Why call the great mystery 'God'?

[beenherebeforeagain]

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

This also describes the Tao...

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

Pretty much. "Deity" is simply too vague, too variously understood a concept to be of much practical use.

It is ok to use it, but one has to take the responsibility of deciding what it is supposed to mean and deal with the disparity of understandings.

Myself, I just find that much more work than it is worth. And since I have no natural inclination towards theism in the first place...

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.

Ultimately, everyone has his or her own answer, and little consensus. That is only a problem if we expect otherwise.

 

[Riverwolf]

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

So, by that logic, the Torah is just a lawbook. The end.

IOW, the Torah absolutely the exact same as all other lawbooks and codes throughout all history, ancient, medieval, and modern; and all cultures, Eurasian, African, and American. All the same with nothing whatsoever unique about them.

And that is, of course, ridiculous.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

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

So we can't say anything about God?

 

[Quagmire]

It seems that a lot of people have a sense of wonder and mystery from being alive. A sense of wonder and awe toward the universe. Let's call this the great mystery, and am I wrong to say many theists define this mystery as God?

My question is why call the mystery God? Lao-tzu did not believe we could speak of the great mystery in any truthful terms, and merely called it the Tao to call it 'something'.

The mystery might really exist, or it might be something of our perception, and actually void of any 'suchness'.

What makes me an atheist in spite of accepting the Tao, is I do not call the mystery a god. I do not believe the ideas of gods do the mystery justice. I believe the mystery and the universe are much greater than these concepts.

Me too, but I don't think that necessarily negates the need, or the usefulness, of putting a face on it, so to speak.

If the Universe is unlimited, if it's all things, then it would naturally follow that It's also a guy with white hair and beard, sitting on a cloud (although that's not what my God looks like).

That is my question for you friends: what causes the mystery to be called god, and people to attach all these human terms and conceptions to the unfathomable?

It's easier to communicate that way.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

I'd somewhat agree as well. I don't know much to nothing about Taoism. Mahayana Buddhism has less "mystic or gnostic" approach to seeing "the tao". I like it because it is very to-the-point. Well, Mahayana has more of a metaphysics feel than Theravada; but, in general, from what I know of The Buddha's teachings he is pretty blunt where the tao (assuming) and all the other things I listed have more of a mystic approach. "Greater than us", "We have limited knowledge", the "universe (comparing it to us tiny little specks of the earth)".

It is almost as if many religions look to the future and say "we will get there if we have the knowledge and/or faith. We strive. We journey.

Buddha-nature is already here. We don't look forward (which isn't bad) but within. So, I guess that's a tao thing. I don't know.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I notice you said "a god". I think when someone says God, it is not necessarily a deity they mean, but exactly what is meant by the Tao. Why use the word God to describe this? Because the word God represents the Absolute, the Ultimate, the Infinite. All those terms could be used as well. God is "Ultimate Good", God is Anglo word for Good.


That people literalize and anthropomorphize God is simply because it is "above their heads", quite literally. That doesn't mean that is the only way to understand what God means.

I have a question for ya(ll). Why does it have to be greater or above your heads? Mysteries doesn't have to be that way. It's just something we don't know to put it literally. Why put the unknown higher than the known? Why not, as @Rick O'Shez was saying, appreciate life and in it's awe?

 

[Ouroboros]

It seems that a lot of people have a sense of wonder and mystery from being alive. A sense of wonder and awe toward the universe. Let's call this the great mystery, and am I wrong to say many theists define this mystery as God?

My question is why call the mystery God? Lao-tzu did not believe we could speak of the great mystery in any truthful terms, and merely called it the Tao to call it 'something'.

Why call it Tao?

 

[Ouroboros]

Tao is not G-d, its a creation.

For a pantheist, they're one and the same.

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

Why call it Tao?

It doesn't have to be called that either, but knowing what we know about Lao-tzu, he may have coined it with no important meaning, almost playfully. He is said to have been the 'ancient child', referring to his maturity and childish playfulness in one individual.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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.

OK. But why do you assume there IS such a thing? What is the need for it? What purpose does such a belief serve?

 

[Tumah]

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.

Would it be far-fetched to say that if it was not logical then there would be no use studying it?

 

[Tumah]

This also describes the Tao...

I wasn't describing G-d though, I was explaining logic.

 

[Tumah]

So, by that logic, the Torah is just a lawbook. The end.

IOW, the Torah absolutely the exact same as all other lawbooks and codes throughout all history, ancient, medieval, and modern; and all cultures, Eurasian, African, and American. All the same with nothing whatsoever unique about them.

And that is, of course, ridiculous.

At its essence, that's exactly what it is. A book to teach Jews exactly what to do. And it uses various means, such as stories and direct commands to do so.

 

[Tumah]

So we can't say anything about God?

Right.

 

[Tumah]

For a pantheist, they're one and the same.

Perhaps. But in this thread, the OP is asking why this is not true for others.

 

[Ouroboros]

It doesn't have to be called that either, but knowing what we know about Lao-tzu, he may have coined it with no important meaning, almost playfully. He is said to have been the 'ancient child', referring to his maturity and childish playfulness in one individual.

The thing that we can't give a name to, we try to give a name to anyway, Tao, God, ground of all being. the great mystery, and so on. It's just a word to represent that "thing" that we can't explain or give name to. God is just another name for it, just like Tao.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The thing that we can't give a name to, we try to give a name to anyway, Tao, God, ground of all being. the great mystery, and so on. It's just a word to represent that "thing" that we can't explain or give name to. God is just another name for it, just like Tao.

Perhaps, but the act of naming does seem to result in mental baggage, beliefs and assumptions.

 

[Breathe]

I call it God because God is a term. It is a term we use in the Anglosphere. It is the most widely understood term. We don't use Brahman, Ishvar/Ishwar, and so on, for the most part.

I feel God is more of a useful term for me. Not only because I live in an English-speaking country, but because I feel it shows God as more than just an impersonal force.

 

[JoStories]

It seems that a lot of people have a sense of wonder and mystery from being alive. A sense of wonder and awe toward the universe. Let's call this the great mystery, and am I wrong to say many theists define this mystery as God?

My question is why call the mystery God? Lao-tzu did not believe we could speak of the great mystery in any truthful terms, and merely called it the Tao to call it 'something'.

The mystery might really exist, or it might be something of our perception, and actually void of any 'suchness'.

What makes me an atheist in spite of accepting the Tao, is I do not call the mystery a god. I do not believe the ideas of gods do the mystery justice. I believe the mystery and the universe are much greater than these concepts.

That is my question for you friends: what causes the mystery to be called god, and people to attach all these human terms and conceptions to the unfathomable?

IMO, it is a term that has been used to describe this mystery for millennia. I don't call it God either, save to communicate thoughts on that topic here on this forum. I am Buddhist and consider the Mystery to be a joining with Enlightenment. There is no gender nor figure such as defined by most of the Abrahamic faiths. It simply is. However, that said, I doubt you will get billions of people to change from calling It God to calling It It. Its been so ingrained at this point that it will likely never change. But its an excellent question and observation.