What IS Tom Bombadil?

[Gil-Galad]

Well it's said that after The War of Wrath some Valar and Maiar decided to stay in ME.Now I don't have much time to find where is written(cause I'm too lazy:cool: ),but I remember that fact.
Actually Tom has strenght which only a Maia or a Vala would have.There was a post about Tom and his wife and it was said Tom is Vala or Maia try to find it and read it.

[Ithrynluin]

Gil-Galad,
I honestly don't believe that Tom is one of the Ainur,he is IMO simply a spirit of the earth,something that was intended to exist
from the very beginning,similar to Ungoliant
And he certainly cannot be one of the Valar/Maiar who remained in ME after the War of Wrath(if indeed any did remain) because Tom states that he was already there when the Elves journeyed West (from Cuivienen),that he was there before the river and the trees and so on....
So Tom was there before any of the Ainur entered Arda.

[Rangerdave]

This is a good example of what I call the "what the factor"
Every writter worth his/her ink will intentionally put something in his/her work that causes the reader to step back and wonder.

There are two reasons why nobody knows why the Ring does not effect Tom.
1. Tolkien himself did not know.
or
2. He knew, but he's not telling.

Personally I prefer #2. I like to think that he sat in his Oxford study and thought, "this'll get em".


RD

[Arda's Bane]

I personally think that bombadil is infact the (or an) incarnation of illuvatar there is quite alot of evidence to suggest thi. I wouldnt mind debating this with someone but i forsee it ending in a stalemate

[faila]

what, who is he? I saw an essay somewhere that said he was he one. What do you guys think? Ive always personally wondered what he was. Hes not that important in the story except to show that the ring does not have power over every one. But why does the ring not have power over him?

[Ynhockey]

I've read all the research on Bombadil, but not this topic... so forgive me if i say anything that was already said.

I have 3 theories:

1) He was one of the Dwarves of Aule, but was given life before all the other Dwarves. Perhaps this is unknows to everyone else because it was an Iluvatar-Aule only secret. This is only a weak theory though.

2) Bombadil was Melkor's first creation and the only good thing Melkor made (probably meant to assist Melkor in furthre creation). When he says "Before the 1st Dark Lord" he probably means that he was there BEFORE Melkor turned dark.

3) Bombadil was an offspring of Melkor's thought (also before he turned dark). He was perhaps created when Melkor sang not in harmony with everyone else and he was just... there... in the void. Until Arda was created.

Anyway, both of my stronger theories have to do with Melkor. IMO it's the only real reason to explain everything that was said in Tolkien's works... so, yeah.

[JoesonofJim]

So why the hec wasn't Tom in the movie?? I know he doesn't have that much of an important part to the entire story....but still. Tom is damn cool.....I would have loved to see him in the Fellowship movie. Also, The Downs would have been cool too

[Beorn]

Originally posted by JoesonofJim
So why the hec wasn't Tom in the movie?? I know he doesn't have that much of an important part to the entire story....but still. Tom is damn cool.....I would have loved to see him in the Fellowship movie. Also, The Downs would have been cool too

Because Peter Jackson thought there wasn't enough time for him with everything else he had added in.

[warrior of ice]

tom bombadil is an enigmatic character that has no explanation but creats one of the most wonderful parts of the whole triology

[Ariana Undomiel]

Ever since my dad read the Lord of the Rings trilogy to me, I have always had a fasination with the creature Tom Bombadil. He is probably the most unique character in LOTR. He is neither man nor hobbit nor elf nor wizard. Yet he obviously has a great deal of authority and power in a unique way. The ring has no hold over him. Laughter is his weapon and joy is his shadow. Some say he is ridiculous. I say he his cares do not way heavy on him and he finds pleasure in all aspects of his simple life.

What do you think about him?

~Ariana

[Anamatar IV]

not only did the ring have no power over him but he could see frodo even when he had the ring on. Id like to see a battle between sauron and bombadill.

[Ariana Undomiel]

I don't think that Bombadil had the ability to fight off evil to that extent. But it is quite possible that he didn't have it because he didn't want it. Perhaps that is also why the ring had no sway over him, becuase he simply had no desire for it. It did not tempt him in the slightest.

~Ariana

[Windfola]

Tom Bombadil has always been one of my favorite LotR characters. I, too, find him fascinating, and I was sorry that he didn't make it into tFotR installment of the recent movie. I know that the writers had to eliminate a lot of the first volume for the sake of brevity, but Tom did play an important part in assisting the Hobbits on their journey to Bree. If he had not rescued them from Old Man Willow and the Barrow Downs (and that dreadful Barrow Wight!), what might have become of our beloved Hobbits? (Speculation, I know.)

Anyway, Tom Bombadil is an intriguing character, and his dealings with the Hobbits make for some enjoyable reading! (And what about that Goldberry girl, eh?) ;)

[Ariana Undomiel]

I loved Goldberry as well. Perhaps I should start a thread about her. hmmmmmm ...

~Ariana

[Windfola]

I always wondered about Goldberry. In "The Tolkien Companion," she is called "a Water-sprite of the Old Forest; the bride of Tom Bombadil and daughter of the 'River-woman' of Withywindle."

Somehow, I didn't get (from tLotR) that she was Tom's wife. He seemed preoccupied somehow with the River Woman, so I always wondered if he and said River Woman had had a thing going on between them once.

What say ye? :D

[pohuist]

I believe that he was preoccupied with River daughter, who happens to be Goldberry. Yes, she is his bride (pick up the Adventures of Tom Bombadil).

[Windfola]

Thanks, Pohuist!

I haven't a copy of The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, but I will certainly get one now! :D

[Lady_of_Gondor]

I also am a fan of Tom Bombadil. The one thing I find greatest about him is his mysteriousness. When reading the book (especially for the first time), many are struck by wonder when introduced to Tom. You, the reader, generally don't know what to make of him. And trying to figure out what part he plays in the story is as fun as he is himself. This is just me anyway. I like that he is a bit out there! Kinda like me!;)

[Windfola]

Yep, Tom is a bit of a trip--be-bopping around the Old Forest in those big yellow boots and wearing that tall hat with the blue feather sticking out of the band. And those songs!...

I don't know about you, but it makes ME want to cast away my troubles and cavort merrily through the woodlands!

Do Tom Bombadil's apparent eccentricities mask a much more serious purpose--one that we can only speculate about? Who, indeed, is Iarwain Ben-Adar? A wood-sprite? Or someone greater?

I don't have The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, so those of you who do--does that book relate anything of his beginnings?

Please tell all--I wait in quiet expectation....;)

[Goldberry344]

i havent read (nor do i own) the adventures of tom bombadil, but it is on my to do list. i've heard it does answer a substantial number of questions about him. including how the old fellow got hitched to Goldberry.... (i think it goes that she flirted with him and then he went back and wooed her, i dont remember, someone told me when i asked once)

[Bombadillo]

it needs no explanation that i am a great fan of tom B.
i have a copy of the adventures of tom bombadil, but i have to read it still, what i can say about the book is that its a collection of poems about tom b goldberry and a lot of stories about a lot of other things, in fact, only 2 stories go about tom.

tom is in my eyes the perfect being he has dropped everything nasty, greedyness, pride, even fear.
he just goes around and lives for ever... whe should all try to be like tom, he is the example of the perfect human being

[pohuist]

"The Adventures..." has only 2 poems about Tom, and yes Goldberry flirted with him and all. Unfortunately, it does not add anything about Tom, his origins, etc.

[Goldberry344]

that stinks. i'd really like to know what's up with him. but its kinda cool that jrrt doesnt say, it leaves the possibilities open.

[pohuist]

Encyclopaedia of Arda gives a lot of background and a link to an essay on some possibilities of his origins.

[Windfola]

Hey, pohuist...

What is the Encyclopaedia of Arda? I don't recall it, but it sounds interesting. Could you fill me in please? (Thanks in advance!) :D

[Diamond Took]

I was never really that fond of Tom Bombadil. although i did like goldberry, she was cool.

She reminded me somewhat of myself.:p

[Ariana Undomiel]

whe should all try to be like tom, he is the example of the perfect human being

I disagree with you there. Tom had many admirable qualities, but in a way he was a bit selfish. He had great strength and ability and yet he did very little in aiding the council. He also was a bit foolish. Remember how Elrond said that if they sent the ring to Bombadil he would most likely forget it and lose it. As much as I love Tom Bombadil, I don't think he was perfect. If you want an example of the perfect human being who really existed look at Jesus Christ.

~Ariana

[Bombadillo]

tom bombadil has lost all greed and selfishness, even to the extrend that he doesn't care about safekeeping of things.

and i personally think that christ is not the perfect human beiing, in fact he isn't one.
i can't give you any reasons why i think so, i was reading the bible, but never made it to the new testament.

but Tom wasn't selfish, he just stopt caring about material matters, and so he isn't the best person to hide a ring with, but no person in ME was, is this such a great fault?

[Ceorl]

Check this link for a very good essay on the origins and meaning of Tom Bombadil:

"even in a mythological Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)" (Ibid., p. 174)

http://www.phil.unt.edu/~hargrove/bombadil.html

[Lantarion]

Windfola, the EoA (http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm) (Ancyclopedia of Arda) is a very, very informative site indeed which has a considerable list of information on almost everything to be found in Tolkien's written works. Check it out! :)

[Ariana Undomiel]

and i personally think that christ is not the perfect human beiing, in fact he isn't one.

Don't make a statement like that unless you are going to give reasons for your statement.

I, believing that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth, say that Christ was the only perfect human being who ever existed. He never sinned and He was and is entirely selfless. He is the Son of God.

As for Tom Bombadil, I still say that he was not perfect. Also, he wasn't human, LOL. He was neither man nor hobbit. I believe he was a Maia, but I may be incorrect in that statement. Anyone know?

~Ariana

[Ariana Undomiel]

Here is an interesting quote I found when I was browsing through The Fellowship of the Ring.

" 'Fair lady!' said Frodo again after a while. 'Tel me, if my asking does not seem foolish, who is Tom Bombadil?'

'He is,' said Goldberry, staying her swift movements and smiling.

Frodo looked at her questioningly. 'He is, as you have seen him,' she said in answer to his look. 'He is the Master of wood, water, and hill.'

'Then all this strange land belongs to him?'
'No indeed!' she answered, and her smile faded. 'That would indeed be a burden,' she added in a low voice, as if to herself. 'The trees and the grasses and all things growing or living in the land belong each to themselves. Tom Bombadil is the Master. No one has ever caught old Tom walking in the forest, wading in the water, leaping on the hill tops under light and shadow. He has no fear. Tom Bombadil is master.' "

~Ariana

[Bombadillo]

sorry, i know that i don't have any statements to prove my ideas, but it is just an idea in my mind about christ, who, ias i think also was like a mayer or istari, more than only a human being. but just let this subject rest.

but to my opinion Tom B. is an example of total happiness and freedom of mind and the parting mith anything material, exept love.
isn't this something bouddhists and hinduist have tried to reach for thousends of years?

[ToDie4]

Does Tolkien ever reveal the origins of Tom Bombadil? I am currently reading the Silmarillion and could find no mention of him, though with all of the name variants in Tolkien, I could have missed it.

--Mike

[Anamatar IV]

hes probably not in the sil because thats mostly elf stuff. Ive wondered too what he is.

[ToDie4]

If Tom was a nature or earth spirit, wouldn't that make him (in all probablility) either a Maia or a Vala? Has Tolkien written anywhere of Illuvatar sending spirits to the earth that were not either Maia or Vala? Even if they ended up being something different later (like Olorin or Sauron) ?

--Mike

[Anamatar IV]

ask grond. He'll take the time to look through the exact right letter, the exact chapter in the exact right book and he'll post a quote so long that youll just have to beleive him.

[Maeglin]

I can't vote:mad:

but anyway i was discussing this just the other day with my sister's boyfriend and i was gonna post this thread but telchar beat me to it.

Anyway I would say bombadil is a spirit of some kind put there by the valar in the beginning to help others in small ways when they need it, and to watch over everything. Hey does anyone think he'll be allowed to sail away into the west? I can't decide on that one.

[LordofNumenor]

When I first read LotR, I thought Tom was evil to start with. It was the way they had no idea of time in his home and he was so eager to try on the ring. Also, he was doing something while they were asleep and having nightmares. Once I got further into his part of the story, began to quite like him.

[Gloer]

Tom and teh witchking are the same person. the witchking feels uncomfortable as evil servent of the Dark Lord and occasionally takes secret vacations with false identity, only Elrond is aware but in his wisdom keeps it secret.

[Bombadillo]

maybe i said it before, but i will say this again.
the link below shows a rather funny explanation of tom being the reader himself, its quite good. But beware, its rather exeedingly long but special.


bombadil discovered (http://tolkien.cro.net/else/bbeier.html)

[Maeglin]

Originally posted by Gloer
Tom and teh witchking are the same person. the witchking feels uncomfortable as evil servent of the Dark Lord and occasionally takes secret vacations with false identity, only Elrond is aware but in his wisdom keeps it secret.

If that is true then why did gandalf tell the hobbits that he wanted to speak to him again at the end of LOTR?:confused: But it is an interesting thought.:)

[Ariana Undomiel]

Tom Bombadil is compared unto a Buddhist. Ugh!

I do believe that Tom has reached a state of wonderful care freeness, but was he or was he not created that way in beginning? What is he anyway? Is he man, hobbit, maia, spirit, or is he perhaps someone unique and special without the need for an indentification?

~Ariana

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Ariana Undomiel
Tom Bombadil is compared unto a Buddhist. Ugh!

I do believe that Tom has reached a state of wonderful care freeness, but was he or was he not created that way in beginning? What is he anyway? Is he man, hobbit, maia, spirit, or is he perhaps someone unique and special without the need for an indentification?

~Ariana

Why the 'ugh'?

Tom Bombadil fits perfectly into the idea of a Buddhist master -- even to the degree that he cannot be placed into a category of Maiar, Human, etc.

Do you know much about Buddhism, or is your reaction based on "not-knowing" much about Buddhism?

[Ariana Undomiel]

I am currently studying about a great deal of World Views including Buddhism. And what I do know about Buddhism is that they often talk in circles. For example they believe that Jesus Christ was a great person, and yet they deny that he is one with God. Well as Christ said that he is God, it shows that Buddhists call him a liar and yet they deny this as well.

Actually the reason that I said ugh! was because Bombadil did not make me think of a Buddhist at all, and it does not really answer my question about who he really is.

~Ariana

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Ariana Undomiel
I am currently studying about a great deal of World Views including Buddhism. And what I do know about Buddhism is that they often talk in circles. For example they believe that Jesus Christ was a great person, and yet they deny that he is one with God. Well as Christ said that he is God, it shows that Buddhists call him a liar and yet they deny this as well.

Sounds to me like you might not understand Buddhism completely (and who does? :D). "They often talk in circles"... The point is to get you to see what is beyond the words, beyond just what is being said to "what is".

I have never heard any Buddhists deny that Jesus Christ was one with God. In fact, one of the first precepts of Buddhism is that we are ALL "one with God" -- a very accurate perception, since we are all God's sons and daughters, and since we are all God's creations.

If I have heard a Buddhist ever say anything that could be perceived as negative about Christianity it was: "Don't believe everything you read, everything you're told." However, this was not specifically in the context of a discussion about Christianity -- but a general discussion about life in general. I just tend to believe that it applies just as well to Christianity as the rest of life.

Why should I believe in the Bible? I really have no reason to -- my belief in God comes from PERSONAL experiences, and PERSONAL observations, not because a book told me too.

That is not to say that a person can't read the Bible and experience God, but it is DEFINITELY to say that the Bible is not the exclusive key to Him, as far as I am concerned.

I really have no evidence that Christ said that he was God, nor that any Buddhists have called Christ "a liar"... if you read the Bible and consider this sufficient evidence -- then that is your choice and I certainly do not condemn it. But I do note that the Bible is a text written by human hands, that has been translated (by human hand) many, many times from the original Hebrew/Greek (depending on which parts of the scripture you're reading), and that these translators were under MUCH duress from their lieges (such as King James of England) to ensure that the Bible did NOT speak *too* overtly against the power structure. the changes were NOT great -- just the shifting of an adjective here or there to allow for a slightly different interpretation.

As such, while I might tend to believe that much in the Bible *is* true and accurate, it is also important to realize that there is a lot of 'spin' and interpretation going on there as well.

One of the beauties of Buddhism is that it teaches self-reliance. Don't believe that X is true just because it's been told to you. Find out for yourself! I think that that is a beautiful attitude, and one that early Christians (and this is revealed through Roman -historical- documentation) HEARTILY embraced. You don't find the institution of the church becoming so conservative and dogmatic until several hundred years after the death of Christ. In fact, you don't find any institution of the church at all until Jesus is "dead". Jesus himself doesn't advocate a church, etc.

Anyhow, this is not meant to challenge your belief -- but to explain a different perspective that I honestly do not think that you understand. Buddhism is VERY different from Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, etc. There is no concept that you must "worship God", there is no "dogma", there are NO REQUIREMENTS. The idea is that any way you can come to understand your place in God's universe is the RIGHT way for *YOU*. The many, many types of Buddhism are all various *devices* to help one attain that understanding, but the devices (burning incense, or the multitude of meditation techniques) are of themselves unimportant. One must be able to discard all that is NOT real/original in ourselves in order to discover that which is real -- which some would refer to as "God". This is not to say that Buddhist's believe "I am God" -- if you hear a Buddhist say that, they are merely acknowledging that "God created me, the Universe, everything. We are not separate from God, or the Universe, or any of it.".

If they happen to say it in a way that you don't understand, or don't agree with? That's okay, because the importance is NOT what is said, it's what lies in the meaning...

To a Buddhist, the idea that God would care whether we refer to Him as "God", "Allah", "Jehovah", "Vishnu", or "Chi-chi" is silly. The important thing is that one *reverance* whatsoever you call God -truly- from your -heart- and not from the cluttered bureau drawer of the mind. That one allow God to enter into one's life and not resist (as so many do).

Anyhow, this is just to try and explain a Buddhist perspective. *I* am not a Buddhist -- but not many people who understand Buddha's point about 'be a light unto yourself' would really bother to be a Buddhist. Or any other religion for that matter.

To me, and to a Buddhist, it's all about "God" and our connection. How you get to that connection is irrelevant.



Actually the reason that I said ugh! was because Bombadil did not make me think of a Buddhist at all, and it does not really answer my question about who he really is.

~Ariana

*LAUGH* Then you really really could use more experience of Buddhists. Tom Bombadil's actions, speech, and deeds in the LotR are PURE ZAZEN!!! Now I would never insinuate, nor believe, that Tolkien did this intentionally, but that is the case.

Once again -- this is just to try and explain a bit about Buddhism's perspectives on things...

[Ariana Undomiel]

Well, I must admit that you do appear to know more about Buddhism than I do. As I said before I am only learning. However, I would challenge you this. what do you believe? I believe that Bible is true and that even though it was written by the hands of men it was inspired by the Holy Spirit of God dwelling in them. Therefore, even though the Bible has things that we do not always understand and tend to argue about, it is true. I also believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and one with God. We are called the children of God because we were created by Him, but we are not His equals. We are sinners and unholy and unworthy to even stand in his presence. We deserve death and eternal separation from Him, but because He loves us, He died on the cross for us to pay for our sins. We can do nothing to save ourselves save to accept the free gift that He offers us.

Thanks for the information about Buddhism, I will definately look farther into it.

~Ariana

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Ariana Undomiel
Well, I must admit that you do appear to know more about Buddhism than I do. As I said before I am only learning. However, I would challenge you this. what do you believe? I believe that Bible is true and that even though it was written by the hands of men it was inspired by the Holy Spirit of God dwelling in them. Therefore, even though the Bible has things that we do not always understand and tend to argue about, it is true. I also believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and one with God. We are called the children of God because we were created by Him, but we are not His equals. We are sinners and unholy and unworthy to even stand in his presence. We deserve death and eternal separation from Him, but because He loves us, He died on the cross for us to pay for our sins. We can do nothing to save ourselves save to accept the free gift that He offers us.

Thanks for the information about Buddhism, I will definately look farther into it.

~Ariana

Hi Ariana -- my beliefs are actually based on my personal observations and experiences, which means that what I profess is a pretty eclectic and odd assortment of ideas from across the philosophical/scientific/religious spectrum of thought.

I can respect and appreciate your beliefs -- but must note that I personally have never had any experiences that lead me to believe that God believes us to be unworthy to stand in his presence, nor that we will receive any special punishment for closing our hearts and minds to God. My experience is that those who close their hearts and minds to God (or the Universe, Life, etc. He doesn't only go by the English moniker "God") are punishing themselves quite effectively enough.

I do find the idea that God would create us, breathe independence into us, and then condemn us for straying in our ignorance, somewhat hard to swallow -- but again that is just ME personally, and that based upon my personal experiences, which only encompass one human beings relatively short lifespan. :)

I guess that I personally feel that God will simply put us into the same hard situations over and over again until we choose to overcome them by opening ourselves to Him/The Universe... I DO think that this is true in the context of our individual lifespans -- but I also would speculate that this might be the case after death as well (indicating reincarnation)... and this is backed up by the spectacular body of scientific evidence that I've gathered to . . . oh wait, no it isn't. I have no idea what happens when we die, obviously. :D

I would agree with you that we are NOT His equals -- in the same sense that no part of a human body is the equal of the whole. But I would state that my personal (limited, but deep and meaningful!) spiritual experience is that the Creator is NOT separate from His Creation -- we are ALL "God" in our own way (in the same sense that a blood cell in your body is also "You" to some degree), and the sum of all of us is "God", "The Universe", "Existence", etc -- which is obviously somehow a much greater value than merely summing up all of the various bits. :D

IMHO, it's not even possible for us to be separated from God -- not even for the slightest bare moment... even though it is quite possible for us to pretend that we are separate (which, IMHO, causes a lot of pain and suffering)...

Thanks for the thoughtful reply!

[Ariana Undomiel]

but must note that I personally have never had any experiences that lead me to believe that God believes us to be unworthy to stand in his presence, nor that we will receive any special punishment for closing our hearts and minds to God. My experience is that those who close their hearts and minds to God (or the Universe, Life, etc. He doesn't only go by the English moniker "God") are punishing themselves quite effectively enough.

Upon what do you base these beliefs? How do you know that what you are saying is true?

I do find the idea that God would create us, breathe independence into us, and then condemn us for straying in our ignorance, somewhat hard to swallow -- but again that is just ME personally, and that based upon my personal experiences, which only encompass one human beings relatively short lifespan.

Why is that hard to believe? When a good father has a son, he will teach him the right way to live. He lays down laws that he expects his son to follow. If the son does not follow them, then he will have to face the consequences. It is the same way with God. He created everyone and gave them instructions that can be found in the Bible. When people fail to follow those rules and guidelines then they and others suffer the consequences. God doesn't want His people to suffer, but nor is he a dictator who forces people to obey his every whim. He is gentleman, and gives us the right to choose if we will obey him or not.



guess that I personally feel that God will simply put us into the same hard situations over and over again until we choose to overcome them by opening ourselves to Him/The Universe... I DO think that this is true in the context of our individual lifespans -- but I also would speculate that this might be the case after death as well (indicating reincarnation)... and this is backed up by the spectacular body of scientific evidence that I've gathered to . . . oh wait, no it isn't. I have no idea what happens when we die, obviously.

What do you believe will happen to you when you die? I mean have you actually sat down and seriously thought about it? And if you haven't, don't you think you should? And if you believe in reincarnation, once again, how do you know that what you are saying is true?



I would agree with you that we are NOT His equals -- in the same sense that no part of a human body is the equal of the whole. But I would state that my personal (limited, but deep and meaningful!) spiritual experience is that the Creator is NOT separate from His Creation -- we are ALL "God" in our own way (in the same sense that a blood cell in your body is also "You" to some degree), and the sum of all of us is "God", "The Universe", "Existence", etc -- which is obviously somehow a much greater value than merely summing up all of the various bits

What makes you think that we are all part of "God" "The Universe" etc? And what makes you think that the universe and God are all one thing? Is it not a possible concept that before there was time or life there was and still is an intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient being who created time, the earth, the universe? It sounds to me that you have a very New Age view of life and "God".



IMHO, it's not even possible for us to be separated from God -- not even for the slightest bare moment... even though it is quite possible for us to pretend that we are separate (which, IMHO, causes a lot of pain and suffering)...

So you believe that we suffer because we are pretending that we are separated from God? Upon what do you base this belief? Do you believe that you and I and the universe and all that exists are "God" as a whole but as separate units?

Thank you for taking the time for such a drawn out reply. I hope you don't take offense by mine.

~Ariana

[tom_bombadil]

Bombadil and goldberry are by far the best charechters they are funny pleasent charecthers and toms songs always make me laugh.

[Ithrynluin]

Tom's (and Goldberry's for that matter) mysteriousness is the most appealing feature of his. Some people find him irritating and annoying but to me he's just swell.:D

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Ariana Undomiel


Upon what do you base these beliefs? How do you know that what you are saying is true?

Well, I base them upon real life experiences, and upon several years of intensive religious exploration (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Taoism)...

How do I know that what I'm saying is true? Well, what I'm *SAYING* isn't true -- the words are just symbols that communicate in a limited fashion. Beyond the words is the meaning... trees throbbing with life, flowers of brightest shades, the beautiful melody of a spring day... In every day experiences, my way of living is validated.

As for my beliefs? Well, beliefs are tools. Use them while they are useful, while they resonate with meaning. When you've used them, and learned, and grown, often times, you then outgrow your beliefs, and acquire new ones to learn from, use, and outgrow...

So I wouldn't claim that my beliefs are true -- but my whole body resonates with the world around me, and I feel almost constantly in harmony with all of my surroundings. This in stark contrast to how I might have felt about things, say, 15 years ago.



Why is that hard to believe? When a good father has a son, he will teach him the right way to live. He lays down laws that he expects his son to follow. If the son does not follow them, then he will have to face the consequences. It is the same way with God. He created everyone and gave them instructions that can be found in the Bible. When people fail to follow those rules and guidelines then they and others suffer the consequences. God doesn't want His people to suffer, but nor is he a dictator who forces people to obey his every whim. He is gentleman, and gives us the right to choose if we will obey him or not.

Well, having had a good father, I can tell you now that a good father doesn't just 'lay down the law'. A good father finds ways to help his children understand WHY the law is the way it is -- not just "Do this -- or you will BURN FOR ALL TIME." That's a bit of extremist parenting, if you ask me.

Now first of all: The Bible as a document did not exist when Jesus was alive, although the Old Testament itself was in existence in the Judaic religion. So are you saying that everyone who lived before the Bible was created (first instances of a -codified- Bible seem to come from Roman times -- several hundred years after Christ was crucified) is at this very moment burning in Hell? Isn't that a bit extreme, considering that there WAS no Bible to follow? How about the vast majority of humanity that WASN'T in Palestine to receive the Old Testament or the words of Christ, etc. during this era? Are THEY burning in Hell because God made them Chinese or Ameri-Indian instead of Semitic?

I just don't know that I can really believe that the Bible is God's ONLY communication to mankind. Especially considering that God's presence is OBVIOUS (well, at least to me :D) in texts such as the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Dhammapada.

God IS a Gentleman (and a Lady, I suspect :D) -- and gentlemen don't condemn you to eternal damnation with no chance of redemption. A gentleman is inclined to give an individual a chance to learn from his/her mistakes, and to make redress in the world with his/her improved perspective on life...


What do you believe will happen to you when you die? I mean have you actually sat down and seriously thought about it? And if you haven't, don't you think you should? And if you believe in reincarnation, once again, how do you know that what you are saying is true?

I *definitely* have SERIOUSLY contemplated death, not to mention having witnessed it in several less than savoury circumstances.

The only scientific and valid conclusion one can have about death is "I don't know", however. As I said before, I have no idea really what happens when we die, and even if I *would* be inclined to believe in reincarnation, or the Heaven/Hell dichotomy, I would have no basis on which to claim it to be truth.

Actually, I think that death is a great mystery... I have watched people as they pass from this life, and it is a *great* mystery. I have seen my grandfather, whom I roomed with until his death, slip away peacefully into the night, and I've seen a person decapitated on a motorcycle when the guy had to slam on his brakes because a car cut him off (the biker wasn't exactly driving "smart", either -- WAY too fast in traffic) and he flew off and hit the freeway guard rail... My aunt died from a brain tumor and her ashes are now in the Atlantic...

With my Grandfather, he heard my Grandma Bella calling to him, and he said, "Coming, dear..." and passed away. I'm inclined to "believe" that she DID come for him, with the grace of God... but I don't KNOW, of course!

Scientifically, there is far more to indicate that we simply go to the dirt when we die... of course, science grows, changes, evolves as we learn more about the universe, so it may come to be that it is just as likely that we go to Heaven/Hell, or are reincarnated once we discover some scientific 'key log' that allows us to explore these concepts more...

But I just don't really know...! I *HAVE* experienced real ghosts, but do I know how to explain them...? Are they really *spirits* of people, or maybe echoes, or is my brain interpreting a natural force that it can't quite comprehend in the only way it can...?

I just don't know. :)



What makes you think that we are all part of "God" "The Universe" etc? And what makes you think that the universe and God are all one thing? Is it not a possible concept that before there was time or life there was and still is an intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient being who created time, the earth, the universe? It sounds to me that you have a very New Age view of life and "God".

I don't think it -- I experience it, feel it. Live it. I would say that it is NOT a possible (or at least: probable) concept that before there was time (a false concept in and of itself based upon our limited comprehension of 4 dimensions of multi-dimensional space) or life that there was an intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient being who created time, the Earth, the Universe.

First of all, there IS the Universe. The scientific concept of the Universe is that it encompasses *ALL*. By definition, this includes God. So therefore, even if "in the beginning", there was "just" God, then we would say that "God is the Universe". If God creates everything else, etc... "God is STILL the universe -- and so is the rest of it too."

God IS the Universe. The Universe IS the Universe. The Universe IS God.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the utter mess of New Age religious belief. It is -scientific observation- of external and internal influences of life. A very personal experience that I am communicating to you.

So you believe that we suffer because we are pretending that we are separated from God? Upon what do you base this belief? Do you believe that you and I and the universe and all that exists are "God" as a whole but as separate units?

Thank you for taking the time for such a drawn out reply. I hope you don't take offense by mine.

~Ariana

All indications lead me to the understanding that human suffering is based upon a false sensation of isolation that is utterly ridiculous. You are never any more alone -- or NOT alone -- than you were at any given moment in the past, present, or future.

Many people who "believe" in God can actually tell you of no experiences of God... and many people who "don't believe" in God can tell you of experiences that were quite "sacred"...

What's going on here? What is going on is that every sunrise is an ABSOLUTE miracle that almost *demands* our participation. Every flower that opens. Every child that speaks it's first word...

These are MIRACLES, and are no less significant than someone who walks on water, or creates much from little. To experience these miracles with a truly open heart -- one at that moment touches God.

Most of us don't understand this, so we start taking things like the Big Dipper, ice cream, good music, the United States, etc. for granted... we allow our mental construct to create a programmed response, instead of giving our all and getting it all in return.

Likewise, war, pain, famine, murder -- doom. These are all likewise from God, and are likewise miraculous, albeit terrible from the human perspective.

Yes, my experiences lead me to feel that you and I, and everything else, are all little bitsy-witsies of God all "playing together" in the universe. God IS the Alpha and the Omega -- and everything in between.

But WE make up the bits of God in between. And why that is, I don't know, and what the point is, I don't know, but that is certainly my -personal- experiences to this point.

Peace to you, and all.

[Theoden]

Hi, Tyaronumen! I was just reading this debate that you and Ariana are having and was going to add my two cents worth in. Hope you two don't mind.

Originally posted by Tyaronumen

How do I know that what I'm saying is true? Well, what I'm *SAYING* isn't true -- the words are just symbols that communicate in a limited fashion.

I'm not trying to be mean or rude, but I must admit I am lost. Why would you state that what you are saying is not true? I understand your next statement but I do not see it validating this one... could you explain?


... In every day experiences, my way of living is validated.

What are you basing your standard for living on? On every day experiences? Is any person's life validated simpy by their everyday experiences?



...beliefs are tools. Use them while they are useful, while they resonate with meaning. When you've used them, and learned, and grown, often times, you then outgrow your beliefs, and acquire new ones to learn from, use, and outgrow.

So having a belief in anything is just a step in the ladder... an ever on-going evolution of thoughts that changes and grows as the mind grows. This is what I understood from your statement above. What happens, then, to the beliefs that "resonate with meaning"? The meaning becomes void once we have learned all we can from it? Why then did we spend the time to believe those beliefs that resonated with meaning if the moment we've grown and learned what we can, we "outgrow" them?

I wouldn't claim that my beliefs are true.

You have eternity at stake here and you are not even willing to go as far as to claim that your beliefs are true?

...having had a good father, I can tell you now that a good father doesn't just 'lay down the law'. A good father finds ways to help his children understand WHY the law is the way it is -- not just "Do this -- or you will BURN FOR ALL TIME." That's a bit of extremist parenting, if you ask me.[B/]

I do not doubt that you had a good father. In fact, you might have had the best father any young person could have asked for. But your father was not God, nor was he omnipotent or omnipresent, nor could he step outside of time and look at eternity as a whole. Ariana seems to be a Christian and if I understand Christianity correctly, this is true for God. So, comparing your father to Ariana's God is a little steep. Besides that point, I have read the Bible, and although there is some blind obedience asked of people, more so than not, God seems to have had some good reasons for saying what He did. If you had read the Bible, you might have also noticed this.


[B] The Bible as a document did not exist when Jesus was alive, although the Old Testament itself was in existence in the Judaic religion. So are you saying that everyone who lived before the Bible was created (first instances of a -codified- Bible seem to come from Roman times -- several hundred years after Christ was crucified) is at this very moment burning in Hell? Isn't that a bit extreme, considering that there WAS no Bible to follow? How about the vast majority of humanity that WASN'T in Palestine to receive the Old Testament or the words of Christ, etc. during this era? Are THEY burning in Hell because God made them Chinese or Ameri-Indian instead of Semitic?

Wonderful question! In fact, I think this is one that gets Christians tripped up alot. I would love to answer it, but in order for me to do so, you will have to answer this question of mine: What will you accept as evidence?

I don't know that I can really believe that the Bible is God's ONLY communication to mankind. Especially considering that God's presence is OBVIOUS (well, at least to me :D) in texts such as the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Dhammapada.

So you are saying that because it is "OBVIOUS" to you that God is present in ALL of these books, that makes it so? Even when books like these contradict each other? I am sorry, but if "God" really was present in ALL of these books, I think I could pitch "God" out the window for being a lier.

God IS a Gentleman (and a Lady, I suspect :D) -- and gentlemen don't condemn you to eternal damnation with no chance of redemption. A gentleman is inclined to give an individual a chance to learn from his/her mistakes, and to make redress in the world with his/her improved perspective on life...

You have made the statement several times that you really don't KNOW what truth is or that if what you are saying is true (in fact you denied it), so to make a statement like the one above seems a little odd and out of character. As for as "gentlemen" are concerned, have you ever encountered any gentleman who could span the entire universe in the palm of his hand, or simply speak creation into existence??? Neither have I, so I would not be so hasty as to lable God a "gentleman". Is He gentle? YES. Is He a "He"? YES. God does not condemn anyone to eternal damnation. We condemn ourselves. He created us all with the divine ability of a thing called "choice". And He did provide a way of redemption... He came down in the form of a man and lived among men and died by the hands of those He had created. He also rose from the dead and conquered death so that those of us that CHOOSE Him, would have a way of escaping eternal damnation. So in a way, you are right. God does not condemn anyone.


The only scientific and valid conclusion one can have about death is "I don't know", however. As I said before, I have no idea really what happens when we die, and even if I *would* be inclined to believe in reincarnation, or the Heaven/Hell dichotomy, I would have no basis on which to claim it to be truth.

No, you wouldn't have any solid conclusions because you only believe what you beleive until you have decided it no longer "resonates with meaning".

With my Grandfather, he heard my Grandma Bella calling to him, and he said, "Coming, dear..." and passed away. I'm inclined to "believe" that she DID come for him, with the grace of God...

Here you referred to God as a personal someone who could give grace...

God IS the Universe. The Universe IS the Universe. The Universe IS God.

...And here you refer to Him as everthing... impersonal and vague. What is your evidence for making the statement above? That is a pretty definite conclusion to come to, especially when you claim you do not know what is truth.

I don't think it -- I experience it, feel it. Live it. I would say that it is NOT a possible (or at least: probable) concept that before there was time (a false concept in and of itself based upon our limited comprehension of 4 dimensions of multi-dimensional space) or life that there was an intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient being who created time, the Earth, the Universe.

I agree. It is because of the fact that I am only the CREATION and not the CREATOR that I cannot comprehend it. I am limited in my dinky little brain... I cannot fathom SCIENTIFICALLY a God who can exist outside of time and space and who has the past, present, and future in His hands. That is simply too much. That is why He gave us a little gift called faith.
By FAITH...

All indications lead me to the understanding that human suffering is based upon a false sensation of isolation that is utterly ridiculous. You are never any more alone -- or NOT alone -- than you were at any given moment in the past, present, or future.

A soldier in a POW camp who is starving is suffering only because he has a false sensation of isolation?

Likewise, war, pain, famine, murder -- doom. These are all likewise from God, and are likewise miraculous, albeit terrible from the human perspective.

No. these things are not from God and I will debate this issue till the cows come home if you want to. God did not intend for there to be War and Sickness and Hunger and Pain on this Earth. But Man messed things all up. As a result of Adam and Eve's sin in the garden, we have a corrupt and filthy world that is steeped in evil. That is why there is suffering. We brought it on ourselves.

Yes, my experiences lead me to feel that you and I, and everything else, are all little bitsy-witsies of God all "playing together" in the universe. God IS the Alpha and the Omega -- and everything in between.

You can "feel" like the earth is square or that the Sun is the biggest star in the sky or that eating ice cream day in and day out is healthy, but that does not make any of it true. TRUTH is absolute and so it cannot simply be felt. It is.

Peace to you, and all.
I am sorry, but there is no peace in uncertainty. You have stated that you do not know what is truth, or what happens when you die, or what God is, or what on earth we are doing here on this earth... there is no peace in any of that. True peace lies in the assurance that Christ died for every soul and then rose again from the grave. True peace is resting with in God's plan for your life and holding on to Him... because He is the only thing that was always there, and that will always be there for you.

So I would ask you to think about what you yourself have said about what you believe and decide what is TRUTH... your eternity hangs on that decision.

-me

[Ariana Undomiel]

I agree whole heartedly with Theoden.

~Ariana

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Theoden
I'm not trying to be mean or rude, but I must admit I am lost. Why would you state that what you are saying is not true? I understand your next statement but I do not see it validating this one... could you explain?

Because words are imperfect, and cannot completely communicate 'reality' or 'truth'. The word 'orange', when referring to the fruit, points you to the idea of a spherical object with a somewhat pitted surface that you peel to reveal a fruit within that has wedge-shaped pieces, etc. etc. Basically, the word 'orange' only indicates meaning, and only contains meaning because of our common vocabulary. But the word does not necessarily have meaning in and of itself. That's why I wouldn't say that I'm stating 'the truth'. There are many ways to state 'the truth' that are equally valid or invalid, using different combinations of words that approximate meaning.

What I'm really trying to say is that I make no special claim that my particular combination of symbols, words, etc. is any more true than any other combination of symbols, words, etc.



What are you basing your standard for living on? On every day experiences? Is any person's life validated simpy by their everyday experiences?

I would say so. To me, it is more valid to self-evaluate to judge how successful one's personal life choices are for oneself than to try to fit into a cookie-cutter template from the psychiatrist, books, etc.

Obviously, there will be some who feel that their life choices are VERY valid for themselves, even though many others may feel that their choices are very wrong... that is one of the quandries of life.


So having a belief in anything is just a step in the ladder... an ever on-going evolution of thoughts that changes and grows as the mind grows. This is what I understood from your statement above. What happens, then, to the beliefs that "resonate with meaning"? The meaning becomes void once we have learned all we can from it? Why then did we spend the time to believe those beliefs that resonated with meaning if the moment we've grown and learned what we can, we "outgrow" them?

If the meaning becomes void, then so be it. If the belief continues to be of service in your life, providing a framework for operating, etc., than so be it.

Why ask why? People believe what they believe in -- there is not necessarily a *good* reason for it. But it is certainly possible to have new experiences that help one to realize that certain beliefs are valid, not valid, or lead to new beliefs, or back to old ones, etc.



You have eternity at stake here and you are not even willing to go as far as to claim that your beliefs are true?

In the face of eternity, it is hubris to claim such. Just because everything that I personally have experienced indicates that my experiences are valid (and that, only personally) does not give me the right to claim that my experiences and beliefs are 'true' or 'the truth'.



I do not doubt that you had a good father. In fact, you might have had the best father any young person could have asked for. But your father was not God, nor was he omnipotent or omnipresent, nor could he step outside of time and look at eternity as a whole. Ariana seems to be a Christian and if I understand Christianity correctly, this is true for God. So, comparing your father to Ariana's God is a little steep. Besides that point, I have read the Bible, and although there is some blind obedience asked of people, more so than not, God seems to have had some good reasons for saying what He did. If you had read the Bible, you might have also noticed this.

Hey -- Ariana compared God to a 'good father'. I just ran with it.

As for 'stepping outside of time', how can you step outside of something that doesn't exist in the physical universe outside of mankind's perception of the progression of events? Scientifically, the concept of 'time' that we humans commonly carry around simply does not exist.

If you can look at eternity as a whole, then you are not looking at 'eternity', you are looking at something else.

I HAVE read the Bible -- thank you very much -- and have noticed an awful lot of blind obedience being asked for, also. A lot of the 'good reasons' are left unsaid for your local pastor to interpret.


Wonderful question! In fact, I think this is one that gets Christians tripped up alot. I would love to answer it, but in order for me to do so, you will have to answer this question of mine: What will you accept as evidence?

To be fair, I don't know. I generally will entertain as evidence anything that has some sort of factual, observable base.

I'm definitely interested in what you answer, though...!



So you are saying that because it is "OBVIOUS" to you that God is present in ALL of these books, that makes it so? Even when books like these contradict each other? I am sorry, but if "God" really was present in ALL of these books, I think I could pitch "God" out the window for being a lier.

Hmmm -- instead of realizing that God's interpreters simply write in the same context that they live...?

You have made the statement several times that you really don't KNOW what truth is or that if what you are saying is true (in fact you denied it), so to make a statement like the one above seems a little odd and out of character. As for as "gentlemen" are concerned, have you ever encountered any gentleman who could span the entire universe in the palm of his hand, or simply speak creation into existence??? Neither have I, so I would not be so hasty as to lable God a "gentleman". Is He gentle? YES. Is He a "He"? YES. God does not condemn anyone to eternal damnation. We condemn ourselves. He created us all with the divine ability of a thing called "choice". And He did provide a way of redemption... He came down in the form of a man and lived among men and died by the hands of those He had created. He also rose from the dead and conquered death so that those of us that CHOOSE Him, would have a way of escaping eternal damnation. So in a way, you are right. God does not condemn anyone.

I don't think it's odd, nor out of character. I'm speaking from my own experiences of things -- and make the careful caveat that my own experiences are NOT synonymous with an objective 'truth', necessarily, and that I have no desire of representing it as such.

My experience of God is that (S)He is a gentle-person. Your mileage may vary.

I agree with you when you say that God does not condemn anyone to eternal damnation. I also agree with you that we condemn ourselves.

However, nothing I've experienced leads me to believe that He came down as just ONE man, nor that this one man rose from the dead, etc. In fact, *scientific* knowledge makes it quite clear that Jesus 'died' *FAR* more quickly than anyone else being crucified in such a fashion in those days (according to Roman information, it took around 3 days to die by crucification), so I would tend to wonder whether he was actually dead in the first place.

Also no indication that there is eternal damnation/reward -- any more than there is an indication that there is reincarnation, or nothing at all...

So I can't really comment on those.

NOTE: This reply got a bit long, so I had to split it into two parts!! :)

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Theoden

Part II :)
[QUOTE]
Here you referred to God as a personal someone who could give grace...



...And here you refer to Him as everthing... impersonal and vague. What is your evidence for making the statement above? That is a pretty definite conclusion to come to, especially when you claim you do not know what is truth.

It's a -personal- conclusion. It is my experience. Now, chances are that I was slipped 500 mikes of LSD when I was born, and that everything I've experienced to this point in life has been one long acid-trip, and that I'm actually only one week old and still in the infant care ward while they try to figure out why my pupils are dilated to the size of my forehead. If that were the case, then certainly, my experience would probably be entirely *false*.

So I won't say that I know the truth. Just what I have experienced. The two are NOT necessarily synonymous. Most people fail to make this distinction.

In my personal experience, God is both quite personal, as well as impersonal. Very detailed, and very vague. Quite a contradiction -- unless you consider the notion that God encompasses the entire universe.

I agree. It is because of the fact that I am only the CREATION and not the CREATOR that I cannot comprehend it. I am limited in my dinky little brain... I cannot fathom SCIENTIFICALLY a God who can exist outside of time and space and who has the past, present, and future in His hands. That is simply too much. That is why He gave us a little gift called faith.
By FAITH...

Faith is well and good -- but to conceive of something that can exist outside of 'time' is to try and propose that 'time' itself exists as anything other than an expedient concept of day-to-day living, as opposed to 'merely' being the 4th axis for communicating relationships between objects.



A soldier in a POW camp who is starving is suffering only because he has a false sensation of isolation?

LOL -- according to Siddhartha, yes.

I would amend my statement to say 'emotional suffering', or 'non-physical' suffering, however. :D



No. these things are not from God and I will debate this issue till the cows come home if you want to. God did not intend for there to be War and Sickness and Hunger and Pain on this Earth. But Man messed things all up. As a result of Adam and Eve's sin in the garden, we have a corrupt and filthy world that is steeped in evil. That is why there is suffering. We brought it on ourselves.

*snort* Well, our mutual views on the matter are clear -- why debate it? Obviously, we disagree. You refer to God as 'omnipotent', 'omniscient', and 'omnipresent'. If so, then whatsoever occurs does so because God wills it. An all powerful, all knowing, all present being doesn't encounter situations that He 'did not intend'.

It also would seem strange to me that the actions of two individuals thousands of years ago have, apparently, 'condemned' billions to the world as it is today. That's not exactly bringing it onto ourselves.



You can "feel" like the earth is square or that the Sun is the biggest star in the sky or that eating ice cream day in and day out is healthy, but that does not make any of it true. TRUTH is absolute and so it cannot simply be felt. It is.

Truth *IS* absolute -- and can only be experienced. What I feel of God is MY experience. You can challenge it, repudiate it, etc. all that you like -- you cannot invalidate my personal experience of God.

The true beauty of my spiritual understanding is that it is not based merely upon reading, or being told, etc. It's based upon MY personal experience, and it's validation or lack thereof is completely independent of someone/something elses' 'buy-in'.

I am sorry, but there is no peace in uncertainty. You have stated that you do not know what is truth, or what happens when you die, or what God is, or what on earth we are doing here on this earth... there is no peace in any of that. True peace lies in the assurance that Christ died for every soul and then rose again from the grave. True peace is resting with in God's plan for your life and holding on to Him... because He is the only thing that was always there, and that will always be there for you.

LOL -- I'm sorry too Theoden. Sorry that you're wrong about me! I AM uncertain about a LOT of things, but I'm not uncertain about being at peace with myself, my decisions, and my life.

So do I spend my life in serene contemplation of the universe...? Well, actually, yes! :D I work, I ride my motorcycle, I hang out with friends, I get the flu, I go to sleep, etc. Through it all, there is a serene core within that is always one-on-one with my Maker.

What can I say? I've known MANY Christians who had nothing resembling 'true peace', nor claim it. I've also known a couple of Christians who were absolutely at peace with themselves and their lives. Haven't seen anything to indicate that Christianity has a monopoly on 'true peace', though...

I do have to note, however, that I do rest within God's plan for my life, and, as I said, always keep my connection with Him going strong. To me, that is independent of the whole issue of Christ, Christianity, etc.

So I would ask you to think about what you yourself have said about what you believe and decide what is TRUTH... your eternity hangs on that decision.

-me

I'm not going to just up and decide 'this is the truth'! Experiences in life are the only real glimpses of truth that we have. For me to take a conglomeration of OTHERS' experiences, cobble them together, and say 'this is the TRUTH', would require me to completely discard an awful lot of objectivity.

Cheers. :D

[WizardKing]

who is he , i keep hearing about him?

[Mablung]

He was the one who the Hobbits met in the old forest.

[Legolam]

And you're probably going to want to call him Tom Bombadil around here ;)

[Beorn]

First off, it's Tom Bombadil.

TB is a character that is an enigma in Middle-earth. He lives in the Old Forest, which was in the beginning of FotR. He helps the Hobbits, and gives them food.

[*Lady Arwen*]

So you haven't read the book.


TB lives with Goldberry. The hobbits spend 2 night at TB's.

[fingolfin_1987]

i voted for other because to me he seems like a mix of each.

[Beorn]

I find in interesting that this was never mentioned:

Gandalf was a Maia, and he couldn't see Bilbo or Frodo with the ring on:
He walked briskly back to his hole, and stood for a moment listening with a smile to the din in the pavilion and to the sounds of merrymaking in other parts of the field. Then he went in. He took off his party clothes, folded up and wrapped in tissue-paper his embroidered silk waistcoat, and put it away. Then he put on quickly some old untidy garments, and fastened round his waist a worn leather belt. On it he hung a short sword in a battered black-leather scabbard. From a locked drawer, smelling of moth-balls, he took out an old cloak and hood. They had been locked up as if they were very precious, but they were so patched and weatherstained that their original colour could hardly be guessed: it might have been dark green. They were rather too large for him. He then went into his study, and from a large strong-box took out a bundle wrapped in old cloths, and a leather-bound manuscript; and also a large bulky envelope. The book and bundle he stuffed into the top of a heavy bag that was standing there, already nearly full. Into the envelope he slipped his golden ring, and its fine chain, and then sealed it, and addressed it to Frodo. At first he put it on the mantelpiece, but suddenly he removed it and stuck it in his pocket. At that moment the door opened and Gandalf came quickly in.
'Hullo!' said Bilbo. 'I wondered if you would turn up.'
'I am glad to find you visible,' replied the wizard, sitting down in a chair, 'I wanted to catch you and have a few final words. I suppose you feel that everything has gone off splendidly and according to plan?'
Source: A Long Expected Party


Tom B could see Frodo...but Gandalf couldn't....

What does everyone else think of this?
Just to add some fuel to the fire, and get this thread moving again.

P.S. Cian, please PM me

[BlackCaptain]

In a "Characters from Tolkien" book, wich is pretty much an encyclopedia of Tolkiens works, under the topic of Maiar, it sais:

Many other good and strong spirits came to inhabit Middle-earth. These were perhaps Maiar, like Kelian, yet from the histories this cannot now be learned. Chief of these, in the tales of Middle-earth , is he whom the Grey-elves named Iarwain Ben-adar wich means both "old" and "without father" By Dwarves he was named Forn, by Men Orald, and by Hobbits he was called Tom Bombadil. He was a very strange and merry spirit. He was a short, stout Man, with blue eyes, red face and brown beard. He wore a blue coat, and a tall battered hat with a blue feather, and great yellow boots. Always singing or speakin in rhymes, he seemed a nonsensical and eccentric being, yet he was absolute master of the Old Forrest of Eriador where he lived, and no evil within the World was strong enough to touch him within his realm.

He was therefor a Maiar, but with an unknown past.

[BlackCaptain]

and i didnt mean to put "Kelian" but rather, "Melian"

[Maeglin]

who wrote the book that you got that quote from? because if it wasn't Tolkien himself or his son or someone else he was very close to, I don't believe it, I think that a lot of things put in books related to Tolkien's works but not actually written by him or his son have made up things in it, they are unreliable.

[Beorn]

Yes, that's probably just the opinion of the author. Tolkien even said that Tom B was an enigma. We're left to guess.

[*Lady Aragorn*]

well, i think it would help if i read the book. because i have no idea who he is!! ;)

[Elfarmari]

Originally posted by Gloer
Tom and teh witchking are the same person. the witchking feels uncomfortable as evil servent of the Dark Lord and occasionally takes secret vacations with false identity, only Elrond is aware but in his wisdom keeps it secret.
I found this theory under 'Crackpot Tolkien Theories' on The Tolkien Sarcasm Page :

The Truth about Tom Bombadil
From a rec.arts.books.tolkien posting dated 3 May 1996.
At last, the mystery of Tom Bombadil's identity has been solved.
Ready?
Tom Bombadil and the Witch-king of Angmar are the same person.
1. We never hear of Tom at all during the whole of the First Age. The Nine Rings aren't forged until the Second Age. QED.
2. You never see the two of them together.
3. In the first part of Fellowship of the Ring, the Nazgul are sent to the Shire to look for the wandering Baggins. Interestingly, Tom says to Frodo at the dinner-table: "...I was waiting for you. We heard news of you, and learned that you were wandering... But Tom had an errand there, that he dared not hinder" (Fellowship p.137 hardback, emphasis mine: note the fear Tom has of his master, Sauron!).
4. In Tom's questioning of the Hobbits, JRRT notes that "there was a glint in his eyes when he heard of the Riders." (Fellowship p. 144) I think he was concerned that his double-life might have been noticed. Interestingly, Tom immediately changes the subject of conversation!
Furthermore, the One Ring had no effect on Tom - which seems consistent with Tolkien's observations about how the Nazgul would have handled the same priceless object (Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #246): "They were... in no way deceived as to the real lordship of the Ring."
5. It's also interesting to note that Tom could see Frodo clearly while Frodo was wearing the Ring (Fellowship p. 144 hardback) - just as the Witch-king could see Frodo clearly while he was wearing the Ring at Weathertop! (Fellowship p. 208 hardback)
6. Perhaps most damning, however, is the incident with the Barrow-wights (Fellowship pp. 151-155), where Tom - with nothing more than a few simple words (p. 154) - commands the Barrow-wight to leave. And it does, without argument. Why would the Wight be so completely under Tom's control? Because in his alternate guise as the Witch-king of Angmar, Tom ordered the Wight to inhabit the barrow in the first place! Turning to Return of the King, Appendix A, p. 321, "evil spirits out of Angmar... entered into the deserted mounds and dwelt there." Obviously the Witch-king was reponsible for sending the wights there; just as obviously, the Witch-king (disguised as Tom) would be capable of ordering them to leave!
(This is related to another passage, which has since been brought to my attention. On Fellowship page 158 hardback, Tom is guiding the Hobbits back towards the Road when he gazes towards the borders of Cardolan. "Tom said that it had once been the boundary of a kingdom, but a very long time ago. He seemed to remember something sad about it, and would not say much." Since Tom, as the Witch-king, was the one who destroyed the kingdom of Cardolan, it's little wonder that he wouldn't say much about his involvement. Perhaps his remembering "something sad" reveals some remorse at being the instrument of Cardolan's destruction...?)
...Yep: I think we have an airtight case here. :)
...It's worth noting that, after the Witch-king was dead, Gandalf said he was "going to have a long talk with Bombadil" (Return of the King, p. 275). Curiously, he never tells anyone about the meeting later... and he's right there at the Grey Havens at the end of the book, undelayed it seems by long conversation. I think we can therefore theorize that Gandalf made it to the Old Forest, but that Tom (once the so-called "Witch-king" had died) was nowhere to be found!
...Of course, all this brings up the curiosity of motive. What would make the Witch-King of Angmar sport such a double identity? I suppose that the Witch-king, once of proud Numenorean ancestry, felt trapped by the guise of evil which Sauron had tricked him into, and in the fullness of time forged this alternate identity for himself so that he could occasionally feel happy, helpful, noble, and more at one with himself and his lineage. The situation is perhaps analagous to a crossdresser who, feeling trapped in a man's body, would occasionally assume the identity of a woman. It therefore makes sense that the Witch-king's other identity would be so peculiarly enigmatic, and perhaps sheds light on JRRT's observation in Letters #144: "And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."
...Who else would be aware of Tom's double-life, I wonder? Since Tom repeatedly claims to have been around "before the river and the trees", and indeed even claims to be older than the Ents (Fellowship p. 142), surely the eldest of the Elves would know he was lying. Elrond plays along with Tom in public, being kind enough not to reveal his secret, but also seems to know that Tom and the Witch-king are one and the same; hence his refusal to give the Ring to Tom for safekeeping (Fellowship p. 278-9): "Power to defy the Enemy is not in him."

[redline2200]

If Tom is the witch-king, then why didn't he take the ring from Frodo when he saw that Frodo had it? The only purpose of the existence of the Nazgul is to OBTAIN THE RING. He would have surely taken it when tempted with it. I mean come on, you can't really believe that Tom Bombadil is the second most evil thing in all of Middle-earth! What would Tolkien say if he heard this??

[Elfarmari]

I don't seriously think this, it's just an amusing theory that is meant to be a joke (hence 'Sarcasm page' and 'crackpot theories').

[redline2200]

Yeah...........you are right, I am an idiot.
I was in a hurry when I read it, and failed to see the context in which it was said. Sorry about that

[olorin the maia]

I sort of like the idea of Tom B. being a manifestation of Manwe. Sort of keeping an eye on things in Middle-earth, but refusing to influence or take part in the political struggles.
Gandalf refers to him as "a moss-gatherer, while I have been a stone doomed to rolling," or words to that effect. And the Grey Wanderer then says that they will have much to say to one another. Olorin reporting back to his Superior, but in human form? Just a thought......

[redline2200]

Many of you may have seen this is already but here is a very interesting argument on the origin of Bombadil:

http://www.cas.unt.edu/~hargrove/bombadil.html

It links Bombadil to Aule, the Vala. I thought this was obsurd until I read this article, and if you are really interested in Tom and Goldberry then I would HIGHLY recommend reading this. It has some very interesting things to say about Tolkien and why he did not tell us who Bombadil really is.

[Elendil01]

I know who he is but don't know what he is. Could someone please tell Me?

[Mirabella]

According to whom you ask, Tom (and by association Goldberry) is either Vala, Maia, nature spirit or none of the above. Tolkien himself said Tom was an enigma. Nobody has a definitive answer, but there are many opinions on this board. Do a search for Tom Bombadil, and you will get more hits than you can shake a stick at. :)

[BlackCaptain]

There have been threads beyond count concerning this topic...

I personaly believe he is a Maiar:

The Valar did not want anything to do with ME, so the posibility of him being a Valar is VERY small

Nature spirit is a good idea i guess, but no-where does Tolkien ever mention Spirits of anything, unless they are Maiar or Vala.

I think that being a Maiar suits him best...

[Kahmûl]

I also think Tom is a maia and is Goldberry one as well?

[redline2200]

I have posted this link a million times, but I will post it again if there is someone who has not seen it:

http://www.cas.unt.edu/~hargrove/bombadil.html

This is a very great article that says Tom is the Vala, Aulë. It is a bit long, but I promise that it is very good. Even if you think this is crazy, you should read it anyway; it is professionally written and very intriguing.

[Lantarion]

It is well-written, but still it is mostly guesswork and assumptions. I personally think that if Tolkien didn't mean for Tom to be any other character but himself (ie. not another character 'reborn'), then we shouldn't impose hypotheses of his 'true nature'. Of course one is allowed to think and argue, but in the end it will only be themselves that they are convincing.

[Mirabella]

Tom and Goldberry are what you make of them. Personally, if it had not been for the fact that the hobbits took swords from the barrow, I would imagine Tom, Goldberry and the barrow wrights to be the result of a bad mushroom trip :D

[Sam_Gamgee]

Originally posted by MorgulKing
The Valar did not want anything to do with ME, so the posibility of him being a Valar is VERY small


Actually...... Melkor was a valar, and somewhere it talks about valar coming to ME (prob in the first ages) and if he was a maiar he would not be above the ring due to the fact sauron was the greatest maiar, and also the other valar came to over throw melkor, that prves they care about middle earth, and also when lluvatar created ME with the music of the ainur, they asked if they could go visit the creation, and they wanted to see it, that also proves they care. i think there is a big case tom was a valar.

[BlackCaptain]

Actualy, Melkor was expelled from the Valar, and they origonaly made thier home in ME, but they didnt want anything to do with ME when the Ages of the Sun started, or around there. Thats what they sent the Istari for. ;)

[Celebthôl]

well heres LOTS of useful info on Mr Bombadil, but as usual it has no final answer,(this is strait from EoA)
Tolkien himself is uncharacteristically reticent on the question of Tom's identity:

"And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 144, dated 1954

There are two real approaches to the problem of Tom's identity; we can try to fit him into the cosmology of The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion, or we can view him more broadly as a literary character. We'll attempt both here, starting with a discussion of Tom in relation to Tolkien's fictional cosmology.

1. Bombadil Within Tolkien's Cosmology
Tolkien's universe is inhabited by a multitude of races and beings: our problem is that what we know of Tom does not fit easily with any of these. He seems almost to have been 'transplanted' from elsewhere. In fact, this is almost certainly what happened, at least in a literary sense, but at this point we are concerned primarily with giving Tom a place within Tolkien's universe.

Though there are many candidates to choose from, we can at least dismiss most of these immediately. Tom is definitely not a Man, a Hobbit, a Dwarf, or indeed of any mortal kind, and we can also take it for granted, for obvious reasons, that he is not an Orc, a Troll, an Ent, a Dragon or an Eagle! But this still leaves plenty of possibilities:

Was Tom an Elf?
Tom's capering, his wisdom, his great age and his love of song undoubtedly give him a certainly 'Elvish' quality. This possibility though, is easily disproved by the following from The Lord of the Rings:

"'When the Elves passed westward, Tom was here already...'"
Tom's own words, from The Fellowship of the Ring I 7, In the House of Tom Bombadil

Tom would hardly have said this if he was an Elf himself! This is, incidentally, proof of Tom's great age - the Elves 'passed westward' in the Great Journey some six Ages before he spoke these words.

Was Tom a Maia?
This a very common suggestion, to the extent that it is sometimes treated almost as 'fact'. There is, though, no direct evidence for this - it seems to be based on the idea that since Tom can't be a Vala, and there is no other possibility, he must be a Maia. As we'll see, these are both flawed assumptions - Tom might be a Vala, and there is at least one other possibility.

Though we can't say for certain that Tom wasn't one of the Maiar, there are grave difficulties with this position. The most important of these is that the Ring had no effect on him:

"Then Tom put the Ring round the end of his little finger and held it up to the candlelight... There was no sign of Tom disappearing!"
The Fellowship of the Ring I 7, In the House of Tom Bombadil

There were other mighty Maiar in Middle-earth at the time of the War of the Ring, especially Sauron, Saruman and Gandalf, and all of these were in some sense under the power of the Ring. Yet Tom is unaffected by its power of invisibility, nor does he feel any desire to keep it (he hands it back to Frodo 'with a smile'). Tolkien himself points out the importance of Tom's immunity. On this topic, he says:

"The power of the Ring over all concerned, even the Wizards or Emissaries, is not a delusion - but it is not the whole picture, even of the then state and content of that part of the Universe."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 153, dated 1954

Was Tom a Vala?
The last of Tolkien's named races (using the term loosely) that might include Tom is that of the Valar, the Powers of the World. A common argument against this is that we know the names of all the Valar, and Tom isn't among them. This doesn't hold water:

"...[the Valar] have other names in the speech of the Elves in Middle-earth, and their names among Men are manifold."
The Silmarillion, Valaquenta

While of Tom himself it is said:

"' was not then his name. Iarwain Ben-adar we called him, oldest and fatherless. But many another name he has since been given by other folk...'"
Elrond, from The Fellowship of the Ring II 2, The Council of Elrond

It isn't inconceivable, then, that Tom is one of the fourteen known Valar, dwelling incognito in Middle-earth. Though we can't be certain, it seems likely that a Vala would be capable of resisting the power of the Ring, and so that difficulty can be set aside. The 'Vala Hypothesis', though, is not without difficulties of its own, with perhaps the most significant being:

"'Eldest, that's what I am... Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn... He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless - before the Dark Lord came from Outside.'"
The Fellowship of the Ring I 7, In the House of Tom Bombadil

All of the beings who became Valar existed before Arda was made, so any of them could with justification claim the title 'Eldest'. But Tom says he 'knew the dark under the stars' (that is, he was in the World, not outside it) 'before the Dark Lord came from Outside'. The term 'Dark Lord' is uncertain here - it might apply to either Melkor or Sauron, and both originally came from 'Outside' the World. If he means Melkor, then this is very significant: consider this description of the entry of the Valar into the World, from the original conception of the Silmarillion:

"Now swiftly as they fared, Melko was there before them..."
The Book of Lost Tales, Part I, III The Coming of the Valar and the Building of Valinor

'They' here refers to Manwë and Varda, who were explicitly the first Valar to enter Arda apart from Melko (Melkor). In Tolkien's original conception, then (and there is nothing in the published Silmarillion to contradict this) Melkor was the first being from 'Outside' to enter the World, and yet Tom suggests that he was already here when Melkor arrived!

This is only one of the objections to the Vala theory. Another, for example, is that characters who we would expect to recognize a Vala living in their midst (especially Gandalf) don't apparently do so.

Was Tom Ilúvatar Himself?
Tom's powers are apparently limitless, at least within his own domain, and this has led a lot of people of suggest that he might be none other than Eru Ilúvatar himself. There are certainly several hints in the text of The Lord of the Rings that this might be the case; he is called 'Master', and 'Eldest', and Goldberry says of him simply;

"'He is.'"
The Lord of the Rings I 7, In the House of Tom Bombadil

All of these points might suggest that Tom and Ilúvatar were in some sense the same being. In fact, though, this is one of the very few theories about Tom that we can bring to a definite conclusion. This point is touched on several times in Tolkien's letters, and each time he makes it clear that Tom and Eru should not be confused. Perhaps his most definite statement is this:

"There is no embodiment of the One, of God, who indeed remains remote, outside the World, and only directly accessible to the Valar or Rulers."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien No 181, dated 1956

If there is no embodiment of the One (that is, Eru), then Tom cannot of course be such an embodiment.

Was Tom a 'Spirit'?
The idea that Tom might be a 'spirit' (as opposed to a Maia or Vala) is certainly possible according to The Silmarillion. Though it seems to be commonly assumed that only the Valar and the Maiar entered Arda, a tantalising glimpse of Tolkien's original vision survived into the published form of the work. Here, discussing the Aratar or eight mightiest Valar, he says:

"...in majesty they are peers, surpassing beyond compare all others, whether of the Valar and the Maiar, or of any other order that Ilúvatar has sent into Eä."
The Silmarillion, Valaquenta

This single phrase 'any other order' seems to be a survival of a much older and more detailed account found in the Lost Tales:

"...brownies, fays, pixies, leprawns, and what else are they not called, for their number is very great... they were born before the world and are older than its oldest, and are not of it, but laugh at it much..."
The Book of Lost Tales, Part I, III The Coming of the Valar and the Building of Valinor

It is hard not to hear the echo of Tom Bombadil in these words, and perhaps here we see the first germ of his inspiration (the Lost Tales predate Tom's first appearance in print by about a decade). Whether Tom is a brownie, fay, pixie or leprawn, though, is open to doubt - none of these creatures appears in Tolkien's published works, and their function as a bridge to later folklore seems to have been taken up, at least partly, by the Hobbits.

This version of the 'spirit' idea doesn't address many of the other problems already discussed, though. Why should a 'leprawn' be immune to the Ring when the Maiar are not? Could a 'brownie' have entered the World before the first of the Valar?

There is another kind of spirit that Tom could be though: a 'spirit of nature'. Tolkien himself seems to support this point of view:

"Do you think Tom Bombadil, the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside, could be made into the hero of a story?"
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 19, dated 1937

This letter predates Tom's appearance in The Lord of the Rings (in fact, this quotation is part of discussion of the possible sequel to The Hobbit), so it is at best circumstantial evidence.

The idea of a 'nature spirit', though, is certainly possible within Tolkien's universe. Though this area of his cosmology is never directly addressed, Middle-earth seems at times to be full of spirits - at least some trees apparently have spirits, for example (consider Old Man Willow, or the Huorns of Fangorn).

Thôl

[BlackCaptain]

Wow.... thanx for that quote. Im starting to believe a litle bit that Tom is Illuvitar acutaly .... hahah

[Mirabella]

Originally posted by MorgulKing
Actualy, Melkor was expelled from the Valar, and they origonaly made thier home in ME, but they didnt want anything to do with ME when the Ages of the Sun started, or around there. Thats what they sent the Istari for. ;)

But why send the Istari if they didn't want anything to do with ME or didn't care about it? I agree with Sam_Gamgee. Just because the Valar did not meddle with the affairs of ME does not necessarily mean they did not care.

[BlackCaptain]

Well they'd send some Maiar over there for some insurance. The Valar didn't want to be involved in ME's afairs, so they sent some Maiar just to make sure that everything went smoothly. They CARE about it, but they don't want to be involved in it's affairs.

[Celebthôl]

well they were not allowed to abandon Men totally, but they did not want to get involved so they sent the Istarí, IMHO i think that Eru loved Men more than Elves, though it seems the opposite, who gets the better deal?!

[Sam_Gamgee]

im pretty sure i read somehwhere that some of the valar satyed in ME but i dont remeber where so.........and the one reason i dont think Tom is lluvatar.........is that he couldn't leave the forest because the forest was his place and his power was in the forest....... and i think lluvatar would have a place and power in anything he created.

all the info i find on tom seems to make sense towards a valar.....

and also as i said........they did go back to take care of melkor...... so they do go back for certain reasons.....maybe tom came back for a while........talk to gandalf maybe....like in the end of the book gandalf visits tom......who knows

[Tolkien Adictee]

From Tolkien Debates:

Originally posted by Glorfindel1187
What exactly do you think Bombadil was? And what was his purpose in Middle-Earth?

I personally feel that Tom Bombadil was in essence Arda itself. He was there at the beginning when the Valar created Middle-Earth, and he will be there at the end when the Valar destroy it. He will last as long as Middle-Earth lasts, and he will not exactly 'die',but simply 'fade'. I also think that maybe he was sent there personally by Illuvatar to watch over everything in Middle-Earth, both good and bad, which is why he does not concern himself with wars and what not, because it is not altogether his business, he is forbidden to take sides. I think that maybe this is the reason the Ring of power could not be given to him: at the Council of Elrond Glorfindel said 'he would not take the ring. Not unless all of Middle-Earth begged him too, and even then it would not be safe, for he does not care for such things, and would soon throw it away'. I think he does not care for such things because he is not supposed to, it simply bores him, he is worried about himself, which is Arda. And one other quote I have to support him being Arda itself is when Elrond (or was it Glorfindel? I'll have to check again) says at the council: 'if all esle falls Bombadil will fall as well, last as he was first'. This is because he is Arda, and he would only fall because if Sauron took over it would convince the Valar to do something about it, in which case I believe they would destroy what was left of Middle-Earth in the process, for they already destroyed a nice chunk of it already.

What are everyone elses thoughts on this?

I agree with this. Tom Bombadil is Arda. For all reasons listed above.

[elf boy]

Good to see this is being discussed again...;) I voted for other because I believe he comes closest to being one of the maiar, but I've heard lots of tolkien quotes and other material that say there isn't enough material to say what he is. He's just someone that can't really be explained.

[JediHobbit]

I always just sort of assumed he was a maia.

[LadyRanger]

This is my first time reading the LOTR and I just past the Tom Bombadil chapter.

I don't know what a maia or any other name posted in some of the replies (because I am a new tolkien fan and don't know too much yet) but I think Tom is someone who was just untouched by whatever it is that made others who they were. He was very close to nature making him a humble "being".

Maybe there's no name for what he is because the rest of the middle earth had forgotten the importance of his ways--which made the place how it is--evil lords, war etc. I'm probably way off but I just thought I'd post something (hehe). :D

[flame]

i dunno who he is, i think he is just a mad person who has a habbit of turning up when poeple are in truobal

[celebdraug]

Tom Bombadil is just...Tom Bombadil ;)

[Barliman Butterbur]

Tolkien never said exactly who it was but he gave a few hints, and that has caused many theories on what he is.. So, what do you think he is?


Tolkien said quite specifically (In letter #16, "The Letters of JRR Tolkien") that he was "the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside..."

Also (#144): "And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."

And from the same letter:

"Tom Bombadil is not an important person — to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment'. I mean, I do not really write like that: he is just an invention (who first appeared in the Oxford Magazine about 1933), and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyze the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function. I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control, but if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless. It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war. But the view of Rivendell seems to be that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but that there are in fact things with which it cannot cope; and upon which its existence nonetheless depends. Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron."

There are more passages in the book referring to Bombadil, but these I leave to the reader who wants to read them for himself.

Lotho

[Gandalf The Grey]

Well, Lotho;

Another point on which we agree. :) ... I've read the very same quotes, and the first word that pops into my head to describe old Tom is "enigma." The second being "naturalist."

... By saying "naturalist" is where I can personalize and add something. For I know "in real life" a naturalist who to my mind is the very embodiment of Tom Bombadil ... right down to beard, boots, song, story, sense of humor / good-natured banter, fiddle-playing, and devotion to his wife!

You see, the Historical Interpreter for the park system where I volunteer is the spitting image of Old Tom, and he hosted a potluck dinner for the volunteers of the voyageur canoe program.

Here's something I wrote about a year ago after visiting his house:

Wind chimes of azure blue and silver rolled out rich tones on my arrival. Door was open. I let myself in, for all the rest were just sitting down to supper. A hearty meal it was, of ham and spiced green beans with mushrooms, of sausage and stuffed peppers, of white rolls with butter, of pie and cake, beer and coffee.

We spoke of the ways of chipmunks, and of boating on the river. There came a sad tale, for Tom had gone walking and come across a dead fox that someone had hunted and simply left behind.

There was a table for children set with candles. The tiny flames seemed to cast a spell to make them well-behaved and keep a decorous quiet ... for we grown-ups had no candles at our table, and it was we elders who were full of boisterous laughter!

We then went and sat before the hearth where a strong fire blazed. With eyes and smile as warm as the afternoon summer sun, the merry Bombadil asked us each to tell what we were doing to enjoy the winter! The magic of it was such that winter itself seemed to thaw into a golden blending of time, so that I ended by forgetting what day it was. And any who were cold were laughingly encouraged to sit in "the hot seat" closest to the fire ... People took turns, shivering as they came, but not shivering, nor sitting there, for long!

But there was a more touching magic, the magic of an unspoken wish come true. For two years ago, someone as a surprise had brought a cake decorated with a drawing of Old Tom, his boat, and each one of us volunteers who together form a fellowship. We were each served the slice of cake bearing our image on the frosting, and laughingly devoured it all too soon. So this year, I hoped for the same sort of surprise ... only one more tangible, lasting. When lo and behold! Tom brought out a parcel of shirts bound up with string, and began passing them around to each of us ... and there adorning each shirt was the very same drawing of our fellowship that had graced the cake!

At last the time came for visitors to depart. Tom, Goldberry and I kept our spirits up at our farewell, though all three of us keenly felt at that time the uncertainty of where my road would lead. Thus, we did not wish to say good-bye, preferring the promise of, "I'll see you again in the spring!" The road of course, goes ever on, and leads to ever more adventure ... But may the road never lead me so far as to keep me from returning to this house and these friends!

Gandalf the Grey

[Barliman Butterbur]

Well, Lotho; Another point on which we agree. :) ... I've read the very same quotes, and the first word that pops into my head to describe old Tom is "enigma." The second being "naturalist." ... By saying "naturalist" is where I can personalize and add something...

By Gad Sir! If that lovely piece is characteristic, then you must have an exceptionally lovely life indeed, and do have a lavish gift for writing about it as well! Thanks for a thoroughly enjoyable post!:)

Lotho

PS: Come to think of it, I'm reminded of a Tom I know, who lives in a small town in Oregon. You two are cut of the same cloth, you'd really enjoy each others' company — two bon bivants!:D

[Gandalf The Grey]

While characteristic, good Lotho,

... also characteristic of my life has been a nightmare about the One Ring (I actually dreamed a scene from PJ's first movie before ever seeing it in waking life, though my dream was more intense and tangible, the fire more burning, etc.), as well as facing a certain Balrog in a way more vivid than I care to speak of in a public forum or to people who don't know me well, having been called Stormcrow by those whose false ways I've challenged, walking the road alone (being a Ring-bearer) and thus not being spared becoming careworn over the years.

So it's not all lovely by any means. Still,the good outweighs the ill, adventure yet beckons, beauty remains to those who look up, and Home gleams a promise ahead to those who look West. :)

Having rambled overlong just now, ... * bows pardon *

Would you be so good as to satisfy my curiosity and explain a bit more about your friend from Oregon, and why you deem him a worthy candidate to bear the name of Tom Bombadil? And wouldn't you, as I suspect, get along with such a fine bon vivant yourself? :)

Gandalf the Grey

[Barliman Butterbur]

While characteristic, good Lotho, ... also characteristic of my life has been a nightmare about the One Ring (I actually dreamed a scene from PJ's first movie before ever seeing it in waking life, though my dream was more intense and tangible, the fire more burning, etc.), as well as facing a certain Balrog in a way more vivid than I care to speak of in a public forum or to people who don't know me well...

Methinks you've been reading LOTR altogether too much, take a break!;)

Would you be so good as to satisfy my curiosity and explain a bit more about your friend from Oregon, and why you deem him a worthy candidate to bear the name of Tom Bombadil? And wouldn't you, as I suspect, get along with such a fine bon vivant yourself? :)

I first met him online: he was the author of the AOL Tour Guide of long ago, in the days when AOL had but a couple of hundred thousand people, and there was a great civility on some of the more cultural boards. It hadn't been overrun by snerts and snots to the point of necessitating IGNORE buttons. Anyway — I emailed him to compliment him on the wonderful racontuer-like style in which he wrote this user's manual — and a long friendship was born! He got me a "job" on AOL: Part of his duties was to field technical questions sent in to him by members. I took that over in return for free AOL, and I did that for quite a number of years.

He loves nature and boating and loves to be on the water or in the forest or the woods, and is quite skilled, gregarious, and at home in either place. He loves good food, good talk, good friends, good drink and green nature. He left AOL to open a holistic clinic in one of the Oregon villages, along with his holistic physician wife.

My wife and I once took the Coast Starlight train up to see them, and had a great time there. (I wouldn't mind living up there around the Portland area.)

So that's a short answer for you — I don't want to get too revealing on a public site such as this.

Lotho

[meneldor]

I have not a clue, but there were other Ainuric spirits we have no clue about. Tom was born to Arda. Probably only departing when all around him was destroyed. I dont know. It seems to me that all in middle earth show a HUGE amount of respect for him though, even Gandalf. He says at the end of the book that they are going to have a talk like they have never had before, like they are equal or one greater. For Gandalf does not speak like that to the ignorant, only those that will understand. :confused:

[e.Blackstar]

I think he was something like the Balrogs (except good, of course) and he was created by Manwe or Yavanna or somebody to watch over the trees and plants and stuff.

[Beren&Lutien]

First of all when answering 'what is Tom Bombadil' you have to see it from a broader context. Since he was first, the Master, did not get affected by the Ring, is a mystery,... you have to go back to the creation of Arda. The creation was made by a song, by the Valar. Pick one of those to start with, because all lesser (even Maiar) would be under effect of the Ring. The Master... leaves us with one person: Aule.

Second, if he is Aule, and he is such a fine and wonderful god, why doesn't he choose to be more helpful? Put another way, why isn't there power in him to fight the enemy? The answer to this question is simpler than one might at first imagine...

It is the song of creation, I believe, that contains the conflicting instructions both Ulmo and Osse are following, different parts, elements, or themes of the whole. If I am correct, then Ulmo's power to help the Elves is both limited by and partially determined by the Music of the Ainur, insofar as it established the existence of the earth and determined its major events...

While Ulmo may have had free will as he sang his part of the song in those distant times, he is now bound by what he sang and cannot go beyond or change his part. If Tom is Aule, then he too is bound by his part in the song and although sympathetic and concerned, he can only help the Hobbits and the Free Peoples of the West in little ways.

This is important because if Tom is Aule, he may not be allowed to do anything what could change the balance of good and evil in middle earth without destroying the harmony. Even if it sounds strange, but the balance of good an evil - or high tones and dark tones - is important for a sound. And Sauron as a dark tone had his counterpart in the good forces of Saruman and Gandalf. An indication for that is, that Gandalf became more powerfull after Saruman joined the dark side.

I don't say Gandalf could match Sauron face to face. No way. But his power lay in his popularity in middle earth. He was loved of many good people and could motivate them to fight the evil - that was the real power he had. And his hope lie in the hearts of men, because they could switch their minds from bad to good while elves and orks belonged fixed to that part of harmony they were made for. If I am right, the balance depended on a few good or bad men and could switch easy and was very fragile. A huge good power would have desruped the whole harmony.

Its just like making sweet-sour cabage. Too much acid is horrible, too much sugar, too. And if you nearly hit the point of balance and is only slightly too sour, you wouldn't put a suggarblock into but a few grains.

Another indication could be that Gandalf left middle earth after Sauron was defeated and Sarumans death. You can have short times with just having high tones or dark tones in a melody, but it never ends without the full harmonic spectrum.

[Ithrynluin]

Second, if he is Aule,

I don't see much sense in equating Tom with one of the Ainur (not just Valar), nor do I see an especial connexion to Aulë the Smith - he is much more of an Oromëic figure in my minds's eye - running wild through the woods and hills and pastures, taming wild beasts and taking care of his own patch of land, but owning none of it. Anyway, no matter how much we try to classify Tom, it's been proven time and time again that he cannot be fitted into a little box. He is unique, a whole category of his own. And like I said before, the most sensible explanation for his existence would be that he came to be through themes of Yavanna intertwining with those of Oromë (two of the Valar that Tom is most akin to IMO).

Pick one of those to start with, because all lesser (even Maiar) would be under effect of the Ring.

How do you know they would? It may just be that Gandalf and Saruman were tempted by the ring because they were incarnate Maiar, and were thus more susceptible to being lured by its power, in a desire to enhance their own powers (which were diminished in their Istari edition) and more easily achieve their goals of ousting Sauron.

Anyhow, welcome to the forum, Beren&Lutien (Luthien?;)).

[Annaheru]

Hmm, gonna start this up again. Personally I think Tom is an Ainu, I think he (and Goldberry) is from among those of the Ainur who entered into Ea. Moreover I think Tom was only involved with the First Theme of the Music, which became Arda itself. This would explain why he could no more resist Sauron then the earth: he never took part in the Second Theme (the conflict between Melkor and the Valar). If this is the case, then he could have been the first in Arda (Oldest, Fatherless), been uninfluenced by the Ring, and filled all the other qualifications indicated by Tokien.

[Ingwë]

Maybe he really is Ainur but Tolkien himself didn`t told us anything. Tom told hobbits he is the eldest, he is their before the trees and before the River. What does it mean? Tom is Ainur or no? Maybe Tolkien wanter to tell us Tom is from among those of the Ainur who entered into Ea. I agree and I think we all agree. :)

[Inderjit S]

"I agree and I think we all agree"

Maybe. Or maybe he just is. A Middle-Earthen anamoly, so to speak, a strange creature amongst many strange creatures. Perhaps creature is something of a misnomer though, perhaps 'being' is a more apt term.

Also, here is similairty between him a Maia-Sauron. Sauron was able to assume power in a certain fixed area (Mordor) in the same way that T