Gayatri used in Hindu daily worship

Gayatri (Sanskrit) Meditative chant/mantra used in the daily worship by Hindus.

Bhur bhuvah svah / tat savitur varenyam / bhargo devasya dhimahi / dhiyo yo nah pracodayat / santih santih santih

Body of all. Mind of all. Spirit of all / May we meditate on the Supreme / On the all-pervading radiance of the Primal Light / May He inspire the innnermost thoughts of our hearts / Peace, Peace, Peace.

Inter-dependence as an agent of Unity

To  say “All” implies Unity. Thus “All” diversity in the sensible realm if it is to possess unity; how does it display or present that unity? A unity that is not of its own. As beauty of a particular form is not the forms’ full possession. Beauty being bestowed. Unity in diversity is equally bestowed. The unity of the body for example. All organs operating in harmony, unaware so to speak, of each others’ particular function and purpose; yet inter-dependent. To interrupt the inter-dependence proving hazardous for the body. It is perhaps inter-dependence which implies a unity making order.

Inter-dependence thus being the agent of a Unity above it. Unity working through inter-dependence to bestow on body “health”. Inter-dependence between bodily organs implies also a limit, a term, a period of time. For the material world is prone to wearing. A cliff face today is not the same cliff face from decades ago having been weathered over time. Inter-dependence relating to the life of the body has a limited term. It cannot go on eternally.

Inter-dependence with body requires each organ working to its potential and purpose. Should one organ fail or weaken then the consequences of that failure are not limited to only that organ leading to other “weakenings”. Lungs may fail, circulation may be affected and so too the heart. Therefore, inter-dependence within the body is more than co-operation to sustain bodily life. Inter-dependence perhaps has its roots in a metaphysical origin. It is an image of something else. It exists so long as soul is conjoined with body one could postulate. Returning to a potentiality or latent phase within the soul when soul is free from association with body which is an image itself.

Are there any such other interdependencies pointing to a Unity in diversity within humanity? Thought for example. The power of an Idea. Love, Kindness, Generosity, mutual regard and other loftier Values. Diversity does not have to imply competition and exclusivity of claim; one-sidedness. That we know in its worst form as totalitarian and oppressively forcing conformity. Unity as stated in brief here is not conformity. When we say “All” we truly mean “All-Diversity” universally as The Unity and not our own collective lesser “all” of race, ethnicity, creed, language, culture and religion divisively expressed. Unity has no requirement to mean uniformity – like for like in other words. If  unity does fall to mean as such to conform and be uniform not only in outward social I customs (secular or sacred) but also in control of our thought then it is not strictly a unity but instead a force for dis-unity as it will be in competition with other groups (secular or sacred) who equally claim unity as their sole possession. On the other hand when Unity is understood to be present in like AND un-like; Unity seen in such a way can help one to overcome conflict and opposition.

By Musa Askari

Collective Identity held lightly not tightly











“I prefer to hold on to any identity lightly rather than tightly. It informs my thinking but is not essentially who I am.

Spiritually, I cling to such identities lightly with the hope that eventually I may let go of them and what remains is the undivided individual.”

Musa Askari

Source of evil is self-conscious good

World cultures and world systems how evil is cognized: a summary of Hasan Askari’s view from the book Towards A Spiritual Humanism…continued.

We face an extraordinary challenge when it comes to the question of evil. An extraordinary philosophical and gnostic question at the same time. Knowing presupposes likeness, without likeness there is no knowing. There should be likeness between knower and the known. The principle of likeness becomes dangerous when it comes to evil and here is the profound challenge. In ancient and medieval times the sages advised us not to reflect on evil directly for only in this discourse one should not  undergo identification. This presents a serious challenge for all discourse is identification and we are called upon not to identify with evil. Therefore, another procedure unlike any other is required and we have thus violated the principle of discourse itself. Evil should be discussed indirectly, at a distance otherwise we shall be in danger.

Evil pertains to a very brief conscious history of man. It has only recently entered into our lives, five to ten thousand years ago. What is it that has caused us to falter, to slump into evil and darkness? My intuition at the moment is that the source of evil is self-conscious good. Whenever humans have developed a self-conscious sense of good it creates a shadow, irrespective of it being religious, humanistic truth or ideology. Nature with what ever good it has is not self-righteous about it. However, when we talk about the best of our traditions we take pride in them creating a shadow. If we really wish to address ourselves to the correction of evil, we should reduce our self-conscious good. Sacred or Secular.

Conceptions & Responses to the question of evil

World cultures and world systems how evil is cognized: a summary of Hasan Askari’s view from the book Towards A Spiritual Humanism…continued.

Two ideas are universally shared in various world traditions: 

1) there is something in the structure of the world which is the source of evil 2) there is something in the structure of man which is the source of evil.

Three responses to this twofold conception of evil:

1) Remedy should come from deep within the human self. All rational, philosophical responses to the challenge of evil: Purification of reason, Upholding wisdom. the entire philosophical understanding: Indian, Greek, is geared to this conception of the remedy of evil.

2) The second response to evil was that such resources were not present within man or woman. Therefore the need for assistance, intervention, help, from a transcendental source. Time and again differing communities were given a revelation. From the banks of Ganges to the banks of  the Yellow River in China, or Sinai, Galilee or Mecca. This revelatory response took on a religious colour.

3) The third response is formally called a Christian response, which according to Christian doctrine, needs a personal saviour. A unique redemptive agent as man is not capable of saving himself. As revelatory intervention through word, law, command is not sufficient Christianity throws up the idea of incarnation, of God becoming man to intervene.

Each response combines the other two responses in its formulation and self-construction. However, all the responses seem linked up with the nature of man – human subjectivity. They do not answer the first question about evil, the very structure of the world. 

The only clear response of grappling with the ontological structure of the world as a source of evil comes from Neo-Platonism. Present indirectly in Indian Vedic systems, indirectly in all religions, but present philosophically, directly and consciously in Neo-Platonism.  

Hasan Askari is interested in building a common ground, in sentiment and also in methodology. He is not interested in the familiar confrontation between revelatory guidance to humanity and humanist historical intra-human illumination on such questions.

The Problem of evil as understood in World Cultures & Systems

World cultures and world systems how evil is cognized: a summary of Hasan Askari’s view from the book Towards A Spiritual Humanism

Ancient Indian discourseevil is “avidya” or ignorance – lack of knowledge. A lack of being. Duality is the source of all evil

Ancient Chinese systems – distinction between function and contemplation. Human mind immersed in functionalism it becomes evil, unless attended by a contemplative perspective on life, world and relationships. Variety of shades and options of emphases between Confucius and Laotze. 

Buddhist – evil is the phenomenon of desire. Philosophically desire is an expression of want, of lack. This lacking or want creates suffering which is evil. 

Jewish – post Sinai understanding of evil, evil is the rebelliousness, the wantonness and the pride within man to erect false idols which are the projections and embodiment of his fear and desires. Jewish paradigm offers a sharp contract between two moments:(i) Moses in dialogue with God, receiving the Ten Commandments (ii) the other of his people at the foot of the mountain worshipping the Golden Calf. It is this sharp dichotomy within the same moment which sums up the entire tragedy and the entire failing in human history. 

ChristianEvil is seen as generic to human nature. Historically Christian conception of evil is expressed in the human vulnerability to failure, to wantonness and towards evil.

Near Eastern Civilizations – Zoroastrian and later Manichaean understanding of a polarity between good and evil.  

Islamic – Quranic insight, evil is “ghafala” to remain unconscious and heedless. 

Philosophy – Greeks – but Hellenistic culture as a whole- the opposite of reason,  the opposite of the rational man, namely, whatever is irrational, wilful or untamed in human nature is evil. Through education and discipline and purification one obtains a rational self attaining to truth and wisdom.

Theory of Evolution forestalled in drama, poetry & symbol

“There are two extremely crucial moments in our modern transformation which both humanists and Muslims and religious people in general have to come to terms with. The first moment which created the greatest upheaval in our thought came about through Darwin and Spencer, namely, the theory of evolution. Let me now make a comment that is going to take us both into the heart of the matter. I totally accept the evidence and the theory built upon that evidence that there is a temporal unfoldment of the material universe, that there is a temporal unfoldment of the various life forms. There is a progress from simple to the complex; there is a mutation, adaptation and survival of the fittest not only in quantitative terms but also in qualitative and functional terms. All this pertains to what I call the collective forms. I would apply even the concept “collective form” to consciousness, language and culture. Therefore, I would go a long way with Spencer when he reiterates the evolutionary principle on the social level, on the cultural level. I would go to the extent of embracing Auguste Comte in his well-known formulation of the stages of human growth arriving at the rational or the positivistic as their highest summit.

However, there is something missing, and that something has been highlighted by those who disagree with the theory of evolution, and who at the same time commit all sorts of mistakes in exaggerating the lacunas in the theory and attempt to rely upon any evidence that might come forth to contradict it. Such a ritual employment of the scientific method to disprove the theory of evolution is to me nonsense – that is not the issue.

The issue is about another mystery which the traditional scientific theory of evolution does not meet. In the absence of any other language I would tentatively suggest that we don’t have a theory of emergence. By emergence I mean the emergence of individuals. We have a theory – sociologically and biologically – of coming into being and unfoldment in evolution of a species, of cultural species, of linguistic species, but we don’t have a theory to explain or help us understand how individuals emerge in history. I am using the word “individual” as applicable not only to those creative geniuses throughout history, but also to those creative configurations of culture – say, Ancient India, Greece, China and Egypt – which are very enigmatic, and very mysterious in terms of symbol, in terms of constructs, and in terms of philosophy. To me these configurations are also “individuals”. “Individuals” are not comparable. Nevertheless, the theory of evolution with all its limitations was one of the first crucial moments in modern thought.

The second great upheaval in our modern transformation was registered by the School of Vienna headed by Sigmund Freud. Here something more spectacular happened because the theory of evolution was forestalled in both metaphor and myth in ancient and medieval times. We have, for example, striking evidence of notions pertaining to evolution in Islamic gnostic philosophy. Both the great Persian poet Rumi (d.1273), and Ibn Miskawa, (d.1030) the first philosopher of ethics in Islam, talked about evolution, and they regarded the philosopher-prophet as the culmination of human evolution. Rumi talks about the development of life, from mineral to plant and from animal to man. In response to the question of what lies behind man Rumi gives us through poetry and parable a fascinating account of the human soul. The ecstasy he expressed through dance was itself a form of evolution.

So the theory of evolution as expressed in the 19th century was not a surprise for those already familiar with the idea running through history. It had already been given in drama, in poetry and also in different symbols. Even the myth of creation was a foretelling of that theory in a very succinct and symbolic manner.”

Hasan Askari : extract from Towards A Spiritual Humanism

A Farewell Wish

Whiter than white, The setting sun departs, Bidding goodnight, Pain in my heart

Hope to see you again my friend, Pay tribute to you as you descend, In your wake, The Sky: Still, Clear, And light, A lone bird takes its final flight, Settling for the night

Earlier I recollect, Strength of your heat upon my chest, A feeling strong, Holding me down, For a moment, No escape to be found

Thanks to you I see the mess, Objects that cause my distress, Shelter of shade, Easy to find, But what am I to do? When these objects I still cling to

Take me with you as you set, Free me from which I am beset, Tell me how when clouds hinder the way your Light still shines through? What am I to do?

Dear Friend of mine, you come from which That is impossible to define, So grant me this fare-well wish, As your light here begins to diminish, Promise me you will return, For my heart without Him would surely burn.

By Musa Askari

Plotinus, father of Neo-Platonism

“This is not a journey for the feet; the feet bring us only from land to land; nor need you think of coach or ship to carry you away; all this order of things you must set aside and refuse to see; you must close the eyes and call instead upon another vision which is to be waked within you, a vision, the birthright of all, which few turn to see.”

by Plotinus

The Enneads, 1.6 “On Beauty”

Plotinus on Soul – History of Philosophy :