Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Who are you talking about?
-
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!
is tao theisitc or nontheistic
- Thread starter Iti oj
- Start date
MissDiscerner
Eternal student
The Taoism (at least outside of China) is definitively non-theistic! The Tao is seen as a non-divine force who penetrates the whole Universe.
DreadFish
Cosmic Vagabond
If the Tao were divine, that would mean that it's not mundane. If the Tao were a god, then it wouldn't be anything that's not a god. That's too limited.
Fortunately, your definition, and anyone else's, will never actually touch the nature of the Tao. If it did, the Tao would be a pretty dull and finite. (To clarify, that's not an attack on you, that's an attack on definitions.)
Last edited:
You added the word spiritual.
Everything about the Tao te Ching seems to be pointing to the Tao as the non physical part of nature, which would be the spiritual part, which is only evident through its influence on the physical, it certainly doesn't appear to be non spiritual.
Sees
Dragonslayer
Look at the very first "chapter" of the Tao Te Ching, a few times over...to think of it as the spiritual, metaphysical, non-mundane separately or in spite of other and opposite, is against the entire core concept that Tao is the ineffable All. Hence truly label-less. Everywhere you go, you are stepping in it and breathing it. Transcendence as a very important or necessary aspect is late, foreign stuff.
I don't see any problem, since my definition of what God really is is the Tao, trying to convince me that the Tao is not God by my definition isn't going to work, The Tao obviously isn't God by your definition. Its all a matter of how you define God. Assuming we have any good understanding of what the Tao is.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
There is no god in Tao, not sure what is confusing you about that.
There is the Tao, whether the Tao is a term for God or not depends completely on your definition of God, and your understanding of what the Tao is, for that matter. I can pretty much imagine of your an atheist and someone tells you that Tao is theistic in nature, you would have to attack that, maybe for no good reason other than you have to deny any God. So in essence you are denying the Tao, also.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Sure Lyndon, same goes for every single word, term and concept in every language on earth. If you define it differently it means something different. That's nota useful argument I'm afraid.
Gee thanks for the assumptions buddy. As it happens I attended a Tao temple and was initiated in Taoism in a formal ceremony some years ago. There is no god in Taoism.
Sees
Dragonslayer
It's not about you being wrong, but us looking at the traditional understanding of things before we decide to cast that understanding off. If we don't care about that at all, it's better to leave the traditional terms alone all together.
Modern theistic views of a God as the absolute base of existence are completely foreign to this. Any Gods were specific part of the All across ancient cultures, universally, not the All itself.
DreadFish
Cosmic Vagabond
Actually, the Tao Te Ching explicitly says the Tao is like a bellows.
On a side note, it always makes me giggle to read that line because I just imagine talking about an actual bellows and being like "gee, the more I think about it, this thing just absolutely confounds me! The air comes in, the air goes out! Can't explain that!"
Baladas
An Págánach
Salek Atesh
Active Member
Hmmm. Indeed, the Tao cannot be categorized or labeled in such ways. Thus one cannot say it is "divine". But likewise, negative labels also cannot apply to the Tao. Thus, while we can't say the Tao is "divine", it would be equally wrong to state it is "not-divine". The Tao is the thing that unites such opposing concepts as "Divine" and "Not-Divine".
Salek Atesh
Active Member
I agree. The Tao cannot be accurately named. Even Lao Tzu seems to have called it "Tao" merely for the sake of convenience.
"I do not know its name. Identifying it, I call it 'Tao.' Forced to describe it, I call it great"
Thus if someone wants to call it "God", it's equally as valid a label as "Tao", is it not?? For truly the Tao is above all names, and is merely "Tao" because it's useful to have a word for it.
Salek Atesh
Active Member
Nontheism is Yin, Theism is Yang.
Thus, overall, I say that neither term can apply to the Tao.
Thus, overall, I say that neither term can apply to the Tao.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
I don't think the Dao itself fits into any meaningful definition of theism. Theistic relationships involve worship and the seeking of patronage from more powerful beings who are still somehow imagined to be like us. The Dao just is. One does not pray to it, one does not make offerings to it, and it is not going to show greater partiality towards one person or another. The Dao is the Dao.
It would be like saying the Buddhist concept of Nirvana were theistic, to use a closely related analogy. (Both traditions have plenty of room for gods, but neither concept is a god.)
I think the confusion arises because mystical Christians and others tend to call the ultimate reality "God," but that's not really theism either, despite the name; it's the broadening of theistic language to the point where it's really referring to something else altogether.
It would be like saying the Buddhist concept of Nirvana were theistic, to use a closely related analogy. (Both traditions have plenty of room for gods, but neither concept is a god.)
I think the confusion arises because mystical Christians and others tend to call the ultimate reality "God," but that's not really theism either, despite the name; it's the broadening of theistic language to the point where it's really referring to something else altogether.