandblue]

58. See, nothing to do with reading his mind

And so it is possible to draw the same conclusion about an omnipotent, omniscient Creator.

[guillaumeb]

60. Only if one posits that the Creator and a human are equivalent. eom

[marylandblue]

61. I only posit that the Creator is conscious

Is this something you do not posit?

[guillaumeb]

62. But the nature of that consciousness is what is in question.

And my view is that, as part of the creation, we can only speculate as to the motives and views of the Creator. We can only project our own feelings.

[marylandblue]

63. We don't even understand the nature of our own consciousness

So we don't need to understand the nature of the Creator's consciousness. All that is needed is that it be a self-aware entity with the ability to make moral choices. If it doesn't have those characteristics, then it is not conscious. Are you saying that the Creator might not be conscious according to that definition?

[guillaumeb]

66. I cannot speculate on the form of the Creator's consciousness.

I would assume that it is far greater than my own.

[MineralMan]

67. Assumptions without supporting facts are

Either guesses or wishful thinking. Lacking any material evidence of even the existence of your "Creator," any assumptions about it are devoid of support.

Faith is evidence of nothing.

[Voltaire2]

68. Odd. Earlier you speculated on the content.

“the Creator actually believes in free will.”

You could at least try to keep your contradictory arguments in separate threads.

[marylandblue]

69. Assuming can be just another word for speculating

You are merely speculating that there is a Creator and that such a Creator has a consciousness greater than your own.

[Mariana]

73. We don't need to understand the nature

of the consciousness of The Creator™. We can judge it by its behavior.

[guillaumeb]

80. Or lack of behavior?

How the Creator behaves is also purely speculative.

[marylandblue]

82. Yet you speculate about it, except when you don't

[guillaumeb]

86. I can only speculate.

Not being the Creator.

[marylandblue]

89. Then go ahead and speculate here, don't duck and say you can't

then go somewhere else and speculate anyway.

[guillaumeb]

90. I do speculate,

and generally identify such speculation as my opinion.

[marylandblue]

91. You seem to think everything is a matter of opinion except hard science

So what is the difference between opinion and speculation? And, why, when ask to give your opinion about behavior, do you respond that you can't speculate about motive? Seem

[guillaumeb]

96. Anyone can speculate about motive and motivation,

but the speculation proves nothing.

[Act_of_Reparation]

106. You're already speculating about your creator's existence.

Why, all of a sudden, is speculation problemmatic for you? Methinks it isn't the speculation you find objectionable, but rather the question itself.

[trotsky]

107. It should be obvious to everyone by now that gil's rules only apply when he wants them to.

His history makes it obvious he does not seek discussion in good faith, but only wants to dictate the terms to everyone else.

[marylandblue]

113. But nobody, it seems, can discuss observable behavior nt

[edhopper]

41. But you have stated

that this deity prioritizes free will over the suffering of others.
Are you not stating you know the motivation of the "Creator".

[Voltaire2]

44. In g world only g gets to make shit up about

his gods.

[guillaumeb]

49. Free will precedes any actions by sentient beings.

So free will is an aspect of sentience.

[Voltaire2]

56. The evidence doesn't support that claim.

[guillaumeb]

59. Thus speaks the decider?

[Voltaire2]

64. Um no. But you are welcome to google

neuroscience and “free will”. You might learn something.

That plus your specific claim was clearly nonsense even if there is something called free will. People (and other sentient creatures) clearly act without making conscious decisions sometimes.

This assertion of yours:

“Free will precedes any actions by sentient beings.”

Is obviously false.

[edhopper]

57. that isn't remotely true

and doesn't answer why God allows one person's choice of action to cause so much suffering to others.

[Bretton Garcia]

40. To be able to exercise free will. .. you have to be alive

If a religious zealot killed you, then you would be unable to exercise that free will.

[guillaumeb]

47. And if one were to be hit by lightning,

the same applies. Again, this has nothing to do with free will as a concept.

[Bretton Garcia]

65. Yes it does, for humans. By analytic philosophy.

Last edited Tue Jul 10, 2018, 12:35 AM - Edit history (2)

Logically, analytically, in order to have free will, an entity must 1) exist.

Or look at it this way. 2) Faith and Free Will are attributes of beings like say, humans. Without,.say, a human being to reside in, faith and Fee Will cannot exist.

[Mariana]

72. The free will of the perpetrators

always overrules the free will of the victims. Always. The Creator™ had to pick one or the other to prevail. We see which was chosen.

[trotsky]

74. I guess that tells us a lot about where this creator's priorities lie.

Strange how there are some who think such a despicable entity is worthy of praise.

[Act_of_Reparation]

77. It's a ridiculous apologetic made even more ridiculous by its definition of "free will".

Free will is about making decisions of one's own volition. It does not entitle one to the outcomes they desire.

By the apologists' absurd argumentation, the police would be robbing someone of their free will by stopping a robbery in progress.

[edhopper]

8. hogwash

the "Creator" believes in being so obtuse that multiple groups of people will see his "signs" so differently that they will kill each other and millions of innocents (whose free will to be alive he doesn't seem to give a fig about).
Meanwhile amidst all this carnage, this omnipotent being doesn't have the desire or power to prevent any of this evil.

The "free will" dodge is the biggest crapfest apologist use to try to esplain why God doesn't nothing about evil and suffering.

[marylandblue]

9. Like the Creator, I give my children vague, non-literal, and contradictory instructions

and let them fight it out to decide who is right. I believe in their free will. It's just unfortunate that one believes I forbade them to eat rutabagas, one believes I am a billionaire, one won't speak to me at all, and the fourth was burnt at the stake by the other three.

[edhopper]

10. if you have any grandchildren

you should make the parent kill them for you to show they love you.
It will be fine as long as you stop it right before they do it.

[marylandblue]

11. I did give that direction, but I didn't mean it literally

On rare occasions I do intervene when my children are about to make a mistake. But I only intervene randomly so that they have the free will to make up their own explanations for it.

[Major Nikon]

25. Your unproven opinion

Just sayin’

[Voltaire2]

42. How would you know what your gods believe?

[MineralMan]

45. Now you're telling us what your "Creator" believes?

Uff da!

[guillaumeb]

50. Read what Ed hopper said,

and read my response, to see that you jumped to an erroneous conclusion.

[MineralMan]

78. In which post #. I'm not going to search through this thread

to find your response. You're replying to my post. Why not respond right here? I don't do vassal work.

[Mariana]

75. This same entity that no human mind can begin to fathom

according to Gil. And once again, here he is ascribing properties and actions to The Creator™ Wheeeee!

[MineralMan]

79. Yes. Well, I suppose if you create your "Creator," you can give it

whatever attributes you wish.

[Lordquinton]

28. Saying their like a map or a code implies there's a proper interpretation

And while it's often said there isn't a correct one, people are quick to jump on the wrong ones. Of course no one can agree what's the wrong ones either.

[Act_of_Reparation]

5. "Meadows of divine Beauty", eh?

I wonder how many cases of clostridial myonecrosis Rumi had the privilege of feasting his eyes upon.

[gtar100]

27. My take on these books (spiritual) is they won't make sense unless read with one's whole being.

There is something in them that speaks more to the heart and soul than the intellect alone. And it has to be lived; just having the knowledge of the words isn't enough. When it starts to become a formula or a method that the mind clings to, that's where I feel like I lose the understanding. But maybe those are just steps along the way rather than ultimate destinations. Set up camp and stay for a spell but the spirit will eventually become restless and want to move on to either go deeper or find a new perspective. Those who linger too long on an ideology risk becoming dogmatic, so it seems to me.

The article also has this quote I thought was insightful:

By learning about the material world as a metaphor, as the theater on which the Divine Names manifest, we can start to build a bridge through the imagination to a relationship with deeper levels of reality. It is not just a matter of seeing the truth but of knowing and living it.

Thanks for sharing this, guillaumeb.

[guillaumeb]

30. My oldest daughter introduced me to Rumi.

His poetry (even in translation) and insight are inspiring.

[Anon-C]

52. How could I miss a Rumi thread?

[guillaumeb]

54. You found it.

Feel free to share your own Rumi poems.

[Anon-C]

76. ...

“Be empty of worrying.
Think of who created thought!

Why do you stay in prison
When the door is so wide open?”

― Rumi, The Essential Rumi

[guillaumeb]

81. Sometimes the prison is the human mind,

locked into the "what can be proven" prison.

[MineralMan]

83. Whose mind is locked in that way?

The unknown is the most interesting thing of all. Uncertainty about origins and other unknown information has no boundaries. It is the theists who are bound by their faith in some Creator. My universe needs no such entity.

[guillaumeb]

87. Would you recognize your own blindness?

Would any of us?

[MineralMan]

92. Yes. And during my life, I have.

At those time, I have made adjustments. Such things are, well, eye-opening.

Thanks, though, for the gratuitous dingleberry...

[guillaumeb]

97. But what if you were blind to a negative aspect of your behavior?

How would you recognize that which you were unaware of?

[MineralMan]

108. Indeed. Ask yourself that while looking at a mirror.

More dingleberries in the discussion punch, I see.

[guillaumeb]

109. Follow your own advice.

Or, you could focus on the actual thread.

[MineralMan]

110. You do not know me. You just think you do.

Here's a hint, though: I focus on what I wish to. Apparently, so do you.

[guillaumeb]

111. Do you know yourself? eom

[MineralMan]

112. Why, yes, I do. Quite well, in fact.

[Major Nikon]

84. So atheists are really the ones with closed minds

[guillaumeb]

88. I did not say that,

but if your narrative requires it, I understand.

[Major Nikon]

93. I didn't say you said that

But that’s exactly what you implied. If you want to walk that back now, be my guest. Or simply double down like always while simultaneously claiming you’re misunderstood.

[guillaumeb]

98. So you make a claim,

and then appear to retract it while saying that I can walk it back?

One of us is definitely confused.

[Major Nikon]

100. Exactly the predicted response

[guillaumeb]

101. Yes, I pointed out your inconsistency,

and you responded with a silly clip. About equal to your original, unsupported claim.

[Major Nikon]

102. Please continue, soon there won't be a dry eye in the house

And yes, I know you will continue because you can't help it, which is what I like most about you.

[guillaumeb]

103. You demonstrate your ability very well.

[Major Nikon]

104. Go on, I know you have more canned responses in you

[MineralMan]

94. I doubt very much that you understand very much.

I've not seen much evidence of it, just sarcasm.

[guillaumeb]

114. Is this self-analysis on your part,

or unintended irony?

[MineralMan]

115. It is simply a statement.

[guillaumeb]

116. I shall choose option 3, which is "both". eom

[MineralMan]

119. OK. Choose whatever you wish. I don't care.

[marylandblue]

85. This is mere speculation and I thought we weren't doing that

[tomp]

53. OK, here goes.

So, I’ve read some Rumi and while I find his language beautiful, I find his religious meaning obtuse. That is likely my puny mind at work and probably why I’m still in therapy.

I believe that either the universe has always existed or some force unknown to us created it. Also if you can’t tell me what happened before the Big Bang I’m not so impressed with your knowledge. Anyway, it seems somehow impossible to know. That also is probably also my puny mind at work.

I believe that human beings created god/gods in their own image, not the other way around, and there are probably as many versions of god as there are people (minus the atheists, of course). Puny mind again.

Thanks for your time.

[guillaumeb]

55. Thank you for your response.

I believe that the Creator "lit the spark" and caused what exists to come into existence.

[Bretton Garcia]

95. Finding comforting order in nature seems halfway to science

It's an interesting bridge or halfway mark, when making the transition from religion and superstition, to science. But religious leaders usually insist we walk back, the other way.

[guillaumeb]

99. There is order and disorder in nature.

And in all of creation.

[lunasun]

105. Whirling dance for Rumi with love.

[guillaumeb]

117. Thank you.

My oldest daughter introduced me to Rumi after she took some courses on Islam at university.

[lunasun]

118. His poetry, music and dance all intertwined it isn't just words

The dances are like prayers or meditation with Rumi

wiki can say it better
Rumi believed passionately in the use of music, poetry and dance as a path for reaching God. For Rumi, music helped devotees to focus their whole being on the divine and to do this so intensely that the soul was both destroyed and resurrected.
It was from these ideas that the practice of whirling Dervishes developed into a ritual form
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumi


He transcends Islam /Sufi imo in much of his poetry

HE WAS IN NO OTHER PLACE . RUMI
Cross and Christians, end to end, I examined. He was not on the Cross. I went to the Hindu temple, to the ancient pagoda. In none of them was there any sign. To the uplands of Herat I went, and to Kandahar I looked. He was not on the heights or in the lowlands. Resolutely, I went to the summit of the [fabulous] mountain of Kaf. There only was the dwelling of the [legendary] Anqa bird. I went to the Kaaba of Mecca. He was not there. I asked about him from Avicenna, the philosopher. He was beyond the range of Avicenna . . . I looked into my own heart. In that place, his place, I saw him. He was in no other place.