• 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

dfnj

Well-Known Member
"The writer of the Tao Te Ching only mentions the divine a couple of times, in passing, as if not at all convinced of their existence. He certainly doesn't give them a significant role in the universe he describes." -- Stefan Stenudd​
Perhaps no Taoist would ever put it quite so bluntly as I will, but the Tao (1) existed before the gods existed, (2) has nothing to do with the gods other than the Tao might (or might not) be responsible for determining the nature of the gods, and (3) is in some special Taoist sense, superior to the gods.
So what is you take on it? Is the Tao god? Or is the Tao not god? And what is the relationship between the Tao and god?

I recently posted a thread where I said people who do not believe in God have a precise definition for the word God where the meaning of the word God must have limitations and boundaries like an "object" to be experienced in reality order for God to be considered to be real. Then I made the point all the major religions I have read use words that represent ideas without boundaries. In the list of words I used was the word "Tao". You responded by saying you were amused by the idea I was saying Tao equals God. I did not respond at the time. But at the time I did not mean Tao equals God. What I said was religions or spiritual ideas use words that represent parts of reality that do NOT have boundaries or limits. The idea of a word representing something meaningful in reality not having boundaries simply does not compute for types of people who presume "objects" are all that exists was the point I was trying to make.

I've always been fascinated by Taoism.

"If this seems complex, the reason is because Tao is both simple and complex. It is complex when we try to understand it, and simple when we allow ourselves to experience it. Trying to understand Tao is like closing the shutters of a window before looking for a shadow. We might close the shutters to prevent anyone from discovering our treasure, but the same shutters prevent the moonlight from entering the room. All there is in the room is darkness, and in total darkness we cannot find the shadow, no matter how hard or diligently we seek."

When I think about the Tao I envision a semantic envelope around my mind where thoughts coming into my mind are pieces of yang and the space between my thoughts are the yin.

I think the trinity of having a three phase idea is a classification of ideas called a Unity of Opposites. Essentially for meaning to have any meaning at all you have to have three things. Two things in tension and an observer. For example, "up" cannot be defined without "down" and neither can be understood without a point of reference we call the "observer".

Unity of opposites - Wikipedia

So in a way I do equate the word Tao to God but in the following context:

Time = Tao = holy-ghost-God
mass = Yin = body-of-Christ
Energy = Yang = blood-of-Christ

The words "time", "Tao", and "God" all have the same property of not being able to hold them in your fingers.

https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-09/book-excerpt-there-no-such-thing-time/
 
Last edited:

Howard Is

Lucky Mud
Two things in tension and an observer. For example, "up" cannot be defined without "down" and neither can be understood without a point of reference we call the "observer".

This reminds me of conversations I had with Tibetan lamas. From time to time we discussed the language used in Buddhism, and whether it was accurately conveying what they meant.

The word emptiness is grappled with. The lamas said that they wished the word chosen had been relativity.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
This reminds me of conversations I had with Tibetan lamas. From time to time we discussed the language used in Buddhism, and whether it was accurately conveying what they meant.

The word emptiness is grappled with. The lamas said that they wished the word chosen had been relativity.
"Not-substance-based" or "process based" are two alternatives I use regarding emptiness. Relativity also conveys interdependent co-arising and cause-and-effect aspects, so this also works for me. :thumbsup:
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
"The writer of the Tao Te Ching only mentions the divine a couple of times, in passing, as if not at all convinced of their existence. He certainly doesn't give them a significant role in the universe he describes." -- Stefan Stenudd​


Perhaps no Taoist would ever put it quite so bluntly as I will, but the Tao (1) existed before the gods existed, (2) has nothing to do with the gods other than the Tao might (or might not) be responsible for determining the nature of the gods, and (3) is in some special Taoist sense, superior to the gods.

I base my understanding of the relationship between the Tao and the gods mostly on the work and scholarship of Stefan Stenudd, Roger T. Ames and David L. Hall, and Stephen Mitchell. But I also threw darts at a cork board and flipped coins to arrive at my views.

As I see it, the author of the Tao Te Ching almost certainly was a mystic whose "Tao" is her or his word for the "reality" they encountered during one or more mystical experiences. Most mystics -- but not all -- call that reality "god". Obvious, the author of the Tao Te Ching does not.

(By "reality", I mean that which appears real to the mystic.)

So what is you take on it? Is the Tao god? Or is the Tao not god? And what is the relationship between the Tao and god?



_______________________
Now, a futile effort to make it up to you for another insufferably opinionated thread.


So, one imaginary thing is not another imaginary thing? What a revelation!
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
"The writer of the Tao Te Ching only mentions the divine a couple of times, in passing, as if not at all convinced of their existence. He certainly doesn't give them a significant role in the universe he describes." -- Stefan Stenudd​
That is odd. As if counts count. Is Stefan Stenudd an academician or a mystic?

So what is you take on it? Is the Tao god? Or is the Tao not god? And what is the relationship between the Tao and god?

I have picked a few lines from Tao Te Ching to demonstrate that Tao is the source of life and all things. It is all pervading. All return and vanish in IT. Tao presides over this dissolution. Nature is the Sovereign, but Nature is Tao.

Nameless, is the origin of Heaven and Earth; It is the Gate to the essence of all life, It exists in everywhere and anywhere.....

Sovereign
is the nature itself. Nature is Tao....

It clothes all things as with a garment, and makes no assumption of being their lord;--it may be named in the smallest things. All things return (to their root and disappear), and do not know that it is it which presides over their doing so;-.....
...
 
Last edited:

Howard Is

Lucky Mud
That is odd. As if counts count. Is Stefan Stenudd an academician or a mystic?



I have picked a few lines from Tao Te Ching to demonstrate that Tao is the source of life and all things. It is all pervading. All return and vanish in IT. Tao presides over this dissolution. Nature is the Sovereign, but Nature is Tao.

Nameless, is the origin of Heaven and Earth; It is the Gate to the essence of all life, It exists in everywhere and anywhere.....

Sovereign
is the nature itself. Nature is Tao....

It clothes all things as with a garment, and makes no assumption of being their lord;--it may be named in the smallest things. All things return (to their root and disappear), and do not know that it is it which presides over their doing so;-.....
...

An interesting footnote to Tao Te Ching.

According to legend, Lao-tzu was suicidally depressed and decided to leave the city and end his life in the wilderness.

When he reached the city gates, he had a long conversation with a guard on duty there. After some discourse on the nature of life and things and stuff...the guard asked him where he was going, and Lao-tzu told him that he had decided to end his life.

Shocked, the guard old him that he had never heard such wisdom, and asked Lao-tzu to write down what he had said before he died.

This inspired the writing of Tao Te Ching.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
An interesting footnote to Tao Te Ching.

According to legend, Lao-tzu was suicidally depressed and decided to leave the city and end his life in the wilderness.

When he reached the city gates, he had a long conversation with a guard on duty there. After some discourse on the nature of life and things and stuff...the guard asked him where he was going, and Lao-tzu told him that he had decided to end his life.

Shocked, the guard old him that he had never heard such wisdom, and asked Lao-tzu to write down what he had said before he died.

This inspired the writing of Tao Te Ching.

That is not fully correct. It was the guard who revealed Tao to Lao.
 

Howard Is

Lucky Mud
cannabis is the substratum.

Seriously though, I heard the story the other way round.

I just did a google search, and although suicidal intent is not mentioned anywhere, the various reports I did find agree that the guard asked him to write down his thoughts, and that eventually became the book.
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
"The writer of the Tao Te Ching only mentions the divine a couple of times, in passing, as if not at all convinced of their existence. He certainly doesn't give them a significant role in the universe he describes." -- Stefan Stenudd​


Perhaps no Taoist would ever put it quite so bluntly as I will, but the Tao (1) existed before the gods existed, (2) has nothing to do with the gods other than the Tao might (or might not) be responsible for determining the nature of the gods, and (3) is in some special Taoist sense, superior to the gods.

I base my understanding of the relationship between the Tao and the gods mostly on the work and scholarship of Stefan Stenudd, Roger T. Ames and David L. Hall, and Stephen Mitchell. But I also threw darts at a cork board and flipped coins to arrive at my views.

As I see it, the author of the Tao Te Ching almost certainly was a mystic whose "Tao" is her or his word for the "reality" they encountered during one or more mystical experiences. Most mystics -- but not all -- call that reality "god". Obvious, the author of the Tao Te Ching does not.

(By "reality", I mean that which appears real to the mystic.)

So what is you take on it? Is the Tao god? Or is the Tao not god? And what is the relationship between the Tao and god?



_______________________
Now, a futile effort to make it up to you for another insufferably opinionated thread.


To be the Tao is to not be being or not being. That is, you can't really define or declare that "Tao is..." or " Tao is not... " without losing the Tao.
 
Top