Revelation

"Do not argue with the followers of earlier revelation otherwise than in a most kindly manner--unless it be such of them as are bent on evil-doing--and say: We believe in that which has been bestowed from on high upon us, as well as that which has been bestowed upon you; for our God and your God is one and the same, and it is unto Him that we [all] surrender ourselves." (Quran 29:46)

I like this quote because of its apparent endorsement of monism. I am however not a theist. I was wondering what interpretation a non-theistic viewpoint might give to the "revelation" the verse mentions. Any ideas?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I like this quote because of its apparent endorsement of monism.

How does it endorse monism? Monotheism, maybe, but monism?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
How does it endorse monism? Monotheism, maybe, but monism?

With a bit of interpretation, anything is possible--"today Muslim scholars argue that had Muhammad known about the Buddhists or the Hindus, the Australian Aborigines or the Native Americans, the Quran would have endorsed their sages too, because all rightly guided religion that submitted wholly to God, refused to worship man-made deities, and preached justice and equality came from the same divine source"
(Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History. For me, a self-aware universe is "god"; the rest follows.

A quick comment, then I’ve got to be gone till next Monday (you guys can keep in touch with Marge for me...).

The question seems to me to be one of penetrating the language. Monism is damnably hard to talk about, especially when you’re not necessarily talking in terms of an “it.” And all but a primitive (super, human-like person on the other side of the sky...) monotheism faces language problems too—hypostases, ousia, god-head...

I always thought it was interesting that the Hebrew name for God, YHVH is completely verbal—that is, it’s a verb construct, and one not seemingly in accord with Hebrew grammar: e.g., we say it is a third-person personal form, because, well, it ought to be and seems to be used that way, but... And the Shema can be read at least as equally well as a monistic statement as a monotheistic one. Perhaps both strains were quite ancient in Jewish history and mythology. (Also, BdN, remember your Hebrew henotheism thread...) So it also might be a mistake to read such texts assuming there is only one viewpoint there.

LH, months and months ago, critiqued my usage of “ground of being.” And I have been avoiding the term since. In a sense, I am thinking there are three options:

(1) Talk about ___________ that uses only verbs.

(2) Concede that monistic talk must be in “trinitarian” terms: ground-power-form, bearer-birthing-born—with specification that any singular term is simply being used as a “wrap-up” for the whole complex.

Interestingly, one of the Orthodox objections to the filioque was that it removed the Father (ab) as the ground (and “god-head” ), and forced talk about another god-head concept...

(3) Talk only as you must, and always in riddles... That won’t satisfy anyone who is used to getting all their knowledge classroom style—lecture, notes, memorize, analyze, feedback—but it might shove a few people down the path...

___________________________________

Okay, none of that was on point—the question just triggered my thinking.

The Sufis are predominantly monist, and do read the Qur’an as being as “obviously” monistic (when read "rightly," and not just a surface reading) as conventional Muslims read it as being “obviously” monotheistic.

“Look to the east, look to the west. Whosesoever you look, there is the face of Allah.” (That’s from memory, and I forget which Surah.

See ya next week...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage

(Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History. For me, a self-aware universe is "god"; the rest follows.[/b]

Karen Armstrong eh? She was a nun until the 1960's sexual revolution when she decided "cut me a slice of that!" and quit. For a while she was an english teacher in a school that my friend attended. A most unpopular teacher!

Originally posted by Mixo
Karen Armstrong eh? She was a nun until the 1960's sexual revolution when she decided "cut me a slice of that!" and quit. For a while she was an english teacher in a school that my friend attended. A most unpopular teacher!

She writes lucid history. Why was she unpopular?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
She writes lucid history. Why was she unpopular?

Not cut out for the classroom I guess. Rather a bad-tempered teacher. She believed that her former life as a nun was a secret in the school (actually everyone knew) - must be pretty unapproachable if schoolgirls were too afraid to ask her about it. Clearly did the right thing by quitting to concentrate on writing.