The Lord is my shepherd
God is nameless, because no one can say anything or understand anything about him.
It was for statements like this that the Dominican friar known as Meister Eckhart was nearly condemned as a heretic. He was an employee of the Catholic Church, an organization which claimed an exclusive right to say things about God; and justified its existence thereby.
This issue, as to what can or cannot be said about God, is not one that came to me suddenly out of the blue. It arose in the first place from brooding and scribbling over the last few weeks on a point raised by Tom: “Solidity is an Illusion”. He touches on the nature of reality, and whether we are able to perceive it, given our limited senses and understanding. Tom is in the interesting position of being able to see from two contrasting perspectives. He has trained and practised as a physicist, and so knows better than most that the table you can rap your knuckles on and pronounce solid is made mostly of empty space. Like the universe of stars and planets, its atoms are widely-spaced dots of energy. But he is also a mystic, conducting his own experiments within the “psycho-spiritual realm”. Here too he declares that we don’t see things as they really are, since our perceptions are “heavily coloured by emotive issues, past experiences, moods and so on”. So he concludes that everything we claim to know is illusion.
The effect of sermons by Meister Eckhart and Blogger Tom is to make me curious and perhaps hungry to know the things which are hidden from me. After all, humans are pre-eminent amongst primates for curiosity. I don’t mean to accuse Tom of being a sermonising preacher, but he did pique my interest, and I heckled him: “OK then, if all we can know is illusion, how can we know anything of reality, if we can only speculate about its existence?”
Had the blogger in question been Bryan White and not Tom I would not have dared raise such a topic again; not after the month we spent on intense and frustrating arguments which remain on record here: “Strangers in Paradox”. Our efforts were originally directed at producing a jointly-authored book, and after their collapse I clung to the hope that at least we’d had a “learning experience”—a cliché wheeled out to put a brave face on dismal failure. Several years later, I think I may have truly learned something from it.
Yes, I see it more clearly now. There is a class of words that lend themselves to disputes which are never solved. They are terms which have no definitive meaning. You can’t point to them, touch them, rap your knuckles on them. You cannot put them in a sealed plastic bag and present them to the jury as Exhibit A. We know them as abstract nouns, but some of them deserve to be called rhetorical nouns: words like Reality, Truth, Justice, Freedom, Rights. They are there to be fought over. The self-proclaimed winner gets to attain the “moral high ground”, or in politics, power. These words are rallying points for any warring faction, as were historically the Royal Standard, or a Duke’s gaudy pennon, fluttering above all the carnage in mediaeval battles.
Rhetorical nouns exist to persuade, justify, remind, condemn. Not that we are always in confrontation with others. We may use them to persuade, justify, remind and condemn our own selves. People devote their lives and sometimes surrender them, all for their own interpretations of Reality, Truth, Justice, Freedom and Rights. We don’t exactly give our lives for the meaning of words. We just talk as though we do. “He gave his life for his country.” Yes, maybe.
There’s a bigger word, a more potent rallying point, that carries an even greater rhetorical weight, affects behaviour—good and bad—more than any other. The word is God. I’ve never known if I believed in God. I never understood the question. I usually answered “yes”. But I didn’t understand my answer. I’m with Meister Eckhart on this one, and with Lao Tzu, when he says “Those who speak don’t know. Those who know, don’t speak.”
When I see “God” as a rhetorical word, its sense depends on the context I find it in. “Do you believe in God?” means “Which side are you on?” There’s a rallying cry, often uttered in Arabic, “God is great!” whose context is sometimes shameful, and at other times questionable to the outsider.
If a word were merely rhetorical, it would have no power of persuasion. It can do no real work unless it’s descriptive of a certain kind of experience or idea, in contrast to something else. “This is real.” “That is illusory.” “Such-and-such is unjust.” The purpose of the rhetoric is to lay claim to territory, by establishing boundaries. Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things which are God’s. “God exists before His Creation.” “God’s will is not the same as blind chance.” Etcetera.
Once more I shall side with Meister Eckhart, or rather his quoted words, and disclaim knowledge of any attributes of God—almighty, all-loving & so forth—as pure hearsay. There are millions who have a personal relationship with God. It makes no sense to doubt the fact, just as it makes no sense to doubt someone who claims to be in pain. Many atheists don’t grasp this point. Confidence in their own scepticism persuades them that a personal relationship with God is illusory. This is like the doctor telling you not to waste his time, as tests have proved you have no pain. What started off as private experience now becomes the subject of argument and persuasion. It is falsely subsumed into rhetoric: falsely because it’s pointless to argue about how people choose to describe their own experience. One person says God is her rock and fortress. Someone else has the same experience of being secure and certain in his existence, and doesn’t call it anything. God has never been a word I’ve chosen to use on my own account.
A private relationship with God, so-called, can grow and flourish in its mixture of ecstasy and desolation, and all the ground between, with no interruption or compromise. And as I’ve indicated, it might not have any label put upon it. I suspect this is what Eckhart means, in the quotation above.
And then there is religion, which contains every kind of compromise and contradiction. For many, it’s a necessary shock-absorber for the pains and disadvantages of the states we are born into, whether ascribed to original sin or the random mistakes of a blind Evolution. Religion is the nearest thing to a panacea. It may be less or more injurious than other drugs, addictions and treatments for the human condition. It’s a boon and/or a curse. It’s a house of many mansions, some of which have cells in which a private relationship with God may flourish.
In reality, then, there are no religions which are false. All are true in their own fashion; all answer, though in different ways, to the given conditions of human existence. (Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life)
Lest it be thought that the private relationship of which I speak is forever hidden from others’ view, and ought to remain “nameless, because no one can say anything or understand anything” about it, I refer to the Book of Psalms, that well-known anthology of sacred poetry. With unsurpassed eloquence, it expresses the yearning and thanksgiving of the soul, as well as sometimes “a vindictive spirit of personal revenge which is repellent to the modern reader”*. It also gives meaning to the idea of God, as in the well-loved Psalm 23, a poem which requires no kind of belief, yet offers profound comfort:
The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures;
He leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul;
He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.
Yet, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil; for thou art with me;
Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies:
Thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life,
And I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.
——————
*Ernest Sutherland Bates, editor of The Bible Designed to be Read as Literature.
PS 14th August 2018: Martin Buber was another who said that we cannot know anything about God. Alfred North Whitehead, on the other hand, has plenty to say, with some very original thoughts which I cannot do justice to here.
12 thoughts on “The Lord is my shepherd”
I did so enjoy this. If it wasn't that I need to follow another part of my journey, I would have liked to have given time, energy and thought to this…..and responded. Another day, another time perhaps.
Hi Tom, glad you enjoyed it. I imagine others have too but it's so quiet round here that it is hard to know.
You imagine right.
I've enjoyed reading this too. Confusing; God and physics. Both to sacred for intrusion of simple me. All I know is all I am and that's all I'll ever be. Everything as a whole just seems simple and right.
All I want from eternity is the reality I imagined it to be when I was a child. That all of those beautiful clouds over my head really and truly are angels flying on their bellies keeping an eye on things. I believe when we die that we choose to be whatever it is that we like. I like clouds and birds and angels. All I want my reality to be forever is to always be of use to my grand-babies, my kids and everybody else that I am restricted from helping in this life.
Happy belated Father's Day, by the way. I thought of you fondly yesterday, because you are so kind to me and mean so much. You crossed my mind while at a family gathering of many relatives ;( and the sky was so beautiful and full of hawks that I couldn't help but think of 'A Wayfaring Notes'. I wished while looking out across the field that I could have treated you and your wife to a yummy Father's Day lunch of roast beef and gravy and dessert. Would have if I could have.
Ah well
Bless you, dear Cindy, for your first public comment here, and for putting things in a nutshell so beautifully, saying in few simple words what took me rather many. Our feelings and yearnings can carry us through, but we need a myth to live by, and a form of expression. It naturally overflows the merely rational, and becomes poetic, effortlessly leaping across time, distance & the limitations of everyday life.
And thank you for your thoughts on Father's Day. I don't think it was much celebrated over here until a few years ago, but now it's very much on the calendar. We had a tiny family gathering, just my younger daughter who lives five minutes' walk away, and a lunch of roast lamb; & text messages from other offspring far away.
And I've been thinking of you too, glad that you've kept in touch this way, when I was wondering whether to send you an email . . .
Sounds like you had a wonderful Father's Day :-). I've never had lamb. Not sure, but I think only rich people eat it here.
(Blush) Sweet compliment. Thank You, but I embarrass myself. My intended few quiet words turned into lengthy babble. You are so kind to make this old shoe feel like a golden pheasant.
You're newest post hits home. I'm thinking on it and appreciating it more than you will ever know.
:0)
Lovely post Vincent. A very spiritual like minded Canadian friend ( sadly he is no more) recommended Master Eckhart and I too intend to read him whenever the time comes. His mention drew me to you blog again after a long gap.
Yes it has been a long time, Ashok. I visit yours regularly but seldom give in to the urge to comment these days, which may be a relief to you as I used to argue strongly against some of the positions you took! (Panspermia, etc!)
As for Eckhart, I did have a book of his translated writings once, sermons if I recall correctly, and I admired them greatly. But that was when I was truly spiritual in yearnings. A refreshing scepticism has taken over, as you may have spotted in the piece above & elsewhere. Not scepticism as denial of experience, but rejection of all belief.
Yes as regards the spiritual side it is good to follow the heart and the way I have come to look at it is that the universe is so unknowable and infinite and all positions are acceptable and impossible to describe by words in any case. The true position is in the heart and impossible for others to know or describe too. Even the feeling of happiness or peace is fully known only to the one who experiences but one may discern a glow or depression on a face at times.
This is a beautifully succinct exposition which I shall borrow (if I may) to use when I get drawn into discussions of 'spirituality' (something I try to avoid nowadays, but it does happen). I particularly like: “it’s pointless to argue about how people choose to describe their own experience”. It is pointless – but amazingly popular!
Thank you, Gentleeye. I felt pleased to have summarized in not-too-many words one of the main things that I've tried to unravel and express on this blog in the last eight years. Perhaps I'll be like you from now on and try to avoid further discussion of spirituality.
Thank you dear Ashok. I cannot argue with any of what you say!
. . . and you've inspired me to read Meister Eckhart again. In case you would too, here's a link to a version of his sermons available for Kindle – the cheapest and most rapidly available version. (The link is for Amazon India but the book is also available in Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com)