The Central Paradox of All Faiths

[Harel13]

I've had an audacious thought that naturally wants me to let it loose on the Internet...

The central revelation of all religion is the understanding and preservation of the meaning and value of the Name and that to which it refers. Meaning arises from the Name being good and valuable and in some way belonging to its knower. The meaning of the Name must not be sullied by associations with what is bad or of no value. In truth the Name pervades all things in such a way that the right mental effort yields value in all things THROUGH the Name.

The Name is knowable but not finally reducible to any other specific physical object or mental idea. It is, in this sense, immune to critique or corruption even as it is ephemeral in the extreme. Those who literalize or otherwise try to anchor the subject of the Name to an idea or physical reality create the potential for the corruption of that name. At the same time it requires a continuous diligence in our hearts and minds not to want to corrupt the Name in exactly this way.

Anyway any sincere thoughts welcome.

I don't understand. Why is this a paradox?

 

[PureX]

There is no 'name' in taoism.

 

[sealchan]

There is no name in my belief that requires such protection.

How would you describe your belief?

 

[sealchan]

"A name" is, initially, relevant in a direct one-to-one communication. "Hey, you" is ambiguous and leaves room for any passerby to answer or for the person you're addressing to fail to realize that you're addressing him or her.

This helps me to pivot to the idea behind the OP which how this fits into human cognition. The Name is a word which is a noun which is a word for a person, place or thing. As such the Name is already secretly sullied by that fact. Whatever It is it is already just a thought about something that exists in the human mind like anything else. It is a mask for an inexpressible...thing. it is in this sense fundamentally a conundrum "whose" mystical uncertainty makes mystics smile and philosophers cross.

It is Hofstadter's strange loop. It is the paradox of the chicken and the egg.

But it is also a thought in the mind with all the physical, neural behavior that goes along with it. It has an objective ground in that sense and as such it can, at least in part, be explained (?away) as such.

What is this paradoxically "ephemeral thing" of "great value" that no one can fully agree as to its proper name?

 

[sealchan]

Although you said "of all faiths" in your title, being a Christian I assume your Name would refer to "God," "God the Father," "God of Abraham," "Jehovah," or "Yahweh," In which case not associating him with what is bad or of no value is to ignore what he's done. But what the hey, this is done all the time.

.

.

I'm not your standard Christian..

I would actually say that in the act of associating good and not bad one is again beginning to corrupt that to which the Name is pointing. In Christianity we do this pretty hard and we struggle to read the Book of Job or recognize its existence. Its message is central in a very, very uncomfortable way...so much so it lead Jung to write "An Answer to Job".

 

[sealchan]

I think it's a brilliant assessment. Of course... you probably know me well enough by now to know... I'm already trying to think of counter-examples.

I can only think of one. But I'm not sure if it's a religion.

Non-Dualism... neti-neti... and such. If this is considered a religion ( and I'm not sure that it does ), then it soars far beyond any name at all.

Yes, and of course half the fun of posting such an idea is to see if anyone can usefully blow it apart.

And the first qualification I have discovered is that the OP is meant to apply to religion in the context of a rational system of belief. But non-dualism and indeed the heart of all religion, is to get past rationality even while using rationality, to touch on thoughts beyond human comprehension.

In other words go mystical...

But I love teetering on the brink of that if I can.

 

[LuisDantas]

I've had an audacious thought that naturally wants me to let it loose on the Internet...

The central revelation of all religion is the understanding and preservation of the meaning and value of the Name and that to which it refers. Meaning arises from the Name being good and valuable and in some way belonging to its knower. The meaning of the Name must not be sullied by associations with what is bad or of no value. In truth the Name pervades all things in such a way that the right mental effort yields value in all things THROUGH the Name.

The Name is knowable but not finally reducible to any other specific physical object or mental idea. It is, in this sense, immune to critique or corruption even as it is ephemeral in the extreme. Those who literalize or otherwise try to anchor the subject of the Name to an idea or physical reality create the potential for the corruption of that name. At the same time it requires a continuous diligence in our hearts and minds not to want to corrupt the Name in exactly this way.

Anyway any sincere thoughts welcome.

Out of curiosity, have you been studying Judaism recently?

What you just described reminds me a lot of what I know of HaShem. In some parts it also reminds me of the Tao, although your conception of Name is a bit more, shall I say, aware of of human existence than I would expect of the Tao.

It also reminds me a lot of my own definition of religion (one of several) as the practice of contemplation, nurturing and expression of the Sacred. But your description is a bit too likely to slide into monotheism for my tastes. The Sacred does not conform to the expectations of monotheism.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't understand the NAME, or what it's supposed to mean, as it's outside my paradigm. Can you explain it to me?

In Hindu terms, it would be Brahma (is Adi-Brahma a thing?) if he had a touch of narcisism and were very adverse to expression and delegation, to the point of Shiva and Vishnu not existing as such.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

How would you describe your belief?

I'm an animist, trying to unlearn the influences of my western abrahamic materialist culture. I also find some aspects of Taoism to be useful, especially paraphrasing the Tao Te Ching: The Thing that can be named is not the eternal Thing.

Things exist, including Names, but names even capitalized are but maps of territories and are not the 'things' that we are referring to in language. Does a universal deity really care what any human calls it? It would be silly, to me, if it did. It would be like us insisting that tiny bacteria refer to us by our proper names...

Anyway, all that is (including thoughts), lives, and deserves to be treated with respect.

 

[sealchan]

I think there are probably several ways to express this. I see what you are saying as "Name" symbolizing all the highest, divine qualities in us that is provoked through inspiration in such high, archetypal symbols. "God", or "Brahman", inspires an image of the divine within us, and thus connects us with our highest Self, or that which is beyond the small egoic self as the center of our own existence, and is found in everything that exists. It need not be pronounced, or named, as that can change it from That which is all-encompassing, to an "it" or an object of curiosity.


But once named, therein lies the danger. "The Tao that can be named, is not the Tao". Making God an object for discussion, reduces it to nothing more than an extension of our own egos, a discussion or our ideas about God. Not an expression of the being of God, in our own being in the world. That's not named, that's danced.


The "Name" is a metaphor for the Self, that we look to in hopes to find Who we always have been.

If I recall correctly you may be a Jungian and so you mean Self as Jung has described it, the center of the psyche as a whole, conscious and unconscious, correct?

I've played around with Jung's ideas about the psyche enough to know that Self is, in Jungian circles, often equated with God. And as such Jung's formulation is toying with becoming its own religious language. I've also found that as cool and useful his phenomenological terminology of the psyche is, from a completely rational point of view it creates its own paradoxes. But this is probably a good sign if paradox figures as an objective quality of the human psychological experience.

Paradox is just so darn unpalatable to the Western Enlightenment rational way of thinking that it always leaves a bad taste in one's mouth at some point. That is partly why I like Douglas Hofstadter so much, he focuses on the paradox in human cognition. Concepts which make up the modern myth like free will and consciousness are a form of Name for modern secular thought which is similarly sacrosanct yet deeply inexplicable.

 

[sealchan]

Never heard of this before, but then I'm not familiar with that line of thinking. Why not just say God, if that's what you mean?

I probably didn't say God because Name evokes language more generally and other major faiths like Taoism might not acknowledge God as valid as God often carries the association of personal being.

I also see that modern, secular thought has a mythic underlying quality so obviously God is not applicable there.

But foremost is the notion that the human brain/mind uses words to refer to "things" and that this "wording up" of our experience is more central to human religion and human cognition. Wordifying? Wordification? The Word?

 

[sealchan]

The Name, to my understanding, is the template/plan/foundation of creation. What I suspect we corrupt is ourselves if we try to alter the Name to our own needs. I'd suppose we are pretty insignificant. I doubt there is anything man could do to affect the purity of the universe. Man can only affect the purity of himself.

Coming at it like this, I see this is the legitimate source of the often troubling notion that humanity is fundamentally corrupt. Without wanting to justify abusive self-abnegation, it is precisely like what it is we hold most dear in our faith based machinations, we can't help but trample and tarnish no matter what we do.

Jesus is more the Name than God is for Christians. In fact, in my study of dreams you can see that invoking the name of Jesus is a perfectly functional stand-in for establishing one's own secret name for/with God as Abram/Abraham does in Genesis. I think that for Christians it became too much to have to think about how to not hold God accountable and so the miracle of the life of Jesus is the stand-in paradox of the crucifixion which that explains why God was not so <insert less offensive synonym for evil) even though it sure looked like He was.

 

[sealchan]

One must never question. It will allow truth to creep in and destroy the Belief believers want to believe in so badly.

Everybody wants to rule the world. The choice is whether to seek the real truth or stay comfortable surrounded by those unquestionable beliefs.

I think it's sad that people do not insist on truth. On the other hand, given enough time and lessons, real truth will be realized.

It's all one more lesson to learn.

But where does truth lead? To a nice neat rational system that can supply the answers to all necessary questions? Or are there so many strings left dangling that to hold onto any of them is futile and even that vital sense that we need to know that we are a meaningful part of existence is to be deferred until the deadline of all deferrals arrives?

Can anyone truly live in that vacuum of meaning?

 

[sealchan]

Baha'i means follower of the light or glory.

Sounds close to Joseph Campbell's "follow your bliss". I like it.

 

[Jainarayan]

I've heard it put that the name(s) of God is/are non-different from God, which is why we chant the name(s)... the name is God. I'm not entirely sure I understand it; I try not to think too hard lest I get a brain-melting headache.

 

[Jainarayan]

In Hindu terms, it would be Brahma (is Adi-Brahma a thing?) if he had a touch of narcisism and were very adverse to expression and delegation, to the point of Shiva and Vishnu not existing as such.

There's Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman, Brahman without attributes and Brahman with attributes, respectively. Saguna Brahman becomes what we think of as "God". Nirguna Brahman is the basis of existence, actually it is existence (saccidananda: being consciousness, bliss)..

 

[sealchan]

All have names, real things or imaginary, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Pink Unicorn.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster...I would love to hear stories of this being over a nice plate of spaghetti with meatballs and garlic bread. I hope the movie comes out soon...

Is It like Godzilla only with sauce?

 

[sealchan]

I'm an animist, trying to unlearn the influences of my western abrahamic materialist culture. I also find some aspects of Taoism to be useful, especially paraphrasing the Tao Te Ching: The Thing that can be named is not the eternal Thing.

Things exist, including Names, but names even capitalized are but maps of territories and are not the 'things' that we are referring to in language. Does a universal deity really care what any human calls it? It would be silly, to me, if it did. It would be like us insisting that tiny bacteria refer to us by our proper names...

Anyway, all that is (including thoughts), lives, and deserves to be treated with respect.

Indeed. For many believers understanding this about their own faith makes it too fragile. But then again that faith is, perhaps, in something already too corrupted to make of it the benefit that was promised.

There is in all this a sense of development of one's spiritual understanding from the literal to the metaphorical to the trans-rational-meta-dual or whatever Ken Wilbur wants to call it.

 

[LuisDantas]

There's Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman, Brahman without attributes and Brahman with attributes, respectively. Saguna Brahman becomes what we think of as "God". Nirguna Brahman is the basis of existence, actually it is existence (saccidananda: being consciousness, bliss)..

Yes, I understand that the Name of the OP is not too far from some sort of amalgam of the two. Although of course "two" is mostly a matter of perception and description here.

It somewhat reminds me of the claim that God is both imanent and transcendent. And that, by its turn, lampshades to me how often there are attempts to claim that it somehow can't be one or the other.

One of these days I shall venture in an attempt at explaining why the worries of Islaam about "idolatry" are really not something that applies to Hinduism...

 

[LuisDantas]

I've heard it put that the name(s) of God is/are non-different from God, which is why we chant the name(s)... the name is God. I'm not entirely sure I understand it; I try not to think too hard lest I get a brain-melting headache.

Have you heard of Magritte's claim about what is not a pipe?

I figure that this is sort of the same claim, made in reverse. Sometimes two things clearly are not the same, yet they can't help but be the same, or at least perceived and treated as one and the same for all practical purposes.