حضور - اتنی بہترین اور روحانی کشش سے پر گفتگو سن کر جو کیفیت دل میں بحر کی طرح آپنا قیام کرتی ہیں - اور ذہن کو بیدار اور ہشیار بناتی ہیں- کو میں بھی رو بہ رو سننا چاہتا ہوں - درخاست ہے کہ آپ ہمیں اس نشست میں بیٹھنے کہ قابل سمجھیں - شکریہ جی - ریشم سنگھ از دانشگاہ پنجابی یونیورسٹی پٹیالہ- پنجاب - ھند
One of the sins of secular modernity is that, post Descartes/Hume et. al, it has rejected traditional/religious symbolism. In other words, the modern worldview is flat; modern man lives on the horizontal plane only, ignorant of the vertical plane of existence. Without this "verticality", symbolism loses its meaning. We must not forget that a symbol always connects the lower to a higher and it does so because the traditional/religious worldview is essentially hierarchical (both in the microcosm and in the macrocosm) and in order to "climb" up this hierarchy (which is the raison de tre of existence), the believer needs symbols. And it is through symbols that the believer can comprehend the deeper meanings (the anagogical meanings) of the "two Books" of God: the Quran-al tadwini (The Holy Quran) and the Quran-al takwimi (The cosmos). The believer does so through symbols called "ayat" in both cases. (Dervaish, Quetta walla)
Guenon also changed certain of his positions during his lifetime, especially on the orthodox nature of Buddhism. This was most probably because of the influential writings of the great Ananda Coomaraswamy,
"Both Transcendence (tanzih) and Immanence (tashbih) are realities. Transcendence without immanence cuts us off from the Divine; Immanence without transcendence cuts the Divine off from us. Both the Transendent and the Immanent must go together because of the duality 'Principle and Manifestation'. While the Supreme Principle in itself is neither transcendent nor immanent, but 'That which It is', from the perspective of the plane of manifestation, there must needs be a transcendent Creator, and the resulting creation must needs be embraced by immanence for its very existence." (Rama P. Coomaraswamy)
بہت شکریہ ، وجود و عدم اور خالق سے متعلق ایسی وضاحت کی سالوں سے تلاش تھی ۔۔۔ ایسا کئی دفعہ ہوا ہے کہ آپ کی باتیں میری اپنی ذہنی تگ و دو سے مطابقت میں ہوکر میرے لئے وقتی تسکین کا باعث بنتی ہیں ۔۔۔
On tashbih and tanzih: "That we are conformed to God---'made in His image'---this is certain; otherwise we should not exist. That we are contrary to God, this is also certain; otherwise we should not be different from God. Without analogy with God we should be nothing. Without opposition to God we should be God (astaghfirullah)." (Is Nuraldin, Frithjof Schuon)
حضور - اتنی بہترین اور روحانی کشش سے پر گفتگو سن کر جو کیفیت دل میں بحر کی طرح آپنا قیام کرتی ہیں - اور ذہن کو بیدار اور ہشیار بناتی ہیں- کو میں بھی رو بہ رو سننا چاہتا ہوں - درخاست ہے کہ آپ ہمیں اس نشست میں بیٹھنے کہ قابل سمجھیں - شکریہ جی - ریشم سنگھ از دانشگاہ پنجابی یونیورسٹی پٹیالہ- پنجاب - ھند
Masha Allah 🎉❤
One of the sins of secular modernity is that, post Descartes/Hume et. al, it has rejected traditional/religious symbolism. In other words, the modern worldview is flat; modern man lives on the horizontal plane only, ignorant of the vertical plane of existence. Without this "verticality", symbolism loses its meaning. We must not forget that a symbol always connects the lower to a higher and it does so because the traditional/religious worldview is essentially hierarchical (both in the microcosm and in the macrocosm) and in order to "climb" up this hierarchy (which is the raison de tre of existence), the believer needs symbols. And it is through symbols that the believer can comprehend the deeper meanings (the anagogical meanings) of the "two Books" of God: the Quran-al tadwini (The Holy Quran) and the Quran-al takwimi (The cosmos). The believer does so through symbols called "ayat" in both cases. (Dervaish, Quetta walla)
جزاک اللّٰہ
مبروک ،
ماشاء اللّٰہ
First time listened a whole lecture from start to end with full concentration. JZK
احمد جاوید صاحب کی کتابوں کو کوئی فہرست مل جائے تو شکر گزار ہونگا
اللّہ تعالیٰ آپ کو سلامت رکھے خوش رکھے آمین 🌹
Guenon also changed certain of his positions during his lifetime, especially on the orthodox nature of Buddhism. This was most probably because of the influential writings of the great Ananda Coomaraswamy,
"Both Transcendence (tanzih) and Immanence (tashbih) are realities. Transcendence without immanence cuts us off from the Divine; Immanence without transcendence cuts the Divine off from us. Both the Transendent and the Immanent must go together because of the duality 'Principle and Manifestation'. While the Supreme Principle in itself is neither transcendent nor immanent, but 'That which It is', from the perspective of the plane of manifestation, there must needs be a transcendent Creator, and the resulting creation must needs be embraced by immanence for its very existence." (Rama P. Coomaraswamy)
بہت شکریہ ، وجود و عدم اور خالق سے متعلق ایسی وضاحت کی سالوں سے تلاش تھی ۔۔۔
ایسا کئی دفعہ ہوا ہے کہ آپ کی باتیں میری اپنی ذہنی تگ و دو سے مطابقت میں ہوکر میرے لئے وقتی تسکین کا باعث بنتی ہیں ۔۔۔
....💖💞💝
On tashbih and tanzih: "That we are conformed to God---'made in His image'---this is certain; otherwise we should not exist. That we are contrary to God, this is also certain; otherwise we should not be different from God. Without analogy with God we should be nothing. Without opposition to God we should be God (astaghfirullah)." (Is Nuraldin, Frithjof Schuon)
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Mashalla, this enlightening lecture helped me to understand the Holy Trinity more clearly. Jazakum Allah Khair.
مجھے یہ سمجھ نہیں جارہا کہ ہم ہر نئ چیز کو استعمال بھی کر رہے ہیں اور اس پر تنقید کررہے ہیں. میرا زاتی تجربہ اور مشاہدہ یہ ہے کہ ہر آج کل سے بہتر ہے.
Sophia Perennis. Hikmat al Khalida. Javidan e Khird.
SubhanAllah jazakalah khair ❤
Jazak Allah