David at Facilitating Paradox has an excellent post on Hindu god-naming. He writes, “The Hindus also have a multitude of names for God, and, since most of the names also have an individual form associated with it, many take this to be polytheism. However, most schools of Hindu theology teach that all the myriad forms of God are simply manifestations of the The-One-God.” (Blogspot archives are wonky, so this link is for a limited time only.)
Krishna and the many avatars
06.13.03 | Permalink | Comments Off on Krishna and the many avatars
The god-silence
06.13.03 | Permalink | 2 Comments
Before god is anything else, god is self-emptying silence. Before there is speech, there is the god-silence. Before the naming of names, there is the god-silence. Before the telling of stories, there is the god-silence.
Beneath everything is the god-silence. The god-silence blankets everything, envelops everything, supports everything. The god-silence is indivisible, yet there are infinite silences. The god-silence is neverending, yet there is a new silence each moment. But who can divide one silence from another, the god-silence from the silences? The god-silence is boundless, ever-present.
From out of the womb of the god-silence came the naming of names. The names came forth, some sent, others leaping out of their own accord. The names wandered to and fro in search of ones to name. But the names had no binding. Without structure, the names lived for a time but then fell back into the god-silence. So it was that names were constantly coming forth from the god-silence and returning to it.
But between some of the names threads grew. Names ravelled to names, threads to threads, knots to knots. And so it was that stories arose from between the names. But not all names are ravelled, and those names sever threads and knots as they come forth and return to the god-silence. And some threads are not strong and some knots not tightly tied, and these would come undone without the violence of the names.
So it is that god is silence. And the silence is a deafening roar.
(Special thanks go to our good friend Anaximander.)
News of the MyIrony
06.13.03 | Permalink | Comments Off on News of the MyIrony
While I’m working up some more god stuff, here are some of the changes I’ve recently made to MyIrony.
On the left sidebar you’ll notice a new section schilling whatever I’m reading at the moment via Amazon. Tsk, tsk–yes, I know. The deal is, if you’ll all buy every one of the books I post for the next month, Amazon will send me a commission check that will provide me enough money to buy (most of) a can of coke. When I buy the can of coke, Coca-Cola stock will go through the roof. When Coca-Cola stock goes through the roof, Emory’s endowment will go through the roof. And when that happens, I’ll get a stupidly big raise and can pay off my credit cards, my wedding (of five years ago), and my students loans and finally become a home owner. So don’t ride my ass, jacko.
You may have noticed on the right sidebar that the list of links has grown a bit over the last three weeks. The “god stuff” link list in particular has grown considerably. Thanks for this goes to Philocrites, the senior editor of UU World, who (appropriately enough) has a handy little list of Unitarian Universalist bloggers. Until I came upon Philocrites, I’d had absolutely no luck finding other UU bloggers. If you’re a UU blogger and would be interested in starting up a blogring or some such, send a message to me, Philocrites, My Dog Wants To Be On the Radio, or another friendly UU blogger near you. Since we’re UUs, I’m hoping we can do this in as disorganized a manner as possible–and then call it “the democratic process.”
In gratuitous masturbatory news, MyIrony has evolved to the naturally selected status of “slithering reptile” in the Blogging Ecosystem, thanks to all you good folks who link to me. Most of a month ago, I bought a new statistics package which–to my surprise–informed me that MyIrony gets about three times more visitors a day than Site Meter reported. And I’ve joined the Blogshares bandwagon and am working toward tying up all my funny money in the company stock, always a wise investment strategy. I’m not sure I trust the management’s judgement, but he’s a damn sexy little thing, and that’s all that really matters in the end. Right?
If by chance you’d like to get semi-regular email notifications when I update, use the form on the right sidebar. I try to only send them out every two or three entries, so your inbox shouldn’t get too flooded.
Comments? Questions? Criticisms? Drop me a line. I’m here for you, baby. Really, I am.
And for an appetizer I’d like…
06.11.03 | Permalink | 6 Comments
But what do you call your god?
06.10.03 | Permalink | 2 Comments
Another reason not to use “God:” It isn’t a name. Unlike “Shiva,” “Yhwh,” “Aphrodite” or “Inktomi,” “God” is just a general class capitalized for the sake of convenience or propriety. Its use as a proper noun should be seen to be as awkward as saying “my friend, whose name is Friend Smith” or “her husband, whose name is Mr. Husband Brown.”
Islam has a much more honest approach. Founded within the context of violently tribalistic polytheism, Islam refers to its god as “Allah,” meaning something like “the-god” or “the-one-and-only-god.” Hence, the refrain “there is no god but Allah” means something like “there is no god but The-One-God.” It is an un-name, an obvious place holder. A related Islamic tradition is the 99 names of The-One-God. Principally a tool for individual meditation, the 99 names are honest enough to use as god-names things that The-One-God does and/or is. There is no pretention here of assuming that a mere name could capture the essence of The-One-God, a habit you’d think more monotheists would pick up.
Could we just consider “God” to be a personification like “Lady Luck” or “Mother Nature?” Perhaps, but then it can’t carry any more weight than any other personification. Does a monotheist want the name of his god to be on par with “Mother Nature,” a mere poetic reference? Even the neopagans who worship what most of us would understand to be Mother Nature don’t normally call her that–they prefer something like the generic “mother goddess” or the proper names of specific goddesses from various mythologies.
If you don’t know the name of your god, perhaps it is because your god is not a person. Perhaps your belief bring you closer to something more impersonal like “god-ness” or “deity.” Then why not say so? If you understand your god primarily through it’s attributes or purposes, why not refer to it as such, drawing on the 99 names for inspiration? If your god is a person (however you want to stretch that term), why don’t you know his or her name? Unless your god has told you otherwise, your god’s name isn’t “God” any more than your name is “Person” or “Human Being.” Perhaps your god keeps his or her name a secret. If that’s so, why? What’s the story?
According to one way the story is told, the god Yhwh keeps his name secret from everyone until Moses came along. And even then he promptly commands people not to use it–the whole “not taking his name in vain” bit. (It’s his name, don’t wear it out, eh?) Jewish thinkers had the good sense to substitute “Adonai” for the-name-that-shall-not-be-named, a tradition that spills over into English translations as “Lord.” (The use of “Yhwh” in the biblical text is distingished by printing “LORD,” in all caps.) In a monarchy, the habit would have carried quite a punch. But in a democratic era we have no lords or masters and don’t take kindly to being told we should have one even if he is a god. Any in any case, “lord” isn’t a name–it’s a title.
So, monotheists, what is your god’s name?
Why America outpaces Europe?
06.08.03 | Permalink | 2 Comments
Some questions for Niall Ferguson, following his article in the NYT. When did correlation start implying cause? You admit that Europe has been catching up with US productivity for fifty years, yet discount this fact because Europeans are working less? How does that work? What if your average overworked American is worse off for it than his average “idle” European counterpart? Why doesn’t Japan count? Or perhaps there is some “Shinto work ethic” you intend to propose?
You note, “Many scholars have built careers out of criticizing Weber’s thesis. Yet the experience of Western Europe in the past quarter-century offers an unexpected confirmation of it.” Please explain how this sweeping generalization neatly disposes of a century of Weber studies. There is a general trend of rising socioeconomic status among new Pietist sects over several generations, a trend that is followed by socioeconomic stability, demographic decline and increased leisure. Isn’t that all you said? And, if that’s the case, wouldn’t that put Europe ahead of the US, since it had Pietism first?
» Next Entries
