Historically there have been differing manners of explaining it. The reality itself transcends the limited power of human language to describe. It can only point in the general direction but never actually define God or the highest mystical states in any absolute manner.Is that center involve a particular belief, like God and the universe being synonymous/unified in a pantheistic way? Or is it a particular kind of mystical state that produces a plurality, of what seems like different beliefs, but are really different interpretations of some reality that transcends the concept of unity and division, somehow?
To use a Buddhist saying dogmas would be like fingers pointing at the moon. They are not the moon itself. The Truth would be the moon and only in a secondary sense the finger.How do you distinguish this truth from the dogma?
As a Muslim I am a firm believer in non-dualism. Ultimate Reality is One and has no partners. Associating partners with God is very dangerous and I don't consider it to be a valid belief for any religion.While I wouldn’t agree with that statement because of Plato and the influence on Christianity, what I wanted to know is if nondualism is a part of the truth you believe is at the center of the experience or just one way of articulating it, along with dualism, in an attempt to understand something beyond those two positions.
Sufis are fringe
Giving of yourself and suffering hardship for the defense of a greater cause. It can be a type of asceticism and a saying "no" to the ego as well. The ego wants safety and comfort but you discipline it for the sake of others. It can also become an outer manifestation of the inner Jihad against the unruly passions. The two symbolizing with one another.What is the spirituality of warfare?
Currently maybe but at one time they were literally everywhere throughout the Islamic world. You could go from one end of the Islamic world to the other (across contients) and find Sufi Hostels to rest at in most every city you crossed in your travels. From Asia to the Western parts of North Africa. Kings and other rulers often had favored orders that they financially supported. Sufi orders became a really established force to be reckoned with. Did you know Iran became Shi'ite thanks to a Sufi order?
Are you saying that Shi'a doesn't date to the time of the Koran? I thought Iran became Moslem by being captured
Not in terms of origin. In terms of being the majority faith in Iran, Yes.So Shi'a is more recent? More so than Sunni?
You asked if it was more recent and I said that it wasn't more recent in origin. Shi'ism isn't more recent than Sunnism.
I also said "Shi'ism does date back to the time of Qur'an."
And with your non-dualism, I should just consider that a finger pointing to a higher truth that transcends the unity you are promoting now? You are admittedly incapable of explaining the actual truth on this issue? Is this a problem with words associating with different things, so using them assumes a multitude of things in the universe, when you are trying to describe the universe as a single thing?Historically there have been differing manners of explaining it. The reality itself transcends the limited power of human language to describe. It can only point in the general direction but never actually define God or the highest mystical states in any absolute manner.
To use a Buddhist saying dogmas would be like fingers pointing at the moon. They are not the moon itself. The Truth would be the moon and only in a secondary sense the finger.
As a Muslim I am a firm believer in non-dualism. Ultimate Reality is One and has no partners. Associating partners with God is very dangerous and I don't consider it to be a valid belief for any religion.
What do you mean it isnt an absolute dualism? Could you give a few quotes from the philosophers you mentioned, that you think illustrate what you are talking about?I don't believe that Platonic dualism is an absolute dualism either. Certainly not as understood by the Neo-Platonists like Plotinus, Prophyry, or Iamblichus.
I'm referring to the idea of the One. See above link.What do you mean it isn’t an absolute dualism? Could you give a few quotes from the philosophers you mentioned, that you think illustrate what you are talking about?
As they say Allahu Akbar or " God is Greater."And with your non-dualism, I should just consider that a finger pointing to a higher truth that transcends the unity you are promoting now?
Certainly transcends what we understand by the word "unity".I should just consider that a finger pointing to a higher truth that transcends the unity you are promoting now?
In an absolute sort of fashion? Yes. It's something that can only be alluded to and hinted at. God transcends anything we can think or say of him. Some understandings don't even point in the right general direction though such as absolute dualism and are thus of little practical use. Other understandings are providential and point us in the right direction even if they are incapable of actually "defining" God in any absolute sense.You are admittedly incapable of explaining the actual truth on this issue?
No it's not older. The specific terms developed at the same time and in opposition to one another. That is when the issue of succession was brought into debate at the death of the Prophet. The idea that Imam Ali (as) was supposed to succeed the Prophet as leader was known well before this however so the reality of Shi'ism goes back to the time of the Qur'an whereas the idea that Abu Bakr was supposed to succeed doesn't. This is because the Prophet specifically designated the former.Does that mean that Sunni is older or they both developed at the same time?
Im looking for actual quotes from the primary texts so I can go and see if the context is what you are suggesting or if it is something else. Plotinus is saying stuff like this which seems to be arguing against your position which is why Im questioning your interpretation.I'm referring to the idea of the One. See above link.Neoplatonism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The primeval Source of Being is the One and the Infinite, as opposed to the many and the finite. It is the source of all life, and therefore absolute causality and the only real existence."
Transcends unity in that it isnt truthfully unified or that we dont understand the particular of the unification?As they say Allahu Akbar or " God is Greater."
Certainly transcends what we understand by the word "unity".
In an absolute sort of fashion? Yes. It's something that can only be alluded to and hinted at. God transcends anything we can think or say of him. Some understandings don't even point in the right general direction though such as absolute dualism and are thus of little practical use. Other understandings are providential and point us in the right direction even if they are incapable of actually "defining" God in any absolute sense.
No it's not older. The specific terms developed at the same time and in opposition to one another. That is when the issue of succession was brought into debate at the death of the Prophet. The idea that Imam Ali (as) was supposed to succeed the Prophet as leader was known well before this however so the reality of Shi'ism goes back to the time of the Qur'an whereas the idea that Abu Bakr was supposed to succeed doesn't. This is because the Prophet specifically designated the former.
Montalban said:What's the oldest form of Islam then?
What's the oldest form of Islam then?[/quote
It's kind of like The word "Orthodox" which was first used as a name for the church in the 4th century. The reality that the term was being applied to preexisted it's first use. It's the same thing with Shi'ism. The original true faith was eventually labeled as "shi'ite" to distinguish it from later distortion of the teachings made by communities that also called themselves Muslim.
"(from Greek orthodoxos, "of the right opinion"), true doctrine and its adherents as opposed to heterodox or heretical doctrines and their adherents. The word was first used in early 4th-century Christianity by the Greek Fathers. Because almost every Christian group believes that it holds the true faith (though not necessarily exclusively), the meaning of "orthodox" in a particular instance can be correctly determined only after examination of the context in which it appears. "
Encyclopedia Britanica
I thought you said Shi'a was not olderWhat's the oldest form of Islam then?
It's kind of like The word "Orthodox" which was first used as a name for the church in the 4th century. The reality that the term was being applied to preexisted it's first use. It's the same thing with Shi'ism. The original true faith was eventually labeled as "shi'ite" to distinguish it from later distortion of the teachings made by communities that also called themselves Muslim.
Actually, it originated with Adam.I would think the oldest form of Islam--according to the Muslim--originated with Abraham.