Dear Pervaiz and members of Family of the Heart:
Abdul Mutaal makes
no attempt to understand what I wrote.
Instead, he delves in his own version of "rhetorical
vocalization" by saying, "The
problem with the rhetoric expression is that its energy and momentum
can drag you into linguistic pleasure that can drape the truth in
the cover of your artistry."
Let's ponder the problem [of
understanding] according to Mutaal -- if the energy and momentum of
rhetoric expression can drag a person into linguistic pleasure that
drapes the truth in the cover of one's artistry, then what good is a
seminar like Mysteries of Mysticism where we hear different and
often conflicting views on the theme of mysticism?
Mutaal's criticism probably
stems from a mind that dictates not only what one can, should and
cannot say, but how one should say it, and say it on demand. Here's
a mind that doesn't want to see what someone is showing; and it
questions why someone isn't showing what they want you to show.
Mutaal says he asked "a simple question"
-- I disagree.
Mutaal's question was most
aggressively daring and arrogant. The words he used were: “What
do you know about Ibn Arabi or Sirhindi?"
as if he hadn't had a mouthful of these at the seminar. His
second question, attached to the first, asked: "How is that
you can bring Ibn Arabi or Sirhindi in the same category as Bhagwan
Shree Rajneesh?" I don't have to
explain what I said because the discerning reader can judge what I
meant by the way I originally strung the names together.
Mutaal claims I "slyly threw
dirt on people of such stature as Ibn Arabi or Sirhindi without
offering any facts or evidence."
The fact is that these names have set countless seekers free and
they have imprisoned the minds of countless others in the vortex of
their own mysteries far removed from the simple practice of
mysticism.
With thousands of such names
around, from Adam down to Zulu, aren't we still in bondage, from
which we think mysticism may set us free?
Rashid
Mughal
