On 7 Dec, 23:07, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > "The REAL intention of Ar-Rahman is that God feels > towards us in a reciprocal fashion, so, if we regard Him, He regards > us. Equally, if we disregard Him, He disregards us." - Funny, I read > an advert for some kind of bible tv on the train today. The > argumentation ran along the same lines. >
Well, it was supposed to be the same God that was involved in revealing messages to Old Testament prophets , Jesus and Muhammed. It would stand to reason that SOME of the message is the same. In fact, the whole point OF the Qur'an was to make the final clarifications on just what, of that which went before, was important. > On 7 Dez., 17:58, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 7 Dec, 14:13, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Very good. So the why of why we exist may just be that the aspect of > > > God within us "MUST do this as a function of > > > Omnipotence and in order to maintain both Omnipotence (with respect to > > > awareness) and Omniscience, as omniscience is realised by virtue of > > > those 'teeth'/slices all being extensions of the One." > > > > Which leaves us like Siddhartha, on the river bank, finding > > > redemption by speaking the word, Om, engaging in experience with > > > complete love to end the suffering. > > > And, therein, lies a greater mystery. The equation of 'passion' and > > 'suffering'. In the Qur'an, Allah is listed as Ar-Rahman, usually > > translated as 'Most Compassionate'. The prefix 'com' means 'with'; > > this makes God the One thing that suffers with us. But, this is a two- > > edged sword. The REAL intention of Ar-Rahman is that God feels > > towards us in a reciprocal fashion, so, if we regard Him, He regards > > us. Equally, if we disregard Him, He disregards us. It is from this > > attribute of reciprocal passion that allows God to act mercifully > > towards those who acknowledge Him and to act harshly towards those who > > refuse to acknowledge Him--especially after so many interventions (via > > prophets and scriptures). > > > >The one and the many, complete. > > > The many are only extensions, though, of the One. There is no 'real' > > separation, but the 'join', is outside our line of sight. The One is > > complete and doesn't 'need' the many, because He has them, as they are > > nothing but extensions of Himself. Whereas we do need Him, as there > > is nothing ELSE. > > > > Countless problems with resultant suffering can be named as a result > > > of feeling only the individuality, the separation, as rigsy points out > > > below. The recognition that there are those in power creates a > > > separation that dooms the experience to one of domination, as in fact, > > > "power" exists in the unity, suffering in the separation without > > > unity. > > > And the only one with any REAL power is the One. As Jesus reminded > > Pilate that, he 'had no power over him unless it was granted to him > > from above'. > > > >The teeth of the comb have not real value without the comb > > > itself, and cannot perform the function of "combing." So it is with > > > our individuality. Our only real power comes in knowing our > > > connectedness, and feeling and acting from there. > > > Thus the inherent danger in denying the existence of God--the only > > thing that could ever actually help us. And this is an over-arching > > theme of the Qur'an. Sorry for going on so much about Islam, but, as > > Chris pointed out that it might be difficult to sell my book in Saudi > > Arabia, it's led me to thinking that there are more likenesses between > > the God of my physics and Allah as described in the Qur'an than I had, > > at first, thought. The MAIN point being the 'loss' of 'free will'. > > One of the main conclusions that can be drawn from my physics is that > > it is only the will of the One that is enacted. It then follows that > > one should be mindful OF that (which would lead one to prayer) and, in > > natural reciprocity, God will be mindful of us when we need Him (which > > is always, really). > > > > On Dec 7, 6:45 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 6 Dec, 13:30, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > What other forms are there, Pat? And how is it we share our > > > > > particular slice with so much in common? Why slice at all? > > > > > I view vegetable 'awareness' as a different 'form' of slice, one > > > > that is purely chemical. In that way, our computers have a form of > > > > awareness that is purely electrical. Our form is a combination of > > > > electrical and chemical. > > > > The term 'slice' is a bit misleading, although it does show the > > > > relationship between our consciousness/awareness and that of the whole > > > > in that we have but a small part of it. A better analogy might be the > > > > teeth of a comb. They are all connected at one point but each 'tooth' > > > > extends from the One, that is the comb. > > > > As far as "Why slice (it) at all?" Well, this is the way that > > > > the One differentiates its awareness so that there can be inter- > > > > realation between the differentials. As Neil had quoted the Qur'an > > > > earlier, "...so that you may know one another." From a more 'divine' > > > > viewpoint, God differentiates His awareness because God CAN > > > > differentiate His awareness, He MUST do this as a function of > > > > Omnipotence and in order to maintain both Omnipotence (with respect to > > > > awareness) and Omniscience, as omniscience is realised by virtue of > > > > those 'teeth'/slices all being extensions of the One. > > > > > > On Dec 4, 10:03 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 3 Dec, 21:25, e <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Along with why is how? If we can ascertain how we exist then > > > > > > > maybe the > > > > > > > why becomes clearer or resolves of itself. Changing Descartes a > > > > > > > bit > > > > > > > too... I think, ‘I exist’, we see that I’s exist within thought > > > > > > > bounded contexts. Do I’s exist outside of those thought bounded > > > > > > > contexts? I don’t see how we can claim that I’s do. If I’s are > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > bound to context, then I am is just another thought that arises > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > passes away with context. That is, I’s really don’t exist the way > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > think I’s do i.e. permanently and separately. When the I am > > > > > > > thought > > > > > > > resolves showing there is no separate me, then the infinite > > > > > > > totality > > > > > > > is realized without an inside or outside. > > > > > > > The way I put it is that, in truth, Consciousness is a 3-D loaf. > > > > > > Each > > > > > > of us has an 'apparent' slice of that loaf. But the loaf itself has > > > > > > always existed and always will, as it is nothing but energy, which > > > > > > is > > > > > > neither created nor destroyed--only transformed from one form to > > > > > > another. But, any 3-D 'loaf' can be sliced in a number of differnt > > > > > > ways across various axes. our 'form' of consciousness is just one > > > > > > form. There are others.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
