Who Is the Lord/God in the Tao Te Ching?

[Marblehead]

Oh for sure! But, I also make sure that my butt stay's open, in case there needs to be an evacuation...

 

Yep. We do need to get rid of the crap now and again. Both physically and mentally. Learn to unlearn.

 

Be well!

[Erdrickgr]

Personally, I think that if one is looking for God in Taoism they are looking in the wrong place. Keep looking but maybe go talk with some Buddhists or Christians.

 

Well, that's sort of why I brought this up. I don't believe in a personal God. However, as I've read about Taoism, I've seen different people say different things about God/gods. On the one hand I've seen people say that Taoism is atheistic. On the other hand, I've seen people say that there are indeed gods in Taoism that have been worshipped. So, when I came across the passage I quoted in the Tao Te Ching, I figured I'd ask about it.

 

Regarding some of the gods worshipped by Taoists throughout the ages, are some these "gods" only divine in a limited sense? I could understand that, coming from an Eastern Christian background. Many eastern theologians hold to a belief that humans can be deified (theosis) and become like gods, though these deified humans are totally different than God Himself, because humans are limited, created beings, and only God is limitless and uncreated. Or, do gods merely represent something non-personal, like virtues or a black emptiness (as King Kabalabhati said)?

[Marblehead]

Hi Erdrickgr,

 

Good points and questions.

 

Yes, if one views religious Taoism one will find many gods. That is the reason I stopped my search into religious Taoism early on with the path I had found for myself.

 

I cannot answer any of your questions regarding the religion - the answers will have to come from someone who knows about that aspect of Taoism.

 

Yes, I consider myself to be an Atheist.

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

Well, that's sort of why I brought this up. I don't believe in a personal God. However, as I've read about Taoism, I've seen different people say different things about God/gods. On the one hand I've seen people say that Taoism is atheistic. On the other hand, I've seen people say that there are indeed gods in Taoism that have been worshipped. So, when I came across the passage I quoted in the Tao Te Ching, I figured I'd ask about it.

 

Regarding some of the gods worshipped by Taoists throughout the ages, are some these "gods" only divine in a limited sense? I could understand that, coming from an Eastern Christian background. Many eastern theologians hold to a belief that humans can be deified (theosis) and become like gods, though these deified humans are totally different than God Himself, because humans are limited, created beings, and only God is limitless and uncreated. Or, do gods merely represent something non-personal, like virtues or a black emptiness (as King Kabalabhati said)?

 

As far as my remembered readings. The immortals or gods of Taoism are just enlightened sages of the past who have ascended and have manifested the light body through their cultivation and now just guide from higher dimensions. Someone is free to correct me. But, it seems to be that the Immortals/gods of Taoism are just previous realizers of the Tao and not creators of the cosmos, of course part of the co-creation which I think that concept of co-emergent-arising is a concept in Taoism? I've been told.

[Pietro]

... as a Buddhist, there is no source of existence as there is no beginning. These are merely states of consciousness either illumined, or unillumined. Matter is considered unillumined consciousness in many cosmologies. It's the state of veiling clear colorless awareness in order to manifest through it's own ignorance of it's nature as non-dual illumination to quantify, or seem multiple as duality.

 

Wheren't you the guys good about trascending dualism?

When did you lose that?

[Vajrahridaya]

Wheren't you the guys good about trascending dualism?

When did you lose that?

 

There is still a process that ignorance has in order to be dense 3 dimensions.

 

All states, forms of consciousness and all the infinite conscious beings are all inherently empty and interconnected add infinitum. Each point leads to every other point. Neither one, nor many. It's quite non-dual. Just not substantial non-duality.

 

You mis-understand the intention of my post. Which I guess is my fault, sometimes I assume that people will understand the cosmology. But if one has no training in the tradition or reading of it, then the reference is completely lost in translation.

 

What I was talking about was the process that one's consciousness undergo's from the beginning of a cosmic cycle to go from refined consciousness that illumines 360 to dense forms of housed in the body consciousness. It goes through a process of limiting veils in an evolution of dis-enlightenment, or dis-illumination before one even enter's into this dimension that is surrounded by black space.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[doc benway]

The Buddhas emptiness is not what you are saying though.

 

It's not a state of void beyond thought, it's not an "it"... it's a quality of dependent origination which applies to absolutely everything, including non-conceptual states of consciousness. So, I have not missed it. It's a realization, not an identity, neither is it a background, or a reality of things. Things are not emptiness, they are empty of inherent existence and merely relative and originate dependently, including realizations, and meditative experiences. As well as grand all encompassing formless concepts. Emptiness is a way of interpreting for liberation, its not liberation itself. You don't become one with emptiness.

To be accurate, the emptiness you describe is also not the Buddha's, rather it is Nagarjuna's, is it not?

Nagarjuna developed the concept of dependent origination to interpret Buddha's much more minimalist commentary. Buddha's comments on the matter basically included the fact that the universe is without self "shunyata" and that one may be liberated if one understands this (meaning at an experiential, not intellectual level). All the rest comes from Nagarjuna and subsequent interpreters, in my understanding. Mind you, I'm not a Buddhist scholar by any stretch of the imagination so please correct me if this is inaccurate. I'm also not a Daoist scholar or a Daoist but based on my interaction with Daoists and my personal practice of Daoist cultivation, I see nothing that indicates the widespread belief or doctrine of a universal self or atman, which Buddha was denying.

 

It's not dogma, it's just how things are.

Priceless!

[Vajrahridaya]

To be accurate, the emptiness you describe is also not the Buddha's, rather it is Nagarjuna's, is it not?

Nagarjuna developed the concept of dependent origination to interpret Buddha's much more minimalist commentary. Buddha's comments on the matter basically included the fact that the universe is without self "shunyata" and that one may be liberated if one understands this (meaning at an experiential, not intellectual level). All the rest comes from Nagarjuna and subsequent interpreters, in my understanding. Mind you, I'm not a Buddhist scholar by any stretch of the imagination so please correct me if this is inaccurate. I'm also not a Daoist scholar or a Daoist but based on my interaction with Daoists and my personal practice of Daoist cultivation, I see nothing that indicates the widespread belief or doctrine of a universal self or atman, which Buddha was denying.

Priceless!

 

Yes, Nagarjuna is credited with the expansion of what the Buddha taught. So it is considered the Buddha's emptiness. As Theravada does not equate dependent origination with a Self either or atta and anatta is a part of the Theravada doctrine. The Buddha did deny a universal essence that one can take refuge in, in the Pali Suttas.

 

Also concerning a universal self. It just seems sometimes that the experiential interpretation of the Tao is something similar to what the Buddha denied in that. Sometimes not.

 

So... there doesn't seem to be consensus of what the Tao actually is on an experiential level, as in what it's trying to name, as in how the beyond concepts is being equated in terms of ontological experience. I don't see that it's necessarily pointing to the same moon. Though I could be wrong because I'm not a Taoist scholar.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

So... there doesn't seem to be consensus of what the Tao actually is on an experiential level, as in what it's trying to name, as in how the beyond concepts is being equated in terms of ontological experience. I don't see that it's necessarily pointing to the same moon. Though I could be wrong because I'm not a Taoist scholar.

 

Well, when I point to the moon and say, "Look at the beautiful moon." there is normally only one moon in the sky. If you look at my finger instead that's your problem, not mine.

 

Be well!

[Sunya]

Well, when I point to the moon and say, "Look at the beautiful moon." there is normally only one moon in the sky. If you look at my finger instead that's your problem, not mine.

 

Be well!

 

Buddhism points to the interdependence of the sky and the moon, not just the sky or just the moon. You gotta see both are mutually dependent!

 

seems like the Dao of Laozi is pointing to the sky, and saying that the moon comes from the sky because the sky is the source of all things. Am I wrong?

Edited August 12, 2009 by mikaelz

[Marblehead]

Buddhism points to the interdependence of the sky and the moon, not just the sky or just the moon. You gotta see both are mutually dependent!

 

seems like the Dao of Laozi is pointing to the sky, and saying that the moon comes from the sky because the sky is the source of all things. Am I wrong?

 

Yes Dear. You are wrong.

 

To your first paragraph we Taoists don't waste our time on such silliness.

 

When a Taoist point to the moon that is his/her only intention. No hidden agenda. We simply say, "There is the moon." If we wanted to talk about Mars we would point to Mars and make comment.

 

Life is really very simple when you don't add your illusions and delusions to it.

 

Be well!

Edited August 12, 2009 by Marblehead

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes Dear. You are wrong.

 

To your first paragraph we Taoists don't waste our time on such silliness.

 

When a Taoist point to the moon that is his/her only intention. No hidden agenda. We simply say, "There is the moon." If we wanted to talk about Mars we would point to Mars and make comment.

 

Life is really very simple when you don't add your illusions and delusions to it.

 

Be well!

 

It's delusion to think that things are simply what they appear to be. Your turning a metaphor about the meaning of things into a literal interpretation.

 

What the whole phrase pointing at the moon means is in reference to the meaning of a teaching. That the body of the Buddha's teachings leads to an entirely different realization than that of Taoism is what the meaning of the phrase is talking about. Not literally pointing to the moon. To figure out the nature of the moon and the sky is to know your own nature as well. If your practice does not point to a wisdom that transcends death and suffering, then the practice and philosophy is quite limited. Before you know it you'll be on your death bed facing a mystery that you never prepared for. That's the only sure thing that death will happen, unless you cultivate enough to attain the body of light, like that discussed in Dzogchen and certain types of Taoism.

 

But, what Michael is saying is that, part of freeing oneself from suffering is understanding it's causes and conditions. Which also means realizing the causes and conditions of everything in a general sense.

[Marblehead]

It's delusion to think that things are simply what they appear to be. Your turning a metaphor about the meaning of things into a literal interpretation.

 

What the whole phrase pointing at the moon means is in reference to the meaning of a teaching. That the body of the Buddha's teachings leads to an entirely different realization than that of Taoism is what the meaning of the phrase is talking about. Not literally pointing to the moon. To figure out the nature of the moon and the sky is to know your own nature as well. If your practice does not point to a wisdom that transcends death and suffering, then the practice and philosophy is quite limited. Before you know it you'll be on your death bed facing a mystery that you never prepared for. That's the only sure thing that death will happen, unless you cultivate enough to attain the body of light, like that discussed in Dzogchen and certain types of Taoism.

 

But, what Michael is saying is that, part of freeing oneself from suffering is understanding it's causes and conditions. Which also means realizing the causes and conditions of everything in a general sense.

 

Oh My Goodness!!

 

We Taoists were pointing at the moon before any Buddhist understood that there really was a moon.

 

Yes, I confess. We Taoists are very literally-minded folks.

 

See what alll you have added to such a simple concept? I was only pointing at the moon and here you are talking about death and suffering and transcending death (which no one can do) and facing a mystery and cultivation.

 

To your last paragraph, we Taoists do that too, but not when we are supposed to be looking at the moon.

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

Oh My Goodness!!

 

We Taoists were pointing at the moon before any Buddhist understood that there really was a moon.

 

Yes, I confess. We Taoists are very literally-minded folks.

 

See what alll you have added to such a simple concept? I was only pointing at the moon and here you are talking about death and suffering and transcending death (which no one can do) and facing a mystery and cultivation.

 

To your last paragraph, we Taoists do that too, but not when we are supposed to be looking at the moon.

 

Be well!

 

 

We do it all the time. Also, Buddhism is older than the Buddha. As he said, he found an ancient path. There was a wheel turning Buddha on Earth 30,000 years before this current Buddha. We figure everything out, and we transcend the figure who tries to configure.

[dwai]

Speaking of the Tao, the Tao Te Ching says:

Who is this Lord/God that the passage is speaking of? Is the writer just using a generic concept of God to make a point, or did they have a specific God in mind when they wrote this?

 

 

This is a reference to the "God" that is created by man...equivalent term (Hinduism) is Saguna Brahman. This God has certain properties (like He is Kind, Loving, Benevolent, etc or He is Punisher of Evil, Sinners, etc).

 

Tao is Nirguna Brahman or that which cannot be described, intellectually grasped or ever spoken of. Tao can only be realized and walked and experienced.

 

This passage is most likely referring to the various "Gods" that were prevalent in Chinese traditions during the time of Lao Tzu.

[Marblehead]

We do it all the time. Also, Buddhism is older than the Buddha. As he said, he found an ancient path. There was a wheel turning Buddha on Earth 30,000 years before this current Buddha. We figure everything out, and we transcend the figure who tries to configure.

 

Okay. Fun and games time.

 

Actually Taoism goes back 4 million years and was founded in Africa by Lao Tzu's mother. (She lived a very long time.)

 

 

We figure everything out, and we transcend the figure who tries to configure.

 

Well, since there are seventeen different schools of Buddhism I would like to suggest that even though you may have figured everything out not one agrees with any of the others. (Witness some of the Buddhist discussions here during the past three weeks.)

 

So y'all go ahead and talk about death and suffering and we Taoists will talk about living this manifest life in the most joyous and fruitful way we know how. And when death does come knocking it better come fully armed because we are going to fight all the way.

 

Anyhow. What are we supposed to be talking about. Oh, yeah, who is Lord/God in the TTC.

 

There isn't one. To paraphrase:

 

Man follows earth,

Earth follows heaven,

Heaven follows Tao,

And Tao follows Tzujan (Its own naturalness).

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

Okay. Fun and games time.

 

Actually Taoism goes back 4 million years and was founded in Africa by Lao Tzu's mother. (She lived a very long time.)

 

 

I don't expect anyone to believe me. I have experience that is not provable in the court of law. Buddhism speaks of this in various scriptures that are believed to be true. Bon or Tibetan Shamanism was supposedly the last dwindling aspects of the last Buddha, who's name escapes me, but both Bon scriptures and Buddhist scriptures speak of this person. Bon was in Tibet before Vajrayana came there and it already was somewhat close in cosmology without a God to what Buddhism was, and also in certain practices. If one studies anthropology a bit more, there are congruences that support my statement.

 

 

We figure everything out, and we transcend the figure who tries to configure.

 

Well, since there are seventeen different schools of Buddhism I would like to suggest that even though you may have figured everything out not one agrees with any of the others. (Witness some of the Buddhist discussions here during the past three weeks.)

 

They differ in way's that are about the different needs of different people really. They all agree on various criteria of no supreme creator God, that all is dependently originated and empty of inherent existence. They differ in interpretatin of rules for monks and methods here and there. In Mahayana they differ in various discussions on whether Buddhanature is inherent or just potential relative to the fact of inherent relativity.

 

So y'all go ahead and talk about death and suffering and we Taoists will talk about living this manifest life in the most joyous and fruitful way we know how. And when death does come knocking it better come fully armed because we are going to fight all the way.

 

Silly. We experience bliss while living, seeing past the illusion of death which is merely a change of environment for the mind stream.

Anyhow. What are we supposed to be talking about. Oh, yeah, who is Lord/God in the TTC.

 

There isn't one. To paraphrase:

 

Man follows earth,

Earth follows heaven,

Heaven follows Tao,

And Tao follows Tzujan (Its own naturalness).

 

Be well!

 

The term natural becomes a term more often than not that excuses one's ability to investigate deeper. Nature is dependently originated. Most nature comes from the desire for survival which emanates from the fear of death, based upon identification with the body and the idea that we were born, and we will age and die.

 

Your conclusion lacks investigation in my opinion. This might make your ego angry... hearing this. It might get defensive.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Hi Vajrahridaya,

 

The term natural becomes a term more often than not that excuses one's ability to investigate deeper. Nature is dependently originated. Most nature comes from the desire for survival which emanates from the fear of death, based upon identification with the body and the idea that we were born, and we will age and die.

 

Your conclusion lacks investigation in my opinion. This might make your ego angry... hearing this. It might get defensive.

 

You totally misunderstood what I said. Please read it again.

 

Try to think beyond the concept of man's nature or the nature of any living organism and into the natural processes of the universe.

 

Be well!

Edited August 13, 2009 by Marblehead

[Marblehead]

Hi Vajrahridaya,

 

The following is the definition of "Tzu-Jan" presented by Dr. Wayne L. Wang in his translation of the Tao Te Ching titled "Dynamic Tao":

 

Tzu-Jan is commonly translated as "nature". It is, however, not the nature of the physical world, but is the spiritual naturalness, Tzu-Jan is the primordial unperturbed process of self-development. It is the state of Oneness. Self-So. Spontaneity. Naturally so. With no apparent reason.

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

I don't know if I'll be able to explain this well enough for people to really understand right now. But, what most people aren't understanding is that the idea that seems to be in both Taoism, definitely in Hinduism, and all other Theisms. Is that, if there is a ONE source of all existence that is there at the beginning of this universal expression, that all things manifested from. That this is implying that it chose every single thing that is going to happen and that did happen, either just out of Random Chaos that is ordered by this first pulse at the beginning. As it's the first cause of all things. Because of it, the uncaused causer, all this happens, and that there is no free will at all. That we did not chose anything that happened or happens to us, even this moment, so many subtle causes and conditions decided by that very first pulsation of willing expression of the one into many. This is a very subtle realization here and it's hard to really put it into words, because one has to think about the endless ramifications of a single action, that has infinite conditions for it to be here, including me typing on this board. That if there is indeed a first cause, than that first cause is a will, is a God... even the Tao if equated as a first cause, then is an intelligence that is omnipotent and is making all this happen. That it chose the first condition for each and every sentient being to manifest and thus all the infinite ramifications of that first inter-connective multiplicity from that "one".... that all this is one with yet seemingly multiplied into endless differences. Because this won't make any logical sense, this one before the universe is considered a mystery in every substantialist eternalistic spiritual tradition, from Hinduism, Taoism, Christianity, Islam, etc.

 

God is omnipotent, this source is the source of all things, so it's omnipotent and chose the first expression to rumble on and on in an endless chain of events into everything that we see now only to re-absorb everything back into itself as one with it. This presumes a will, that is a doer all on it's own without any prier cause for this to happen.

 

Buddhism just doesn't agree with this assumption of a mysterious will that we should all be humble to and surrender to. That's why in Buddhism, there is no mysterious source, no mysterious god or will, because there is no beginning, there is no one that all things spring from. How to use words to pin-point the subtle ramifications of the illogic of this idea? Then of course most schools go... "oh, but the Truth is beyond logic and thought." But in Buddhism, it is not beyond logic and is not beyond explanation and is not beyond thought, though the experience of this realization is beyond thought, the explanation of it, is not. Through very subtle language, one can explain absolutely how everything works to a subtle listener if one knows how to unpack connective concepts and see the ramifications within infinite complexity. This is why Buddhism has the largest Cannon of explanation scriptures in the entire world. Because for a Buddha, there is no mystery, there is indeed Om-niscience, that seems like non-sense to those who just give in to the ease of... "oh it's just a mystery and enlightenment is surrender to this mystery, that only this mystery is omniscient." The Buddha's peace is not this ignorance, it's not this excuse to not investigate deeper. Which is why the Buddha considered meditative Samadhi or meditative cultivation a path of golden chains if vipassana or insight meditation (application of D.O.) was not used in conjunction. Thus... you will continue to recycle and will never have endless freedom because you don't realize that you are the cause of your own effect since beginningless time, that there is no one to surrender to. There is no supreme cause, no source of existence, only your own investment banking system.

 

Buddhism explains how this current universe came into existence based upon the end of the previous universe. There is no primary cause at all... it's just a cycle of endless causes and conditions, from formless multiplicity to form filled multiplicity back to formless multiplicity over and over again. That formless multiplicity seems like a oneness because all the multitudeness has been suppressed into hidden potentiality, like a hard drive storage in a computer. The ramifications of the Buddhas teachings completely denies the idea of a substantial oneness that we all come from and return to at the end of the cosmic eon. We are all connected to the point of no essential individuality, but we are also not one substance, or one mind. It explains exactly how one realizes free will as free from limiting conditions. That one's will is only free when one realizes that there is no self, either no one essential nature that all is or no true individual outside of endless relativity. That the only free will is that will that see's that there is only a chain of causes and conditions and that the action of a Buddha is merely the actions that reflect the awareness of endless interconnection, thus is merely a servant of the all.

 

This is hard to put into words. I'm probably not in a lucid enough state right now to really put it into proper words. Sometimes I feel that I am connecting to the conditions of proper expression, which is also based upon relative conditions. People that are attached to a final identity, or a beginning identity, or total oneness that is the beginning of all being, won't understand the ramifications of this speech. Then again, I might be wrong.

 

Hi Vajrahridaya,

 

The following is the definition of "Tzu-Jan" presented by Dr. Wayne L. Wang in his translation of the Tao Te Ching titled "Dynamic Tao":

 

Tzu-Jan is commonly translated as "nature". It is, however, not the nature of the physical world, but is the spiritual naturalness, Tzu-Jan is the primordial unperturbed process of self-development. It is the state of Oneness. Self-So. Spontaneity. Naturally so. With no apparent reason.

 

Be well!

 

So is the Tao just the continual process of recycling infinite cosmoses with no static "I" ness or beginning? Or is it a beginning of all things that just expresses mysteriously all infinite possobilities throughout endless time over and over again without reason? Being one, then modifying into manyness then pulling it all back into the collective experience of oneness who's realization is considered enlightenment over and over again? Thus any single person can never really be free, nor really has any will, as this process is just an endless super will that is all of our wills, to explode manyness from it's own uncaused self, to implode back into it's own uncaused self out of it's own will to do so without reason other than to just suffer over and over again through endless beings just to do it? Talk about cosmic narcissism... I cannot compare.

 

Buddhism doesn't believe in a substantial oneness in that sense. Just interconnectivity that is essentially empty of essence since beginningless time. No source... just endless causes and conditions based upon both realized beings co-creating conditions for other peoples enlightenment based on the fact that there are unenlightened beings, and unrealized beings doing the opposite for themselves and others through form and formlessness based on a sense of fear and separation? So subtle the ramification's, easy to consider, hard to think about and harder to write down.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Brahmanism, Theism and it seems Taoism as well implies that everything is based upon a first cause, a causeless cause, a first impulse, that all will comes from this primal infinite potentiality that is based upon itself, it's own mystery, this nameless force or power behind everything. Buddhism see's that the power is an endless chain of causation with no beginning at all, and no single source. So yes, it's a more complex cosmology.

 

So then... is the Tao a first cause that itself is not an effect?

 

If so, it is in no way compatible with the Truth that Buddhism reveals.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Other than the fact that you can do whatever you want of course, but from a Buddhist perspective I think...

 

If one wants to call the endless/beginningless process of infinite relativity God, just as a metaphor, that's fine... but one has to understand that upon investigation, that's just a metaphor and there really is nothing inherently there as a true and static self.

[Pietro]

There is still a process that ignorance has in order to be dense 3 dimensions.

...

Ok, what you are saying makes no sense to me. And the first problems are in this first phrase.

 

1) You take "ignorance" as the subject. How can ignorance do something? Even when we say "ignorance is spreading in society" what we mean is "people who know stuff are dying without passing on their knowledge". It is not ignorance that does something, people who are ignorant or not do something so that the end result is that ignorance is said to do something.

 

2) you say "a process that ignorance has" you mean that "a process that ignorance has to go through " or you are saying that ignorance is going through right now. In all cases I do not see how can ignorance be the subject.

 

3) you speak about being "dense 3 dimensions". Man is that how you usually spoke at school? I can see how this might have given you some problems. What do you mean to be "dense 3 dimensions"? Can you not explain yourself using simpler terms?

 

Ok, so this was the first phrase, I'll spare you the others. I am cool to discuss but please try to speak in a way that makes sense to non buddhists. One thing I learned from my teacher is that it is possible to explain complex meditative issues in a way that everybody understand them. The effort is on the speaker side, not so much on the listener side.

 

And when this is not done it is either because the person who explains is lazy or because he does not want people to understand or because he does not have them clear himself, or maybe because he thinks that people can understand jargon.

 

I will assume you think I can uderstand your jargon. Please do not assume so.

[Riyue]

 

 

In this regard we can perceive its nature as the 'spontaneous impetus' that initiated the emergence of yin and yang from the primordial Tao.

 

interesting answer...

 

-

we are getting a supporting surprising answer if we are studying the definition of bu 不 given by shuowenjiezi 说文解字:

鳥飛上翔不下來也。从一，一猶天也。象形。凡不之屬皆从不。方久切

--

不:

方久切

---

it is the answer, which yijing 易经 is giving...

...which we get practising vipassana...

...which we experience practising taijiquan...

 

the everlasting ---it is change

Laozi expresses this in ddj4...

 

the bird circling in air - not coming down

is pointing to this phenomenon

--

change... is the guiding idea preceding everything...

---

ddj4

...

湛兮

似或存

 

吾不知

誰之子

象帝之先

[nac]

Buddhists don't believe in God or pray to gods... :?