Why call the great mystery 'God'?

[Twilight Hue]

Tao is not G-d, its a creation.

I doubt thats our call.

 

[Tumah]

I doubt thats our call.

Yes, I understand what an atheist is, thanks.

 

[metis]

That's a beautiful way of seeing how I view life. It's odd for me to say "I pray to life" as it makes Life a noun-object/person/or place even of devotion. Life is much more than a focal point of worship but we are within life and living is worship and prayer in and of itself. That said...


Calling the mystery Tao, God, Buddha-nature (Buddha), Holy Spirit, Spirit, Universe, and so forth are all different means that maybe humans need to relate to something they are completely unfamiliar with. I think it's more of a convenience that people adopt or are indoctrinated in a personal way because it gives a means of conversation and worship with something they want to, not allowed to, or can't find the means to name.

While I understand that the mystery is not named and it makes it "greater" by that definition, in my point of view, there is nothing greater. So, however or whatever name we use to define the mystery isn't wrong. It's a human means of finding a connection with the unknown. So, in other words, naming doesn't mean we are defining something correctly-just for our purpose of relationship with the mystery not dictating what the mystery is.

That, and I've never been a "human terms are not appropriate" or "those are man's terms and they are limited" etc. My religion involves my art from creative expression, poetry, art, etc and using words, body language, etc are beautiful ways to depict life. When we say "human concepts are limited" we separate ourselves from the mystery (or god) rather than being part of god. How can you be a part of god when you make him your authority rather than your friend?

So, people do so for many reasons. It's easier to connect when there is a focal point of language. Some people like myself have more a creative way of connecting to the mystery by the words we use, the dances, and things we draw etc. While others just avoid naming the mystery all together. Which is odd, since we are a part of the mystery and yet we name ourselves and the environment around us.

Even the word Tao itself is attempting to name the mystery. I don't find that wrong. I'd just say every name has it's place but not so distinct to say it does define the mystery. If it does, it wouldn't be a mystery.

Well said, imo, and I don't have a problem with the word "mystery" since there's far more that we don't know than what we do know. As Confucius supposedly said, the more you know, the more you know you really don't know.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes, I understand what an atheist is, thanks.

It was more by which such a question for such an answer, is unattainable weither it be athiest or thiest.

 

[Tumah]

It was more by which such a question for such an answer, is unattainable weither it be athiest or thiest.

With G-d, everything is possible.

 

[Twilight Hue]

With G-d, everything is possible.

Yes. Until it's over of course. ;0)

 

[Lyndon]

I think the Tao is a better description of what God really is than the Bible, whether you want to call it Tao or God, doesn't really make any difference, but in my interpretation, the Tao is a Theos, not the God of anger portrayed in the Bible, but a Theos nonetheless.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The word Tao though. I don't know if I want to debate about that one.

I think that introducing any of these words created more problems than it solves, the introduction of more mental baggage, taking us further away from the direct experience.

 

[Riverwolf]

There's a G-d. He tells people what to do. A lot of people mess up a lot. Some don't. The end.

Quite a simple story for such a long book.

And yet the single letter 道 is anything but simple. Just like the Dao De Jing. It's not a lawbook; it's more of a book of meditations and reflections (at least that's how I perceive it.)

In any case, the yin/yang dichotomy didn't originate in the Dao De Jing, it's part of the indigenous philosophies of China.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

With G-d, everything is possible.

Absolutely everything? Can God destroy Herself?

 

[Tumah]

Absolutely everything? Can God destroy Herself?

This question has no meaning. G-d's existence precedes and transcends concepts. Can G-d apple?

 

[Tumah]

Quite a simple story for such a long book.

And yet the single letter 道 is anything but simple. Just like the Dao De Jing. It's not a lawbook; it's more of a book of meditations and reflections (at least that's how I perceive it.)

In any case, the yin/yang dichotomy didn't originate in the Dao De Jing, it's part of the indigenous philosophies of China.

So here's what the Dao De Jing is about:
it's more of a book of meditations and reflections
The end.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, I understand what an atheist is, thanks.

One has to ask what a Taoist would say, though.

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

Storm Spirit is not a life form for example, it's an abiotic aspect of our world. Storm Spirit is "higher" only in the sense that its physical location is above terrestrial organisms like us. I'm not a fan of hierarchical thinking; I'm too much of an ecologist for that. The gods just are.

How very fascinating. Really, I mean it!

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

Are there rules that govern how the process proceeds, or is it haphazard and illogical?

I think it would be considered too defined for most philosophical Taoists like myself to say the Tao was an intelligent process of a sort. It is what it is. Tao is really a word Lao-tzu used for this ultimately unfathomable underlying principle is all. That's my perspective anyway. Traditional and theistic Taoists may have a different understanding. The Tao may be intelligent, but I wouldn't want to say so.

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

Why not? Especially if the felt relationship with the Mystery seems to be between persons?

I don't deny it can maybe be approached theistically, just as I said in another response- I wonder how useful it is to do it.

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

Calling the mystery Tao, God, Buddha-nature (Buddha), Holy Spirit, Spirit, Universe, and so forth are all different means that maybe humans need to relate to something they are completely unfamiliar with. I think it's more of a convenience that people adopt or are indoctrinated in a personal way because it gives a means of conversation and worship with something they want to, not allowed to, or can't find the means to name.

I always find this an interesting idea or approach to the matter, and I probably partly agree, but of those you listed- Buddha-nature is probably the closest to Tao in being very vague and fluid. Buddha-nature is usually very mysterious and unable to be defined. Many say it is the fundamental nature, similarly to what some say of the Tao. I find the similarities between Buddhism and Taoism so interesting I can't help thinking often- surely these are sister worldviews if any are.

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

I think that introducing any of these words created more problems than it solves, the introduction of more mental baggage, taking us further away from the direct experience.

Oh all I meant by my statement Rick is its good we don't try to define the Tao. Many Taoists would say Tao is a word we call the unnameable by and nothing more. Its very subtle and very elusive.

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

One has to ask what a Taoist would say, though.

Well Luis some Taoists would say we are atheists because we don't see the Tao as a deity, and we find deity concepts ultimately not useful for us, much like many atheists I'd think. I would guess Luis you approach Buddhism similarly? Some Taoists, like some Buddhists, believe in deities that aren't really like a monotheistic entity. More like lifeforms trapped in Samsara themselves, as it were. That is to say, since I don't hold to Samsara- that these beings would be like ETs of a sort, bound by natural limits and laws. I would ask Epicurus's old question about calling any such entity a god, but that's only my answer.

 

[metis]

I think the Tao is a better description of what God really is...

I really don't know what "God really is", but I have a sneaking suspicion that Spinoza could be right when he used "Nature" as a substitute name for "God". And then Einstein said he believed in "Spinoza's God", so I tend to think that he, Spinoza, and I are pretty much on an equal footing.