Talk:Sufi cosmology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article could also use some orthographical adjustment to bring it more into line with the established transliteration standard(s). Keldan 06:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is pretty confusing: reading authors like Titus Burckhart, Henry Corbin and William Chittick, I came across much more ciherenet shchemes: Hahoot/Lahoot, Jabroot, Malakoot, Nasoot. This is emenationist cosmology, rather similar to the Kabbalah or Neoplatonism. It is extremely weird to put the prophet Mohammad in a "realm" between Hahoot (God's Essence, Absolute) and Lahoot (Manifest God, God with 99 names). The emanationist ladder presented here is very, very confusing and, I'd say, arbitrary. Bardon Dornal 13:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion of 2 schemes[edit]

The page contains 2 esoteric cosmology views superimposed, resulting in a confusion.

One is a Neoplatonic one, with wolds (Alamut):

  • Hahoot
  • Lahoot
  • Jabroot
  • Malakoot
  • Nasoot

The other is mostly Hermetic, with 7 spheres and Qur'anic concepts like Arsh, but also Neoplatonic like Ruh-i-Quddus or Aql-i-Awwal/First Intellect, identified with the Pen, and the Nafs-i-Qulliya, interpreted as the Tablet. Here you have a polarity not present in the Alam scheme. One just cannot mix the emanationist Alam scheme (Jabroot...) and the Hermetic one (Arsh, Aql, Nafs, 7 spheres..). Another "problem" is Nur-i-Mohammadi, identified with Logos or Aql-i-Awwal. The result is a confusion.Bardon Dornal 16:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No anonymous unsupported interventions, please[edit]

Other schemes should be incorporated, but in a reasonable manner. The throne and the rest are parts of other cosmological schemes. Bardon Dornal 07:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to actual hadiths.[edit]

In the main text you'll see mentioning of a Hadith Qudsi which reads,"I was a hidden Treasure; I desired to be recognized so I created the creature". But there is no actual reference to any Hadith book. Instead it's referenced to a book featured on Google Books with pages that aren't accessible for viewing. If you really want people to take heed of it as a Hadith then you should at least be able to provide a valid source to the Hadith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismacil1440 (talkcontribs) 21:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]