Post by Andorinha on Jan 18, 2009 9:34:42 GMT -6
Eä and Arda
__________________________________________
Reply
Message 1 of 11 in Discussion
From: Azurite (Original Message)
Sent: 4/14/2002 1:43 PM
I was confused for some time what the difference was between Eä and Arda.
I have concluded that Eä was the cosmos - all that exists physically - and that Arda was a small part of it that was taken by the Ainur (and the Valar) and molded into a beautiful setting for Ilúvatar's next creation, life.
Rather like putting a garden in one part of a continent.
namaste,
Azurite
_____________________________________________
Reply
Message 2 of 11 in Discussion
From: megn1
Sent: 4/14/2002 3:11 PM
Azurite,
Your right in that interpretation.
In the Index of Names, in the back of Sil, under "Ea" it says
"The World, the material Universe; Ea, meaning in Elvish 'it is' or 'Let it be,' was the word of Iluvatar when theWorld began its existence."
"Arda" is "'The Realm,' name of the Earth as the Kingdom of Manwe."
I like the fact that the universe is named "Be." (Even though some here may want to remove that word from our vocabulary..." All creation is "that which is."
____________________________________________
Reply
Message 3 of 11 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameLord_Algamesh
Sent: 4/14/2002 10:29 PM
To simplify it further:
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.
compared to:
In the beginning Iluvatar created Eä and Arda
Eä, in my mind is simply the void in which the stars and formless matter exists. Arda is that Earth which was formless and assumed order through the labours of the Ainur.
All creation myths begin with some form of "continuum" ... be it "The Void", a Fathomless Sea", a "Medium of Infinite Immensity", etc. Remember, Tolkien was creating a "creation myth" and I don't believe there is any other way to do it properly. There must always be something, even if it is "nothingness" to bring order from chaos. Talk about your paradox ... hehe.
The question I would like to pose is where exists "The Outer Void" where Melkor found himself banished to at last? Whoops ... let's hold off on that ... a few chapters down the road !!!
Algamesh
_______________________________________________
Reply
Message 4 of 11 in Discussion
From: sparrow
Sent: 4/18/2002 10:07 PM
It is interesting that Ea means "it is" or "let it be."
I am reminded that when Moses inquired of God's name, the respones translates roughly to be a form of the verb to be.
We are talking about origins and essences here.
_____________________________________________
Reply
Message 5 of 11 in Discussion
From: Ailin-i-Faila
Sent: 4/27/2002 1:14 PM
Yes, ea means "is" and Ea means "it is" or let it be". ea can also mean "exists" in a more absolute way than ná. The Ea this post is referring to basically means "All Creation". In other words, Ea is everthing that is.
______________________________________________
Reply
(1 recommendation so far)
Message 6 of 11 in Discussion
From: Amaranth
Sent: 5/7/2002 3:41 PM
> Yes, ea means "is" and Ea means "it is" or let it be". ea can
> also mean "exists" in a more absolute way than ná. The Ea
> this post is referring to basically means "All Creation". In
> other words, Ea is everthing that is.
I'm not sure about Ea being everything that is. It's everything
*material* or physical, but not of spirit. Iluvatar and the Ainur
surely aren't part of Ea. Ea reminds me of Hinduism's maya.
Brahma (?) is Absolute Reality: unable to be divided, eternal,
infinite and all that. Maya (Ea) arises from that. Like, Reality
(with a capital "R") and reality (with a lower-case "r").
Diana
___________________________________________
Reply
Message 7 of 11 in Discussion
From: MusicMom
Sent: 5/7/2002 10:02 PM
As a side note--when we had the discussion about trying to express ourselves without using forms of the verb "to be" as I remember we talked about stating ideas more clearly (and perhaps more concisely). It also seemed to mean to try not to express ideas as absolutes which tend to shut off discusion. If "All creation is 'that which is'" perhaps using the verb 'to be' in expressing our ideas might seem presumptuous--trying to exert our ideas and authority on the universe (a la Melkor?). Just a thought late at night!
MusicMom
_______________________________________________
Reply
Message 8 of 11 in Discussion
From: megn1
Sent: 5/8/2002 9:44 PM
And a good thought it is, MusicGrandmom!
Indeed, if "Be" is the name of the universe, and the word which called it into existence, then perhaps we should use the word with reverence, and only when we truly mean all that the word implies.
___________________________________________
Reply
Message 9 of 11 in Discussion
From: Glorfindle
Sent: 5/8/2002 11:44 PM
Perhaps translation of the word "US"...is appropriate. When I listen to the glorious thoughts of MusicMom and Megn...I think in terms of "us". Perhaps the word "god" is really a word that is US and speaks to us
I feel and know god in US....The "EA" is US... and us is in it. All my friends here....I could not think of a world without you all in it.
Glor1
________________________________________________
Reply
Message 10 of 11 in Discussion
From: sparrow
Sent: 5/9/2002 4:23 PM
Good point, Glor, US is very descriptive of God. In the first chapters of Genesis, first person plural pronouns are used to refer to God. Later, Ephesians says "one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all." And, of course, in the New Testament, much emphasis is placed on seeing God in our fellow man.
~Sparrow
____________________________________________
Reply
Message 11 of 11 in Discussion
From: Ailin-i-Faila
Sent: 5/12/2002 11:49 AM
That is basically what I was saying.
__________________________________________
Reply
Message 1 of 11 in Discussion
From: Azurite (Original Message)
Sent: 4/14/2002 1:43 PM
I was confused for some time what the difference was between Eä and Arda.
I have concluded that Eä was the cosmos - all that exists physically - and that Arda was a small part of it that was taken by the Ainur (and the Valar) and molded into a beautiful setting for Ilúvatar's next creation, life.
Rather like putting a garden in one part of a continent.
namaste,
Azurite
_____________________________________________
Reply
Message 2 of 11 in Discussion
From: megn1
Sent: 4/14/2002 3:11 PM
Azurite,
Your right in that interpretation.
In the Index of Names, in the back of Sil, under "Ea" it says
"The World, the material Universe; Ea, meaning in Elvish 'it is' or 'Let it be,' was the word of Iluvatar when theWorld began its existence."
"Arda" is "'The Realm,' name of the Earth as the Kingdom of Manwe."
I like the fact that the universe is named "Be." (Even though some here may want to remove that word from our vocabulary..." All creation is "that which is."
____________________________________________
Reply
Message 3 of 11 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameLord_Algamesh
Sent: 4/14/2002 10:29 PM
To simplify it further:
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.
compared to:
In the beginning Iluvatar created Eä and Arda
Eä, in my mind is simply the void in which the stars and formless matter exists. Arda is that Earth which was formless and assumed order through the labours of the Ainur.
All creation myths begin with some form of "continuum" ... be it "The Void", a Fathomless Sea", a "Medium of Infinite Immensity", etc. Remember, Tolkien was creating a "creation myth" and I don't believe there is any other way to do it properly. There must always be something, even if it is "nothingness" to bring order from chaos. Talk about your paradox ... hehe.
The question I would like to pose is where exists "The Outer Void" where Melkor found himself banished to at last? Whoops ... let's hold off on that ... a few chapters down the road !!!
Algamesh
_______________________________________________
Reply
Message 4 of 11 in Discussion
From: sparrow
Sent: 4/18/2002 10:07 PM
It is interesting that Ea means "it is" or "let it be."
I am reminded that when Moses inquired of God's name, the respones translates roughly to be a form of the verb to be.
We are talking about origins and essences here.
_____________________________________________
Reply
Message 5 of 11 in Discussion
From: Ailin-i-Faila
Sent: 4/27/2002 1:14 PM
Yes, ea means "is" and Ea means "it is" or let it be". ea can also mean "exists" in a more absolute way than ná. The Ea this post is referring to basically means "All Creation". In other words, Ea is everthing that is.
______________________________________________
Reply
(1 recommendation so far)
Message 6 of 11 in Discussion
From: Amaranth
Sent: 5/7/2002 3:41 PM
> Yes, ea means "is" and Ea means "it is" or let it be". ea can
> also mean "exists" in a more absolute way than ná. The Ea
> this post is referring to basically means "All Creation". In
> other words, Ea is everthing that is.
I'm not sure about Ea being everything that is. It's everything
*material* or physical, but not of spirit. Iluvatar and the Ainur
surely aren't part of Ea. Ea reminds me of Hinduism's maya.
Brahma (?) is Absolute Reality: unable to be divided, eternal,
infinite and all that. Maya (Ea) arises from that. Like, Reality
(with a capital "R") and reality (with a lower-case "r").
Diana
___________________________________________
Reply
Message 7 of 11 in Discussion
From: MusicMom
Sent: 5/7/2002 10:02 PM
As a side note--when we had the discussion about trying to express ourselves without using forms of the verb "to be" as I remember we talked about stating ideas more clearly (and perhaps more concisely). It also seemed to mean to try not to express ideas as absolutes which tend to shut off discusion. If "All creation is 'that which is'" perhaps using the verb 'to be' in expressing our ideas might seem presumptuous--trying to exert our ideas and authority on the universe (a la Melkor?). Just a thought late at night!
MusicMom
_______________________________________________
Reply
Message 8 of 11 in Discussion
From: megn1
Sent: 5/8/2002 9:44 PM
And a good thought it is, MusicGrandmom!
Indeed, if "Be" is the name of the universe, and the word which called it into existence, then perhaps we should use the word with reverence, and only when we truly mean all that the word implies.
___________________________________________
Reply
Message 9 of 11 in Discussion
From: Glorfindle
Sent: 5/8/2002 11:44 PM
Perhaps translation of the word "US"...is appropriate. When I listen to the glorious thoughts of MusicMom and Megn...I think in terms of "us". Perhaps the word "god" is really a word that is US and speaks to us
I feel and know god in US....The "EA" is US... and us is in it. All my friends here....I could not think of a world without you all in it.
Glor1
________________________________________________
Reply
Message 10 of 11 in Discussion
From: sparrow
Sent: 5/9/2002 4:23 PM
Good point, Glor, US is very descriptive of God. In the first chapters of Genesis, first person plural pronouns are used to refer to God. Later, Ephesians says "one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all." And, of course, in the New Testament, much emphasis is placed on seeing God in our fellow man.
~Sparrow
____________________________________________
Reply
Message 11 of 11 in Discussion
From: Ailin-i-Faila
Sent: 5/12/2002 11:49 AM
That is basically what I was saying.