If you do start to learn Chinese, there are some websites and some phone apps that I have found to be quite helpful. Just send me a PM and I'll send them to you.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Tao is NOT God
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
If you do start to learn Chinese, there are some websites and some phone apps that I have found to be quite helpful. Just send me a PM and I'll send them to you.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Brother. That would be a great help. Err. How do I send a PM? You mean on the forum?
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
Tao is not a god, or any kind of divinity or spiritual creature. It is the Primordial Principle from which all things of the objective universe manifest. There is no God in Taoism, so there is no relationship with God in Taoism.
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
The Taoist pantheon is borrowed from other cultures. These deities are within this universe and are themselves subject to the Tao. This concept/practice originated later in Taoist thought and was not the original idealogy. The pantheon are considered incarnations or emanations of doctrines and principles.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The Karmic system of cause/effect is represented in most ( if not all ) of the Dharmic belief systems? If so, is it a fair conclusion that Karma was not added in the manner described above with the pantheon?
Taoism is from China, not India.
Wu Wei
ursus senum severiorum and ex-Bisy Backson
Taoism is not Dharmic.
The Gods in Taoism, come from the Tao and are, to put it rather simplistically, like the upper management of the universe
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I think it is the same thing. But it is curious why you selectively choose to capitalize the Tao, but not God. Why is that? It doesn't follow any convention I can think of. Is there a personal reason for this?
I have to admit, I'm no Taoist. But I do find aspects of Taoist philosophy interesting, and even that they resonate with me.
I've never for a second equated the Tao with any sort of God.
Still, I'm constantly surprised by how some define 'God', so let me say 'No, not in any way I understand God'
Howard Is
Lucky Mud
From the beginning Taoists used cannabis to induce mystical experiences.
I normally don't capitalize god, either. There is no religion called "God" that I know of. However, the name of the religion is Taoism, so I capitalize Tao. (In the same manner that I capitalize Christ in regards to Christianity.)
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of Heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery."
-translated from Laozi, Tao Te Ching
I don't believe that is why we capitalize the Tao. It is a "name" that we give to the Absolute, or the divine. My understanding has always been when you point to the divine, and give a name to it, it should always be capitalized. If you lowercase it, then you are referring to a deity, like the "biblical god". In that case we are talking about gods, like we would talk about humans, or cats, without the need to capitalize them.
Case in point, you always capitalize Brahman, or Atman, or Self, etc, because these point to the Absolute. This is why God, when pointing not to a tribal deity, but to the Absolute, is always capitalized. To say god, when referring to the Absolute, does not make sense. Hence why Tao and God as comparisons of the Absolute, or the Divine, are on the same level. We are not comparing apples to apples when you make one a tribal god.
So when I am thinking of God, I am thinking the same as Brahman or the Tao. To drop the case to god, is frankly insulting. I don't view God as a god. It is a title of the Absolute, just like the Tao, or just like Brahman, or just like the Atman or the Self.
Edit to Add: This is what the practice of capitalization is about. It's called reverential capitalization. The practice is to speak of that which is transcendent like this to denote its sacredness.
And while this is not a hard fast rule, like in any grammar, if you're going to capitalize Tao, or Atman in a sentence, than you need to be consistent and capitalize God. If you don't, then it appears to be making a statement of some sort, by emphasizing the difference in capitalization usages. One is viewed as sacred, or reverential, and the other generically or mundane.
Last edited:
I'm highly skeptical of the Absolute, and certainly not reverential towards the idea of an Absolute. Your mileage may vary.
What I mean by that term, and what others mean, will and does vary. I do not understand that is a propositional, absolute truth, as that would be a duality. I say Absolute in the nondual meaning, as the Ground of Reality, or Reality with a capital R as it denotes All. Like the word God does.
But this underscores my point. If you use capitalization to speak of Nature, for instance as in reverence, you can't then not use it for God because that is singled out as less than reverential or sacred. It is either an inconsistent use of capitalization, or a deliberate slight.
I've got a different understanding of nondual informed by the Hsin Hsin Ming. Nondual means free from like/dislike perceptional bias. The All in Buddhism refers to anything that can be detected and subjectively processed by our pattern recognition (six sensory bases, including detection of ideas, concepts, and intellect.) Anything else beyond that is "out of range," so we really can't speculate about it, as speculation could lead to a dualistic confimation-bias delusion.
There certainly is stuff beyond my range to perceive and subjectively process. What it may or may not be, I cannot say, as it is out of my range. I can't give it reverence or scorn, as I have no basis to do so. I can't really assign any meaning to it, as again, I have no basis for doing so.
If this fits your definition of Sacred, as being set aside, then great. If this fits your definition as not sacred, or profane, then that is also fine. If neither fits, then that is also fine.
That's why you don't speculate. You taste it instead. Then words are pointers, not definitions. The nondual, of which I draw upon Nagarjuna to express, is a paradoxical, transrational truth that cannot be explained in dualistic language. Except of course, as metaphor.
If even speaking conceptually about Ultimate Reality, one can assume a degree of reverence inherent in that great Mystery. I just thought a quote I love to draw from from time to time, as in fits here:
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies
- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies
As you look at the night sky, wrapped in awe, that is looking at what represent the Ultimate to us. Even if it is beyond our range, it does not mean we don't stand in awe of it, or speak of it reverently.
All I have been saying, is that if one is going to capitalize Atman, Brahman, the Tao, etc, and not capitalize God, that is an deliberate inconsistency that give it less that equal treatment as the rest. Why is that okay? What is the rational justification for the inconsistency?
If you mean by opening up ones range of subjective processing, sure. That is what my definition of mysticism is. The ability to change ones range does not imply an Absolute, imo. Your mileage may vary.
I can appreciate this expression.
I normally don't capitalize brahman, as it is not the name of the religion. Atman may or may not get capitalized, depending upon whether capitalizing it will provide clarity. Tao is capitalized because it is the name of a religion. Sometimes I'll capitalize taiji and wuji if it will provide clarity. I don't see how capitalizing god will provide clarity, but I can see how capitalizing Jehovah, YHWH, Zeus, Thor, etc, will provide clarity.
Like I said, your mileage may vary.