Reply
Tue 11 Apr, 2006 03:26 pm
Human being has limitless capacity in believing God. ''I'' has so important role in this context as follows :
''Question: Why is knowledge of the attributes and Names of God Almighty connected to the ?'I'?
The Answer: Since an absolute and all-encompassing thing has no limits or end, neither may a shape be given to it, nor may a form be conferred on it, nor may it be determined; what its quiddity is may not be comprehended. For example, an endless light without darkness may not be known or perceived.
But if a line of real or imaginary darkness is drawn, then it becomes known. Thus, since God Almighty's attributes like knowledge and power, and Names like All-Wise and All-Compassionate are all-encompassing, limitless, and without like, they may not be determined, and what they are may not be known or perceived.
Therefore, since they do not have limits or an actual end, it is necessary to draw a hypothetical and imaginary limit. The ?'I' does this. It imagines in itself a fictitious dominicality, ownership, power, and knowledge: it draws a line.
By doing this it places an imaginary limit on the all-encompassing attributes, saying, "Up to here, mine, after that, His;" it makes a division. With the tiny units of measurement in itself, it slowly understands the true nature of the attributes.
For example, with its imagined dominicality over what it owns, the ?'I' may understand the dominicality of its Creator over contingent creation. And with its apparent ownership, it may understand the true ownership of its Creator, saying: "Like I am the owner of this house, so too is the Creator the owner of the universe." And with its partial knowledge, it may understand His knowledge, and with its small amount of acquired art, it may understand the originative art of the Glorious Maker.
For example, the ?'I' says: "As I made this house and arranged it, so someone must have made the universe and arranged it," and so on. Thousands of mysterious states, attributes, and perceptions which make known and show to a degree all the Divine attributes and functions are contained with the ?'I'.
That is to say, the ?'I' is mirror-like, and, like a unit of measurement and tool for discovery, it has an indicative meaning; having no meaning in itself, it shows the meaning of others. It is a conscious strand from the thick rope of the human being, a fine thread from the raiment of the essence of humanity, it is an Alif from the book of the character of mankind, and it has two faces.
The first of these faces looks towards good and existence. With this face it is only capable of receiving favour; it accepts what is given, itself it cannot create.
This face is not active, it does not have the ability to create. Its other face looks towards evil and goes to non-existence. That face is active, it has the power to act. Furthermore, the real nature of the ?'I' is indicative; it shows the meaning of things other than itself. Its dominicality is imaginary.
Its existence is so weak and insubstantial that in itself it cannot bear or support anything at all. Rather, it is a sort of scale or measure, like a thermometer or barometer, that indicates the degrees and amounts of things; it is a measure that makes known the absolute, all-encompassing and limitless attributes of the Necessary Being.
Thus, he who knows his own self in this way, and realizes and acts according to it, is included in the good news of,
Truly he succeeds who purifies it. Qur'an, 91:9.
He truly carries out the Trust, and through the telescope of his ?'I', he sees what the universe is and what duties it is performing. When he obtains information about the universe, he sees that his ?'I' confirms it.
This knowledge will remain as light and wisdom for him, and will not be transformed into darkness and futility. When the ?'I' fulfils its duty in this way, it abandons its imaginary dominicality and supposed ownership, which are the units of measurement, and it says: "His is the sovereignty and to Him is due all praise; His is the judgement and to Him will you all be brought back." It achieves true worship. It attains the rank of ?'the Most Excellent of Patterns. Qur'an, 95:4.'' -BSN 30. Word-
I'm only guessing the above post has some meaningful content, but then, this could be an introduction to the very interesting work of Martin Buber titled "I and Thou"
It is based on Qur'an verses. This part of article is related on '' I '' face looks towards good. This face is related with religions. ''I'' also changes to ''WE''.. It is valid for two faces of ''I''.
So, social life structure is based on ''I''.. an ''WE''..
Dictators, artists, Gods, Goddess,... Prophets, beloved people, scholars, Saints.......
Religious and unreligious...
''The ?'I' is one component, one aspect, of the numerous aspects of the ?'Trust', from the bearing of which the sky, earth, and mountains shrank, and of which they were frightened. Indeed, from the time of Adam until now, the ?'I' has been the seed of a terrible tree of Zaqqum and at the same time, of a luminous tree of Tuba which shoot out branches around the world of mankind.'' BSN
Tuba? now I've been to Tuba City in Arizona and found it to be a less than charming or attractive spot on the road to nowhere. Do you get out much kevnmoon?
Tuba.. Tuba is a one kind of a paradise tree which roats are up and fruits and branches come down.. It is symbol of good things in the earth too...
Zakkum is a hell tree.. symbols of enormity or evil..
Good similarity with your city..
ic... it is not paradise.. bcs has a limits..lol
YOu know kevnmoon, I think if you got outside a bit more often and just took a walkabout in the real world of nature it might give you a new and refreshing view of the world you live in.
Re: GOD and ''I''
kevnmoon wrote:. . . ''Question: Why is knowledge of the attributes and Names of God Almighty connected to the ?'I'?. . .
Kev, your post is excruciatingly long and I had to stop right at the beginning.
You have failed to prove that "knowledge of the attributes and Names of God Almighty {
are} connected to the ?'I'".
My favourite word:
"i"
It defines who is responsible.
It defines who can make a difference.
It defines who is accountable.
It defines who one must love before one can love another.
and "I"
Which defines God.
There are two important imaginary Gods.. One of them is inside the man and called ?''I''.. other is in Univrse and called Nature. In my opinion ?''I'' is like a blackhole for unbeliever , bcs of ?''I'' darkens all truths and shows universe as aimless creation. In this position ?''I'' is dangerous for mankind than satan. Also concept which changes grand angel to the satan is ?''I''.
?''The key to the world is in the hand of man and is attached to his self. For while being apparently open, the doors of the universe are in fact closed. God Almighty has given to man by way of a Trust, such a key, called the ?'I', that it opens all the doors of the world; He has given him an enigmatic ?'I' with which he may discover the hidden treasures of the Creator of the universe. But the ?'I' is also an extremely complicated riddle and a talisman that is difficult to solve. When its true nature and the purpose of its creation are known, as it is itself solved, so will be the universe.'' BSN
Ethmer wrote:My favourite word:
"i"
It defines who is responsible.
.
Wellcome.. Yes ''I'' is like that... What about ''WE'' ?
I AM: GOD !
I Am: All that Was !
I Am: All that Can Be !
I Am: All that Is !
I Am: All that Is Not, that is !
I Am: Law !
I Am: Cause !
I Am: Affect !
I Am: Effect !
I AM !
i am God !!
i am: a Result of God in dispersion !!
i am: a Particle of God in distribution !!
i am: a Purpose of God in dispersion !!
i am: an Accumulator of Experience of God !!
i am !!
We Are God !!!
i am Because I AM !!!
we are Because I AM !!!
WE ARE !!!
Look's like another autotheist has come to play.
Knock! knock!
God: "Who's there?"
Me: "It's me."
God: "Go away".
After years of meditation and contemplation I return to God's door.
Knock! knock!
God: ""Who's there?"
Me: "It's you."
God: "Come in."
I ya y'I ya y'I.
bye . . .
Autotheism, is that the same as Cosmological Monism, where ultimately all is one, even though that unity is expressed in the form of ever-changing diversity? That is the point of my 'knock knock" joke.