Language as Idolatry

from JoeUser Forums
With palms together,
Good Morning Everyone,
 
Last night at our Temple's Journeys class, we concluded our discussions of Shabbat and the Sh'ma. Shabbat is our weekly day of rest and sanctification; Sh'ma is our understanding of the Unity or Oneness of God.  These classes have been a struggle for me. I am one who comes to God without an understanding of God.  I hesitate to name God "God" and prefer all inclusive terms like "the Absolute" or "the Infinite".
 
It occurred to me that language can be idolatrous. In fact, that is one of the many reasons we should not try to apply a name to God.  The Rabbis used terms like "the Holy One" or "Hashem"  (the Name) to avoid actually applying a noun directly to this verb. Zen Buddhists avoid God talk pretty much altogether, preferring instead to talk about Big Mind. Hmmm.  Like there is a difference.
 
As a Zen Buddhist Jew, I open to the Infinite in silence, deep silence.  The Buddha taught us that words should be used sparingly and Masters over the millenia have often used non-verbal means of opening a student to the truth of non-duality. The reason for this is that words fill in the gaps; they point to concepts, which are essentially pictures.  As so we are then in relationship with a picture or a concept and not the thing itself.
 
The Infinite is just that, infinite.  Not a He, She or It, the Infinite is all there is.  In Zen we refer to this essentially as Buddha Nature and when we can see it, listen to it, study it, it is the Dharma.  But as the chant before a Teisho goes, "it is incomparably profound and minutely subtle." 
 
I practice most often in silence whether it is through meditation, prayer, or study.  My ecstasy is silent illumination.
 
May we each find our own way,
Be well.
religion
6,297 views 20 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top

I hesitate to name God "God" and prefer all inclusive terms like "the Absolute" or "the Infinite".

I like Ephraim Kishon's German term best:

"die hoechste Stelle"

It literally means "the highest instance" and in German creates the image of a lead position in a very bureaucratic civil service.

 

 

Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

LOL.  I will pass this along to a friend in shul who is a German professor.

 

BTW, you are doing a real service on TC blog. Thank you.

Shabbat Shalom

Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

I will pass this along to a friend in shul who is a German professor.

It's really not translateable. He will probably find it unrealistically funny, at least if he also understand the German mentality.

 

BTW, you are doing a real service on TC blog. Thank you.

Thanks. I like comparative theology.

 

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Words are powerful, magical, and to be revered.  One can, quite literally, speak things into creation.  Your own (jewish) concept of G-d did just that.

Very true, LW. And very much to the point.

You probably know this, but in Hebrew the word for "thing" is the same as for "word" ("davar") and the word for "happen" is the same as for "read" ("qore'").

 

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well, I am FAR (and I mean really, really far) from being fluent in Hebrew, but I do know some

Yes, I know. I just didn't want to insult your intelligence by telling you something that you likely already knew (trivia about Hebrew words).

I am myself not fluent in Hebrew, but like you use them in prayers/rituals and (unlike you) for communication. :-)

 

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

If you knew, KNEW, without a doubt, that you could pull the entire universe through your hands like soft taffy, molding it into whatever shape or form you desired...what would you do with that knowledge?  What do YOU want?

How much influence would I have over the details?

I have always had this idea of making the world into two so we could see who is right about how best to run it.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

I can see only one obvious problem, assuming I can clone the world and transfer people with no problems.

The obvious problem is that both sides might be wrong and only the need for compromise kept the world going.

Although in some instances I am virtually certain what the results would be.

 

Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top

Interesting discussion.  I do not disagree that words are powerful.  I actually love them and as a writer and student they are indespesable.  Yet, words are the symbols we use to reference or connect with something else: always it is the "something else" that is most important. To me this is as true speaking of a tree as it is of speaking of the Infinite. Words' very power, however, can get us into trouble, in my opinion, when we focus our attention of them, as if they were the thing they reference.

 

As for pulling the world through my hands, my hands are the world already.  I pretty much like it as it is: vast process. 

 

Its good to see you posting again, LW.  A bow to you.

 

 

Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top

hint: think of So Daiho's deathly silence....)

 

Ha!  LW, dualities live within a whole: each are required by the other. The Dao is both yin and yang. 

 

*Screaming from the rooftops*  I will be silent! 

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Interesting discussion all.  I will revisit when I have more time.

Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top

LW, it is very difficult to come this non-duality in the everyday.  Many attempt to do this parttime, at Church or Synagogue or maybe on weekend treks into a park or forest to get "in touch" with some unknown or unnamed thing, God, or force. The thing is, as we both have (I think) experienced, there is no need to go anywhere.  We but need to stop and listen. Those weekend adventures with the divine can be pathways, but they are often ignored through the week, unfortunately.  And worse, seen as somehow separate.

 

My own thougt on the matter is that it is our language and our very brains that get in the way.  Would that we could make our brains dust and let it settle. A clear sky.

Be well.

Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top

or "Hashem"

What a magnificent word !!!! I didnt know that it is a Hebrew word too

BTW, you are doing a real service on TC blog. Thank you.

both of you are ... and Thanks for both of you and for LW also.

Words are powerful, magical, and to be revered.

that is sooo true ... and i think that is part of the problem that SoDaiho is pointing out.

Since they are powerful we think they are always capable of conveying what is being said .... however when it comes to major concepts ... "God" being the ultimate cpncept .... words fall short no matter who the speaker is and no matter how accurate and powerful they are ....

The reason for that, i think, is our own inability to understand some things beyond certain limit ... The infinite, God, ... and even what Quantum Mechanics say ..

words were made for us ... and we are limited and so are they.

Qura'an is considered, by all Arabic Language scholars, the most eloquent text ever written in Arabic. and sometimes it is really mesmerizing in its eloquence and clarity.

However, there are two verses in Qura'an talking about the nature of God. the verses are trying to give us a glimpse of who He is like ....

so far and after more than 1400 yrs no scholar was able to explain the two verses by anything more than repeating what they say ...

the picture the two verses present is very powerful but hard to grasp ....

that is how the words fail no matter how powerful they are

here is the translation of the two verses:

In the first Verse, called the "verse of the Throne" (Chap. 2, verse 255) He describes Himself as follows:

 

“Allah, no Lord but Him, the living custodian, He is never taken by a nap or sleep, He owns whatever in heaves and Earth; who (anywhere) has the power to intercede with Him without His permission?, He knows whatever ahead and whatever behind them, and they can't know anything of His knowledge except by His will; His throne encompasses the Heavens and the Earth and their sustenance doesn’t tire Him a bit, and He is the Exulted Great."

 

The second verse, called "The verse of Light” (chap 24, v. 25) He again describes Himself as follows:

 

"Allah, the light of Heavens and Earth, His light is like a cove in a wall with a lantern inside, The lantern in a glass, the glass is like a gleaming planet that is lit from a blessed tree, it is (the tree) like an Olive neither an eastern nor a western one, its oil almost shines even no fire touches it; (He is) Light upon Light; Allah guides to His light whomever He wills; and Allah gives people examples; and Allah is all knowing about everything."

 

The second one  makes my head really spins !!!!

 

Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top

I hesitate to name God "God" and prefer all inclusive terms like "the Absolute" or "the Infinite".

I can understand why you say this.

Christians call God "God" in a personal sense, the Eternal Personage.  That God is Absolute and Infinite describe His Perfections.

The Infinite is just that, infinite. Not a He, She or It, the Infinite is all there is. In Zen we refer to this essentially as Buddha Nature and when we can see it, listen to it, study it, it is the Dharma.

This parsed out correctly, you're saying "The Infinite" is Buddha Nature and the Dharma?

 

 

 

 

Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top

so far and after more than 1400 yrs no scholar was able to explain the two verses by anything more than repeating what they say ...

Here is what He (i.e. God) says about our inability to understand those major concepts:

Talking about the Judgment Day, He say:

 

"In that day .... You (each one of us) will see the truth ... the veil on your eyes will be lifted ... and on that day your vision will be steely"

 

That is all we can know about His nature in this life. Saying anything else is not justified ... it will be misleading...  

 

Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top

Christians call God "God" in a personal sense, the Eternal Personage. That God is Absolute and Infinite describe His Perfections.

 

Yes.  Yet, therein lies a trap.  When we consider a word pointing to a personage or thing or concept, we are essentially, creating an idol and the Infinite in His commandments asks us not to do this. Perhaps the reason is that we as human beings will confuse the thing for God and stop our spiritual inquiry believing we have found what we are looking for.

 

This parsed out correctly, you're saying "The Infinite" is Buddha Nature and the Dharma?

 

Yes, in essence.  Buddha Nature is the spiritual equivalent of the Ein Sof: vast emptiness.  We experience this in awakening and in prayer as we approach God with kavenah (intention) and reach what Jewish mystics call,  devakut (a sort of deep cleaving to, and oneness with, God).

 

Be well.

 

 

 

Reply #16 from Stardock Forums Top

amazing discussions...so rare to find thoughtful minds in the Spheres of Blogo....

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Christians call God "God" in a personal sense, the Eternal Personage. That God is Absolute and Infinite describe His Perfections.

Yes. Yet, therein lies a trap.

No ....no trap here.

When we consider a word pointing to a personage or thing or concept, we are essentially, creating an idol and the Infinite in His commandments asks us not to do this.

By a Personal God, Christians mean a Divine Being who has an identity that is all His own, the "I AM, WHO AM" (so there is no way of "creating an idol" when understanding  The sacred name of God appears in various ways, Exodus 3:14,  says, "I AM, WHO AM" that is, I am Being Itself, Eternal, Self-Existent, Infinite, without beginning, end or change, and the source of all other beings.

Sh'ma is our understanding of the Unity or Oneness of God. These classes have been a struggle for me. I am one who comes to God without an understanding of God. I hesitate to name God "God"

Sodaiho,

Perhaps you could try putting it all together this way...

As you say, Jews understand the unity and Oneness of God through Sh'ma. Catholics confess God's Oneness through the Creed..."I believe in One God" which has its root in the divine revelation of the Old Covenant, Deut. 6:4-5. To Israel, God's chosen, He revealed Himself as the only ONe: "Hear, O Isreal: The Lord our God is one Lord: and you shall love the LOrd your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your might."  

Through the prophets, God calls Isreal and all nations to turn to Him, the One and only God. Isaias 45:22-24. 

God revealed Himself to His people Israel by making His name known to them. A name expresses a person's essence and identity and the meaning of this person's life. God has a name: He is not an anonymous force. To disclose one's name is to make oneself known to others.

God revealed Himself progressively and under different names to His people, but the revelation that proved to be the fundamental one for both the Old and the New Covenants was th erevelation of the divine name to Moses in the theophany of the burning bush, on the threshold of the Exodus and of the COvenant of Sinai.

God called Moses from the midst of the burning bush..."I am the God of your Father, the God of Abraham, ..of Isaac...of Jacob." God is the God of the fathers, the One who had called and guided the patriarchs in their wanderings, He is faithful and compassionate and remembers them and His promises...He comes to free their descendents from slavery. He is the God who from beyond space and time can do this and will to do it, the GOd who will put His almighty power to work for this plan.

In revealing His mysterious name, YHWH ("I AM HE WHO IS", "I AM WHO AM"or "I AM WHO I AM", God says who He is and by what name He is to be called. He is the God who makes Himself close to us.  This is why Christians call God "God" in a personal sense, the Eternal Personage.

No trap, no idolatry. Good, clear, consistent understanding of what God said of Himself.

 

 

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

I have to correct myself.

The Hebrew words for "read" and "happen" are NOT the same. They derive from two different roots, QRA and QRT respectively ("A" is a glottal stop or zero).

The words sound the same when conjugated in the present tense (qore' and qoreh), hence my confusion.

I did remember that Hebrew "to read" was relevant though because the word also means "to name".

LQRVA ("liqro'") = to read

LQRVT ("liqrot") = to happen

Sorry, my bad. But the words simply sound the same except in the infinitive and past/future tense.

 

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Fascinating article and discussion.

The study of semantics suggests that a word's power is merely that which you give it. So if you use a word like 'the infinite' to refer to your definition of divinity, you're no less restricting and idolating it than a good Catholic might by calling it God.

It's our minds that need expanding, not just our words. The more words we know to use, the better we express our beliefs, but more importantly the more fully we can hold our beliefs. But it's still more important to understand what infinite can mean than to be able to express it. And that means seeking truth on different levels beyond that of words. When you know that "God" or "the infinite" is hopelessly inadequate, then the words you use hold no power as idols.

Reply #20 from Stardock Forums Top

The study of semantics suggests that a word's power is merely that which you give it. So if you use a word like 'the infinite' to refer to your definition of divinity, you're no less restricting and idolating it than a good Catholic might by calling it God.

Excellent point, Cacto. I use this term mostly as  more way of telling myself "no limits" to God than "defining" or even naming God. 

My caution has to do with the heart and mind of the speaker, not what God's name actually is, for as Lula rightly points out, the bible refers to God by several names.  Yet, it remains that God Himself says His name is "ineffable" and when we examine the Hebrew letters it is so. Each letter is an outward breath with no hard sound.

Jewish mystical traditions give great power to the Hebrew alef bet.  They suggest that God made the world through His utterance, His word and breath, so each letter has great power.  This is very similar to what LW points out.  It is also why we should be very cautious in our use of language as regards God so that we do not mistake the source of the power: its not the word or the name, but where the word and name comes from and what it represents. 

God said to make no idols. ...not even of Himself.  Why?  My position is that an idol by definition is a static thing or understanding.  It is not alive, not dynamic, not process. not evolving.  When we use a word thinking it is God or has the power of God we create an image in our mind. And there it is.

In Zen we work hard not to get stuck on concepts.  We say the thing is not what we call it, that's just what we call it.  What is it before we call it something? 

This practice leads us away from thinking our mind is reality, by showing us that, in fact, our mind creates a reality from sensory input.

The practice of prayer or in Hebrew, t'filah (the root of this word is PLL or to "judge") is an introspective task not really directed toward God as such, but more a process of preparing ourselves to meet God, join God, and become acceptable to God.

This practice of t'filah is really all about dropping ourselves away, dropping our concepts away and becoming selfless and egoless, i.e., pure before God.

Be well.