Author in the News: Arthur Yavelberg Publishes Guest Article in Tucson Daily Star
On October 8, MSI Press author, Arthur Yavelberg, author of A Thoelogy for the Rest of Us, contributed an article to the Tucson Daily Star about...well, you can read it here and see what it is about:
"A Rose by Any Other Name"
by Arthur Yavelberg
While I am not a Catholic, I've never had a problem with the Trinity.
The idea that there is one essence that manifests itself in different forms in
different contexts was no challenge to me. The same is true of Krishna in
Hinduism, by the way. Depending on the seeker--the nature of the seeker
and the surrounding culture--Krishna could take any form that would be
positively received. When I was teaching in Chicago, it was not false
humility to recognize, for example, that basketball great Michael Jordan
and I could say exactly the same thing, but Jordan would get rapt attention
while I would be lucky if there was a drowsy yawn.
In the Bible, when Moses wants to know the name of God he should use
when addressing the Israelites in Egypt, God answers with “I am Who I am
(or, maybe even more precisely, “I will be Who I will be.”) (Ex. 3:14) The
vagueness of the text is intentional and significant. God is infinite and
unlimited—the “Ein Sof” “Without End) in the Kabbala of Jewish mysticism.
Labels and names, however, define and establish limits. They set
boundaries. A pencil is a pencil and not a whale. However, it is very
difficult for human beings to relate to the Infinite. As a result, the first
Hebrew letters of God’s statement--”Y-H-V-H"--became vocalized into the
acronym “Yahweh” and was later Anglicized into “Jehovah.” In so doing,
that which was meant to be mysterious and ineffable was turned into a
fixed identity and all its inherent limitations. In Biblical imagery, the
extraordinarily enigmatic “fiery bush that was not consumed” (Ex. 3:2) was
transformed into the idolatrous, Zeus-like “Old Man" of Michelangelo atop
the Sistine Chapel. In this context, it is little wonder that Muslims take the
Second Commandment “Thou shall not make any graven images” (Ex.
20:4) far more seriously than their spiritual brothers.
We don't usually think in such terms about ourselves, but the
paradigm is the same. I am a father to my sons, a son to my father, a
chess player (sort of) to others and, these days in particular, a voter to be
wooed, albeit very temporarily. Furthermore, besides all these persona --
originally from the Latin for theater "maska" -- there is a rather ambiguous
"me" that expresses itself in all these different forms. This “me” chooses
one face for one role and another for a different audience and setting.
Indeed, the myriad performances are such that it is the rare individual who
can distinguish between that which is real and that which is pretense.
Mystics talk about the "true Self" that is our fundamental identity that
is more essential than the conscious ego. I cannot say I have experienced
this Self--well, not personally, anyway--but I can't say it would surprise me
that one exists. It just reminds me of the Lincoln/Douglas debates back in
the 1800s. When Stephen Douglas accused Abraham Lincoln of being a
hypocrite, "Honest Abe" replied: "If I had two faces, do you really think I
would walk around with this one?"As it is, if I have an inner "true Self," I
don't understand why It couldn't have used a face like, say, Tom Cruise.
That would likely sell more books...and have gotten my student" attention
in class.
For more posts by and about Arthur Yavelbegr, click HERE.
For more posts about authors in the news, click HERE.
See more posts about language learning.
Comments
Post a Comment