Tao and God - Page 3

Abogado del Diablo · 04-16-2005, 06:59 PM

Welcome to CR, mysticpastor.

Thanks for the reading suggestions. That's one C.S. Lewis book I haven't read. I'm ordering it right now, along with "Christ the Eternal Tao."

Great to have you aboard.

path_of_one · 04-17-2005, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mysticpastor

The mystics spoke of the via positive (what we can say about God) but tended more toward the via negative (what we cannot say about God.) This is very similar to the tao that cannot be tao'ed. We can only know God, says the author of the Cloud of Unknowing, if we UNKNOW god. The more we hold to our concepts about God, the less we know about god. This seems rather consistant with the Tao.

Also Christianity and Taoism both share the concept of wu wei. Strength, in the Christian tradition, (well the biblical tradition at least) is in weakness. Christ shows his power by being silent before Pilate, and by dying.

I will end with this: Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 2Anyone who claims to know something does not yet have the necessary knowledge; 3 but anyone who loves God is known by him. (Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter Eight, verses 1b-3.)

This is my belief as well. The Tao Te Ching describes very well for me, as a Christ-follower, what it is to "know" God. The more I try to put God in a box, in a format I can understand, the less I actually am experiencing God, because God is not in a format I can understand. God is far beyond comprehension. As I let go of my expectations, I come to a place where I am silent before the Great Incomprehensible Something that is God. And in this place of silence I can receive a glimpse, recognizing that it is not the whole. Strength is found, for me, in an admission and acceptance of my weakness- that I am limited and therefore cannot "know" God, but I can still find peace and joy in my experience of this incomprehensible Being.

Master Vigil · 04-25-2005, 10:08 PM

But Tao also can not be understood with words, so if Tao and God are one, the bible does no good. Tao is emptiness, it is effortless action, it is nature. There is no good or evil in Tao. That I believe is a HUGE difference between Tao and God. God is good, loving. Tao is not.

tadpole · 06-01-2005, 08:46 PM

hey cyberpeeps!

i have often thoght there was a striking resemblance between the 42nd chapter of the tao te ching and the beginning of the bibles genesis, especially in reguards to "god" and the beginning. the tao te ching states:"first there was the tao; the tao gave birth to the one; the one gave birth to the two; the two gave birth to the three; three gives birth to all things. all things are held in yin, and carry yang: and they are held together in the chi of teeming enery."

i enjoyed finding this (coming from a christian upbringing) because it so simply connected not just christianity and taoism but the genesis of all living things. cell division and bifurcation models of any kind fit into these two seemingly different doctrines.

anyhoo, thought i'd through that out there. and as they say "the tao that can be spoken is not the true tao" perhaps just as it is a sin to use the lords name in vain?

Vajradhara · 06-01-2005, 10:53 PM

Namaste Tadpole,

welcome to CR

may i inquire which translation that you used of Tao Te Ching?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tadpole

hey cyberpeeps!

i have often thoght there was a striking resemblance between the 42nd chapter of the tao te ching and the beginning of the bibles genesis, especially in reguards to "god" and the beginning. the tao te ching states:"first there was the tao; the tao gave birth to the one; the one gave birth to the two; the two gave birth to the three; three gives birth to all things. all things are held in yin, and carry yang: and they are held together in the chi of teeming enery."

i enjoyed finding this (coming from a christian upbringing) because it so simply connected not just christianity and taoism but the genesis of all living things. cell division and bifurcation models of any kind fit into these two seemingly different doctrines.

anyhoo, thought i'd through that out there. and as they say "the tao that can be spoken is not the true tao" perhaps just as it is a sin to use the lords name in vain?

queenofsheba · 06-02-2005, 01:21 PM

The biblical God is an intelligent being that intervenes in the world and choses sides. If you compare tao to God, it's rather the pantheist view on God, as an abstract, omnipresent force that doesn't intervene.

Master Vigil · 06-03-2005, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by queenofsheba

The biblical God is an intelligent being that intervenes in the world and choses sides. If you compare tao to God, it's rather the pantheist view on God, as an abstract, omnipresent force that doesn't intervene.

I view it as an omnipresent force that is constantly intervening. Everything that happens is Tao, everything that is, is Tao. It just isn't an intelligent being, it is the encompassment of all things.

theocritus · 06-05-2005, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zazen

actually the reason we see god as "human like" is because god made man in his image, and because everything we experience originates from god, therefore everything that is "human like"(or of man) is not distinguishable as unique or seperate of god, because god is the wellspring

amitabha

What if God is man's perception of Tao. Not to say the Christian God does not exist. When I say God; I mean God for all religions with deities. Man tried to define what could not be defined. We understand ego so we gave Tao ego (i.e. God, Krishna, Shiva, take your pick).

With this thought God made nothing in his image. Man made God in his image.

Nitai · 06-16-2005, 11:18 PM

Hare Krishna

You wrote

## the Christian God does not exist. When I say God; I mean God for all religions with deities.
** The christian God Has a human-like form
** this is the statement of very beginning of the Bible
** this is the description of Solomon Of the Supreme Lord who is sitting on the throne surrounded and worshiped angels.

### Vedic texts also describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead having a human form
### Krishna and Rama are both the One Supreme Lord in different manifestations, both having humanlike form
### They both walked on this earth planet
### for that there are Historical, scriptural, astrological and archaeological proofs

### the greatest revelation of God to man is when one attains perfection of chanting the Hare Krishna mantra
### at that time Krishna in His original human like form reveals Himself to His pure devotee
### at that time one can speak, associate and have loving relationship with Krishna
### mental speculators who don't practice the path of devotion to God will never understand this devotional perfection of life
### God is understood only with devotion
### at the time one understands God through revelation one also understands His activities, form, qualities and glories

** Man tried to define what could not be defined.
# God describes Himself in the scriptures. That's a perfect definition.
# there is no need for speculating but for sincere practice by which one can realise God

** God made nothing in his image. Man made God in his image.
# IOW you want to say that God doesn't exist?
# all those who accept God's existence are nuts?

# you also say that God is not a creator of man but man created God
# but you should consider the following things

# Whatever exist in the universe has a great complexity
# complexity implies plan, intelligence and consciousness
# planing, intelligence and consciousness belongs only to a person
# we can plan and make small things
# big things can be planed and made only by some superhuman
# that superhuman is called God

# we have a form
# God is the greatest and is nothing less then us
# He is complete and perfect
# therefor He has also a form

# He existed in the very beginning of everything
# according to his forms we have similar form like Him

# in the spiritual world He likes to associate with other persons
# for that reason others have similar spiritual form like God
# our material human forms are the perverted reflection of our original spiritual form in the spiritual world
# these material forms were made possible to come to existence by material nature
# material nature is a dull mater and so it needs a mover
# that mover and primary cause of creation is therefor God
# material nature is only the secondary cause of our existence

I believe this is not enough for you
# to refute your statement that God doesn't exist we need to open a whole knew forum where the proofs of existence of God should be discussed
# anybody likes to start that?

theocritus · 06-17-2005, 01:18 AM

Thank you for your reply.

I do not question the existence of God (or what ever you want to call it); my personal choices are source or the way. God denotes sex and personality in Christian faiths; can't speak for others. Islam's word for God is asexual if I'm not mistaken.

I only question the existence of a form that man interacts with on this physical plane. Source is found in things through all physical senses. More importantly source is found in us. We are all a part of source therefore all responsible for and in control of our own lives (whether conscious or not). Faith in my opinion should give way to source and searching with in your self.

Tungp'o · 06-22-2005, 11:09 PM

I’m new to the forum and was drawn to this discussion on Tao and God. I’m not an expert on Taoism, though Taoism plays a large part in my development in the spiritual and philosophical realm.

It’s not uncommon to see a similarity with the Christian idea of God and the Tao. Some say that they are one in the same thing, but opinions differ greatly when compared with other Taoist sects and writings. I think the biggest question most readers of Taoist philosophy ask is, “Is the Toa personal or impersonal?”

It’s an important question because if the Tao is impersonal than it’s not the same as the Biblical God of the Jewish and Christian faith. Indeed many have denied that Tao is personal and many Taoist masters have stated that Tao is indeed an impersonal force.

Why then the debate over the similarities with Christianity’s concept of God and Tao? The Tao Te Ching is the reason why many see personal attributes to Tao. In the field of philosophical Taoism, truly Lao Tzu is the father of this school of thought. Taoism existed long before Lao Tzu, but with the advent of the Tao Te Ching Taoism became a system of thought others could follow.

Later on you have Chang Tzu and his classics. It’s in Chang Tzu’s teachings that the idea of Tao as being impersonal is really developed, not that it isn’t hinted at in the Tao Te Ching, but Chang Tzu goes into depth as to the impersonal nature of Tao. This conception of Tao is more instep with Buddhist ideas, that a all embracing force would be neither good nor evil. This doesn’t mean Chang Tzu was Buddhist, but it does mark a departure from Lao Tzu in the philosophical model of Tao.

Now the argument that the God of the Judaism and Christianity could not be the Tao is based upon the fact that it is explicitly stated that God is righteousness, goodness, light, est…and would exclude him as the source from which all existence originated. This is a valid point, after all there is both good and evil in the world the Yin and Yang, or is it?

· Now this is my own theory and I have a long way to go to validate it in any scholarly context, so please excuse me for its short comings.

In Christianity, Judaism, and Islamic teachings God displays both positive and negative attributes. The Lord is love and judgment a positive and negative in one. If you will remember Yin and Yang is “Positive” and “Negative” this does not mean to say a negative is “Evil”, but that negative and positive in balance is needed for life and growth. That’s why Satan in scripture is not depicted as the opposite of God, but a mere creation. That is why the idea of a single living God- and not two opposite gods forever balancing each other into harmony – is the basis of Christian, Jewish ,and Islamic faith. Tao is not the interplay of Tin and Yang, but the source from which the two arose.

However, these are only some of my insights into the study of Taoism as a philosophy.

I have some other information on my small homepage under "links" is anyone would like to make some coments. As I said its not perfect, but I would like to learn more about Taoism and the truths that it holds.

www.templerock.zoomshare.com

Vajradhara · 06-22-2005, 11:59 PM

just an aside..

both the Jewish and Islamic faith state that God is not a "personal" God. that is, in some respects, a completely Christian idea. generally speaking, their view is that words and so forth are mere approximations and are not and cannot represent that which is beyond representation.

of course... humans being what they are... that hardly seems to stop them

welcome to the forum, Tungp'o

enjoy your stay.

theocritus · 06-28-2005, 04:49 PM

That is been my biggest problem in accepting Christianity for myself. To attach a personality to some thing such as God, source, Way, or what ever you want to call it seems very egotistical of us to do. At the same time it is tough for us in our modern society to not think of some thing with out personality.

Vajradhara · 06-28-2005, 05:43 PM

Namaste theocritus,

thank you for the post.

that is a very difficult thing to overcome.

frankly, i find that there is some value in using these ideas, if it can be borne in mind that these are tools, approximations which do not, actually, correspond with anything other than our ideas about something.

if one can bear this in mind, i think that there is less of a worry than if one starts to think that their thoughts about a subject actually indicate the nature of said subject... if that makes sense

earl · 06-28-2005, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste theocritus,

thank you for the post.

that is a very difficult thing to overcome.

frankly, i find that there is some value in using these ideas, if it can be borne in mind that these are tools, approximations which do not, actually, correspond with anything other than our ideas about something.

if one can bear this in mind, i think that there is less of a worry than if one starts to think that their thoughts about a subject actually indicate the nature of said subject... if that makes sense

I whole-heartedly agree! In fact, of course, this same thing could be & is said by Buddhists regarding the self. Take care, Earl