THE DAWN

This quote is from The Dawn, in The Qu'ran:

"Such is the human being that when his lord
  tries him with generosity and bounty
  he says: my lord has honored me
but when his lord tries him with hunger and lack
  he says: my lord has treated me with disdain"



      When I finished reading this passage, for about the third time, I came to realize thatThe Dawn was an awakening. As The Most High stated, there are constant reminders of what god has done for his people. Here in this reading is the subject of being ungrateful for struggling times, only acknowledging the honor of God in times when He gives, and not when he takes away, or makes day times harder. Another reminder that is present is that you have to be grateful and appreciative of struggling, because after one endures a struggle but continues to honor his lord, good will come of it. One cannot simply live with God if they are constantly praising for good times and favor. The bad times, or times of strife are where you are supposed to pull strength from your God and be buried in his teachings and live in Faith, for not all times are good and not all resources are plentiful.
      In another approach, humankind will point the finger at their God and say what their God has not done, or how they have been shorted, but fail to acknowledge what they as humans have not done in accordance to the God they live by.

Suras and learning

What fascinated me most about my reading in Approaching The Qur'an is that when the children are in a Quran learning school they are taught to read it, in it's original Arabic form, from the end to the beginning. The Quran is composed up of stories detailing what, prophet, Muhammad saw and learned about during his time on earth but also includes Suras. These Suras explain Muhammad's life on earth and majority of them are placed at the end of the Quran while the beginning of the Quran foretells the meaning of life and jumps right into the teachings. (pages 11-13)


It's interesting to compare how the Quran is read and taught versus other religions like Christianity. The Bible is taught in a sort of chronological order starting from Genesis (Old Testament) The birth of Christ and then ending with Revelations which speaks of the second coming and end of times. The Bible has many different translations and rarely do you find bibles with the original language included, it's mostly been translated some much that some of the original intent maybe lost amongst translation. But for the Qur'an they are taught to study and read it in its original Arabic format; so they can truly understand the teachings that are placed  within and because they deem it more sacred.

"The message of the Qur'an is more explicitly fitted into a prophetic lineage beginning with the creation of Adam, the first prohpet in Islam, extending through the stories of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, John the Baptist, and ending with Muhammad." (page 14)

This stood out the most to me because you see a lot of similarities that are overlapped or included in the bible as well. The same stories told in a different context with its original language and out of order but still with such great significance. It makes me wonder if reading the bible in its original language or languages would change the meaning or context of some of the stories? Makes me wonder if the bible was taught from end to beginning to middle, if we would receive a different message all together.

Forgiveness.

        I’ve noticed all the similarities between Christianity and Islam, mainly the similarities between the Qur’an and the Bible. One thing that stands out to me as a difference is how the Bible tells us many things that we shouldn’t do or activities we shouldn’t partake in, the ten commandments being an example, among others. Also Christianity tells us that the only way into Heaven is to be saved through Jesus Christ and that the path to heaven is “straight and narrow.” Also, a way to get forgiveness is to repent. What I noticed about the Qur’an was a lack of things “to not do.” There were no set rules explaining what is deemed unacceptable. Also living a life that will get you into heaven seems fairly easy: sharing one’s wealth; attending to the orphan, the destitute, and the disinherited; performing the prayer; and carrying out just deeds. If someone chooses not to do what gets a Muslim into heaven, but later changes their ways, is that acceptable? Is there not a process they need to go through for forgiveness of their past actions? Is there anything a Muslim can do to get forgiveness? If a Muslim who has led a life of good deeds suddenly changes and does a series of bad deeds and dies, are all the good deeds wiped out and the bad deeds focused on? Or does the concept of Heaven or Hell only apply to the Day of Reckoning?

Our Father/The Opening

Upon first opening Approaching the Qur'an I was not sure if the book was supposed to be a historical reference or a religious translation. Now as I type, I think the meaning of Approaching the Qur'an is supposed to be a intersection of the two, as my topic today refers to the scripture "The Opening":

In the name of God, the Compassionate the Caring. Praise be to God, lord sustainer of the worlds, master of the day of reckoning. To you we turn to worship and to you we turn in time of need. Guide us along the road straight, the road of those to whom you are giving, not those with anger upon them, not those who have lost the way.

I would also like to add "The Lord's Prayer" as a future reference:

Our Father, Who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kindgom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For Thine is the kingdom, and the power and the glory, forever and ever. Amen.

 When I got to the commentary portion of "The Opening" the first sentence referred to this prayer as the "Islamic equivalent" of The Lord's Prayer (pp.43). I however did not draw this parallel upon initially reading both works. I understood the jist of both as callings to God (or Allah) of respect and admiration, but nothing else.  Because the idea of 'talking another's word for it' doesn't sit well with me I decided to break apart each by verse (or sentence) and attempt to draw the correlation. I am unsure of what was absent upon my initial read but as I read them both simultaneously, it seemed as if it was the same prayer. This understanding reminded me of a statement I had heard once 'All religions are essentially the same, they just have different names for different locations.' I assumed this statement to be wrong, because it had to be much more complex than that, yet something was missing. Had I not even opened up my mind to possibility of the commonalities between different religions? Is society really that large of an influence that one cannot even recognize when a bias is placed upon them? I alway prided myself as being an open-minded individual, yet I never knew that Jesus was acknowledged in the faith that many of my friends carry. How does one see these prejudices and correct them? Even though I understand that ignorance to a subject is just that, I am enthusiatic to continue the learning of Islam and other sects of worship to end it.

Blog 1 T. Norman

"He is ungraspable for he cannot be grasped. He is undecaying. for he is not subject to decay. He has nothing sticking to him, for he does not stick to anything. he is not bound; yet he neither trembles in fear nor suffers injury" - Ganeri page 25

This quote from The Concealed Art of the Soul explains that the idea of self, cannot be obtained, tied down, or shown as a tangible figure because it does not exist. But it does exist. The self that is being sought by the searcher will never be able to seek the elf in which they want to find. The searcher is looking for something that cannot be found just by looking deep within one's "self". Although there are many examples in life of "finding yourself" or having revelations in which you appear to yourself, it is simply known that the self is not a tangible obtainable object. I have been a student who wishes to find herself, but in the beginning of this course, I now know that finding myself, while being aware that i am eagerly trying to do so is impossible and will not be revealed to me. I often rely on the occurances that whenever I am not in search of something, I eventually find it. With the knowledge of "self" and making new discoveries, I find that the self that i wish to explore will not be found right away, or maybe not at all.

Wait, Are We Talking About Yourself, Myself, or The Self?

In the section entitled "Soul-Searchers and Sooth-Sayers" in Ganeri's The Concealed Art of the Soul the concept of what the 'self' is persay, is one idea that I have already found myself wondering.

     "Whole has become one's very self (atman), then who is there for one to smell and by what means? Who is there for one to see and by what means? Who is there for one to hear and by what means? Who is there for one to greet and by what means? Who is there for one to think and by what means? Who is there for one to perceive and by what means? By what means can one perceive him by means of whom one perceives this whole world? Look-- by what means can one perceive the perceiver?

                                                                                                                                                   (BU 2.4.14)

Everytime I run across the word 'self' in any of these readings, my mind becomes puzzled. It is only within such writing can you understand and misunderstand and interpret these sentences into complete thoughts. At the core of the matter I can grasp the concept of the perceivers point of view being different as the angle ( whichever type that may be) given is different. On the other hand, the problem lies in the separation of one's self from its human source. The idea that the self is not a conscious part of who we are as people make me question my own centric composition. Who am I? How does my 'self' relate to this dymanic?  Why am I constantly going around exclaiming phrases like "How can you know others if you don't know your self?" .when I should be saying "How do you know your self? Who is the 'self' mentioned? and Where is this self?" We are told to trust only ourselves and our opinions are the only ones that matter, yet the existence of the selves of othes are the basis by which we live. What 'self' do we attempt to appease? How is it we "know" who we are if we don't know ourselves? I find my subconscious wearing the 'self' hat yet isn't the soul supposed to harbor there? Or is the soul, in this case my soul compiled of things others' selves told me I am? How can I examine myself whole heartedly if I can't see myself? Who is to suggest the self that is perceived by others is no the same/ different self that I carry each day? My hope is to be able to answer at least one of these thoughts by the completion of the course. Not just to know the flow of philosophical identification, but also to know which self we are even talking about?

Avoidance.

CH 8 of the Upanisads. - A conversation between Gārgi and Yājñavalkya.

Question 1: "The things above the sky, the things below the earth and the sky, as well as all those things between the earth and sky, as well as past, present, and future- on what are all these woven back and forth?"
His Answer: THEY ARE WOVEN ON SPACE.

Question 2: "on what is space woven?"
His Answer: "the imperishable. which is neither course nor fine, short nor long. Has neither blood nor fat. is without shadow or darkness, without air or space. without contact; has no taste or smell; it is without sight or hearing; it is without energy, breath or mouth... at its command the sun and the moon stand apart...pitiful is the man who departs from this world without knowing this imperishable. on this imperishable space is woven."

After this answer, Gārgi says that Yājñavalkya can never be defeated in a theological debate. 

My thoughts: what is it that Yājñavalkya said that makes him undefeated in a theological debate? The answers he gave were vague and they weren't a concrete answers. How can the past, present, and future be "woven" into space? How can you weave time? Also, how can you weave space onto something? Yājñavalkya goes on to say that this imperishable is without space, but if space is woven into it then doesn't it in fact have space? How can you weave something onto something that is not supposed to be perceived or thought of ? Is the imperishable supposed to be the creator god ? Yājñavalkya also explains the imperishable as the one who commands the sun and the moon to stand apart, commands seconds, minutes, hours, night, and fortnights ? who can do this but the creator? 

Blog #1: Price

Starting this blog post off with an excerpt from The Big Verda...Pages 25-26.

"There was neither non-existence nor existence then; there was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond. What stirred? Where? In whose protection? Was there water bottomlessly deep?"


The excerpt is taken from a hymn that describes what it was like or must have been like in the beginning of time. The hymn continues to describe a period in history where darkness was hidden from light, where sickness did not exist, were water began to rise and emptiness covered the land. A time where no one knows who planted the first seed, when desire started to form and everything we have grown to love, know, and hate began. But who started it all? That's the ultimate question, who was there first?

This creation hymn has been evaluated and discussed by scholars from all parts of the world and each religion has there own spin on how everything became to be. I chose this quote because this is the reason why I love taking religion courses in the first place. I love how one event can happen and become this vantage point where so many different people see the same thing happen in so many different ways. I want to continue to learn and explore what people see, what they believe in and understand where they're coming from.