From: Khalil (khalilm@netcomuk.co.uk)
Date: Mon Feb 23 2004 - 16:01:59 GMT
Hi All,
I am slightly concerned about the view expressed by Khoo and others that the
only value within religion is its mystical dimension, the rest is some sort
of social/intellectual construct that tends to do more harm than good. The
fact is that a true religion is a source of guidance, understanding and
meaning for man on every level and in every sphere and in every domain of
human interaction and knowledge. It is not given for all men or women to be
saints and mystics, but religion must be able to fulfil the needs of
everyone to find purpose and meaning in their lives from the humblest
illiterate peasant to the most erudite of scholars. It must be both a
personal means of fulfilment and a social framework.
Islamic science. Sorry, sloppy writing on my part, more correctly an
Islamic approach to science which would take as a fundamental premise that
everything originates from the One and returns to the One.
Duality/Unity- Of course if one really goes beyond duality to the Unity then
everything disappears but the One! If there's only light without shade we
see nothing but light. The same applies to language. Without language
there is no understanding of what we are witnessing/experiencing. According
to the Qur'an when God created Adam He taught him all the names and then
commanded the angels to bow down to Adam. Because with the names comes
knowledge and with knowledge comes understanding. To understand the light
you have to understand the darkness. Adam has within him the ability to
understand everything from the highest to the lowest. For Khoo this may too
Abrahamic a cosmology, but Abraham's legacy is strictly neither of the East
nor of the West and has the potential to unite them both.
Religion/Philosophy-One of the main differences between the 2 is the belief
within religion of a world beyond the sensory world, whole hierarchal realms
of existence beyond what we can perceive or rationalise. "There's more in
heaven and earth than ever dreamt of in your philosophy Horatio"-Shakespeare
Roger Bacon (not to be confused with Francis) an early English philosopher
believed that the 2 had to be treated separately as fields of knowledge.
His views essentially held sway within English philosophy until the
renaissance. But in England religion=church doctrine/dogma. Once science
undermined the church doctrine then religion died as an earnest pursuit of
knowledge and the rational philosopher scientists held sway.
One of the problems with trying to combine a metaphysics of the seen and the
unseen is how do you prove any form of knowledge relating to the unseen?
Although actually modern science depends on certain premises and axioms.
Unless you believe in them you cannot unlock the secrets. Isn't this what
Pirsig is saying?
Doctrine/dogma is a fixed and static interpretation of scripture but we
should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Just
because the interpretation is false or outdated does not mean that the
source is false.
Rgds
Khalil
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 23 2004 - 16:05:12 GMT