Three theological references:
(i) After reflecting on the violence of the Talwinian seasons, Flandry thinks:
"And Djana believes in a God Who gives a damn?
"Or should I say, Who gives a blessing." (p. 273)
(ii) If Anyone is in charge of Flandry's existence, then He has given him noble pleasures but must not take them away yet.
(iii) In the Merseian base, there is:
"...a gong to call for prayers to the God of a world two and a half light-centuries hence." (p. 275)
My Reflections On Different Concepts Of God
Imagine for a moment that we accept Biblical or Koranic monotheism, then read:
"...Indra, the god of thunder, excelled all other gods, for he came nearest to Brahman and he first knew that he was the Spirit Supreme."
-Juan Mascaro (trans.), Kena Upanishad, Part 4, IN Mascaro (trans.), The Upanishads (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1984), p. 53.
Hinduism ascends from polytheism through monotheism to monism. Surely a Biblical or Koranic monotheist would have to say that the author of Kena Upanishad intuited God even if, of course, we do not accept either the terminology or the conceptual framework through which he expressed that intuition? I would say that the prophets intuited a reality which they personified. Some mystics go further and depersonify It.
We can imagine that our life is an interaction with a person who sometimes dispenses pleasures or blessings. My friend, Andrea, conceives of this person as Fortuna who must not be entreated but who favours the brave. Audentes fortuna iuvat: appropriate for van Rijn, Falkayn and Flandry.
1 comment:
Kaor, Paul!
What I thought, referring to your bullet point, was that Flandry came close to thinking of God in Manichaean terms. That is, the material world is bad, the creation of an evil God or Demiurge.
Manichaeananism was a spin off of Zoroastrianism, and regarded as a disgusting heresy by orthodox Zoroastrians.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment