Is reality with Tao the ONE-God?

[Rick O'Shez]

If you were truly interested in understanding religions you'd study both them and the cultural context they emerged & evolved in. But the only thing that interests you about other religions is bending and warping them to fit your own narrative.

Well said. Unfortunately bending and warping seems to be a popular hobby on this forum.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The attributes mentioned in the above passage make it clear that Tao is God.
Regards

Again with the quote-mining! People are patiently trying to explain to you what Tao is. Forget "God", put your preconceptions to one side, and listen with an open mind if you really want to learn. Please?

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes...and in liberation there is non-duality....and those other concepts...Brahman, Tao, etc. also imply non-duality. God is one...nothing separate from God can ever enter into God because...everything is already in God. Hence the task of the ignorant who imagine God is something separate and despite all the trying, can not enter into union with God, is to cease their dualistic view of God as being external and separate...

I don't agree with what I have colored in magenta. G-d the Creator is separate and distinct from the created. Please
Regards

 

[Sunstone]

For me, I find peace in this line. It demonstrates that it is unnecessary to have all of the answers. I like that.

So do I.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't agree with what I have colored in magenta. G-d the Creator is separate and distinct from the created. Please
Regards

So where is G-d spatially in relation to the universal space?

 

[Kartari]

Hi paarsurrey,

In religion we don't consider what a particular society or what people of a country believe out of blind-faith, we see the text itself or the word used in a passage. The word "Tao" in the passage under discussion makes clear it is another word for ONE-God. Right? Please
Regards

That's wrong, actually. If you reread my post, I clearly demonstrated that the translation which uses "God" must be incorrect. A Westerner simply decided to use the wrong word "God" in modern times when translating the Daodejing into English. Perhaps out of personal bias, though I cannot say offhand why. And the word dao (or tao) literally translates into "the Way." It does not translate to "God."

Edit: Also, not sure what you're getting at about the "blind faith" bit, but if Chinese religion had no conception of monotheism for centuries after the Daodejing was written, then how can you possibly surmise that the text refers to one God?

 

[Kartari]

Hi paarsurrey,

Nirvana or salvation is when one is free from sins and one get nearness to Allah.
Regards

Nirvana literally translates into "to extinguish" or "to blow out." It refers to the cessation of dukkha, which means "suffering" or perhaps more accurately "existential dissatisfaction." Absolutely nothing in Buddhist scriptures refers to the words "sin" or "Allah/God," I'm afraid.

 

[Kartari]

Hi paarsurrey,

'The great Tao is vast. He is on the left and He is on the right. All creatures depend upon Him, and the care of them tires Him not. He brings creation to completion, without seeking reward. He provides for all His creation, but requires nothing for Himself, so He may be considered small. All creatures turn to Him for their needs, yet He keeps nothing for Himself, thus He may be named 'the Supreme'. He does not consider Himself great and because of this He is truly Great.'
DAN, L (1969) The Works of Lao Tzyy. Truth and Nature. The World Book Company, Ltd. Taipei, Taiwan, China. Ch.34, p.17

The attributes mentioned in the above passage make it clear that Tao is God.
Regards

Do you have an online link to this book? First of all, I've never seen Laozi/Lao Tzu spelled as "Lao Tzyy" before. Second, the dao is genderless (i.e. both yin and yang qualities emerge from it), so any translation which not only refers to the dao as a He or Him, and especially when it's a capitalized He or Him, is a clear clue to me that this book was written by a Christian (or other monotheist) with an agenda to make the Daodejing falsely appear to refer to God when in fact it does not.

Edit: Nevermind, I found your source. This is obviously an Islamic take on the Daodejing. The passage more accurately translates as follows (source). Note the lack of references to He or Him):

"34. The Great Dao flows everywhere, at our every right and left.
Relying upon it, the things of the world are born, yet it remains wordless;
its work done it takes no name as the doer.

Clothing and nourishing the things of the world, it never acts as their lord –
constant without desire, it may be termed small.
The things of the world return to it but it never acts as their lord –
it may be termed great.
Because it never takes itself to be great it is able to complete its greatness."

If you want to truly understand the perspective of other religions, you should defer to their own scriptures and understandings, rather than deferring to biased sources which reword and spin things to suit their own viewpoint. Or to scholarly sources that are written without bias.

 

[Kartari]

Personally, I find it far more interesting and rewarding to open my mind to new perspectives, to different ways of seeing things. When I have explored other religions, I try to see things from that religion's point of view, rather than appropriate and reword its teachings to fit into my own preconceived notions about what it "should" be and how it somehow deep down really supports my own religious viewpoint. I think this latter take, of appropriating other religions to fit the mold of one's own favored religion, is unfortunately what transpires for some people who look a little too hard at seeing all religions as one and the same. Perhaps it's some kind of way to assert the truth value of one's preferred religion (in one's own mind at least). Whatever the case, in trying to mash other religious viewpoints into fitting your own, you not only end up missing a refreshingly new perspective on life, but also end up grossly misunderstanding the people and cultures of those parts of the world whose religions you've appropriated.

Consider the more rewarding and interesting path of seeking to genuinely understand other religious perspectives without letting any personal bias interfere.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Personally, I find it far more interesting and rewarding to open my mind to new perspectives, to different ways of seeing things. When I have explored other religions, I try to see things from that religion's point of view, rather than appropriate and reword its teachings to fit into my own preconceived notions about what it "should" be and how it somehow deep down really supports my own religious viewpoint. I think this latter take, of appropriating other religions to fit the mold of one's own favored religion, is unfortunately what transpires for some people who look a little too hard at seeing all religions as one and the same. Perhaps it's some kind of way to assert the truth value of one's preferred religion (in one's own mind at least). Whatever the case, in trying to mash other religious viewpoints into fitting your own, you not only end up missing a refreshingly new perspective on life, but also end up grossly misunderstanding the people and cultures of those parts of the world whose religions you've appropriated.

Consider the more rewarding and interesting path of seeking to genuinely understand other religious perspectives without letting any personal bias interfere.

Well said.

 

[Kartari]

Just to quickly clarify, I am not opposed to people blending ideas and religious traditions into whatever custom mix they personally find most useful. My main concern is when the teachings of one or more religions are misconstrued or misrepresented, such as when the Daodejing is made to appear to be a monotheistic treatise when it clearly is not. As I wrote, it's imo best to take everything on its own terms, see what it says for itself, within its own times and cultural context, instead of trying to filter and meld it to fit into one's preconceived notions and preferences.

 

[paarsurrey]

So where is G-d spatially in relation to the universal space?

Space and the Universe is His creation, the Creator does not have to be within the Created. He is Omnipresent with his attributes in all the Universes. Right? Please
Regards