Why I Don't Say Its Name

Updated: Dec 28, 2020

I avoid saying it because people already have a concept of it framed in their minds-- a point of light or consciousness that controls everything. But this is a short-sighted view of it, definitely not what I am referring to. A centralized entity contradicts omnipresence. Therefore, I used to say the divine. Consider how people conceptualize the divine-- expansive, infinite, spiritual, and ecstatic. But it too isn't what I want to say.


The image evoked by the word "divine" is itself limited by the concept of it, which I myself introduced when I said it. By saying the word "divine", I created the same trap I wanted to evade by not saying "God". I still ended up conveying a concept or "an image of God". But the moment you form an image, it is no longer what I talking of.


The act of making invokes "a maker", which is the self(ego) here. It becomes your God, your invention, not the God. However, truth is not an invention but a discovery.


See, when you give up all knowledge and all concepts of God, you might have a realization, but you can't say it. Saying it requires putting it into a concept or an image. "Those who know don't speak. Those who speak don't know." Ever heard this one?

Recent Posts

See All

Why It Can Only Be Formless

It must be formless for it to be in everything and in everyone. How else can it be omnipresent if it has a form? It can have no name, for it

Contribute

paypal.me/philosophicallyInc

If you are from India, my UPI is philosophically@ybl. It will pick up my name, Ujjwal Anand.

You can also contribute non-financially. I need people to help me with marketing, monetizing, and other uncategorized tasks. Email me if you want to help me out.