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

[Marblehead]

Thats all it seems on the surface, but the conditions there-in which scientists are still regressing more and more into find their causes as an effect based upon a previous cosmos, or a previous universe. There is no causeless cause, so you see what seems logical on the surface is deemed superficial when looked at from a deeper vantage point. You can enter into that single cell organism and find a whole multitude of conditions for it's multiplying.

 

You will find many examples to support the view that we all come from one and will return to one, as that one is the all consumer, the holder of the cycle of Samsara. That which the Buddha taught transcendence of in no uncertain terms. He didn't just teach one how to be free for the interim during the expression of a universe from a seeming oneness, to only return blissfully to this oneness, only to be part of the potentiality for the next ignorant experiences to befall one in the next coming cosmic eon.

 

There are conditions latent in the singularity that only seem as a one, due to the fact of no arising secondary causes to allow the ripening of potential to actually manifest. The realization of dependent origination is not really a whole bunch of concepts, though that's all we have to express through here, it's much subtler. It takes a mind that is willing to investigate, no holds barred, what seems natural. As cycling seems quite natural. So, then the Buddha's teachings help a person to transcend nature.

 

Well, I must confess that I have little choice but to remain with my understanding that makes sense to me.

 

We cannot look beyond the beginning because everything that existed prior to that became nothing just prior to the new beginning.

 

So we can suppose all we want but we will never be able to prove any of it.

 

And besides, what does it matter one way or the other? Does it effect my life in any way?

 

I have two baskets that I throw all my new knowledge into. One is titled "This Matters" the other is titled "This Doesn't Matter". Whether or not there was a universe before the existence ot this one goes into the "This Doesn't Matter" basket.

 

Like I said before, the more you take away from a thing in the process of understanding what it is made of the less you have of what it really was when it was whole and complete.

 

Yes, it is true that if you take a logical statement and then take away words from the phrase that caused it to be logical you will no longer have a logical statement. If I point to the moon and say "Look at the moon" and you say "I can't see Mars" then the entire point has been lost.

 

Be well!

 

 

 

The Buddhas point exactly, ...

 

Why didn't you stop right there? You said everything that needed to be said to the point with those four simple words. But no, you had to continue on and totally confuse the issue and talk about galaxies and stars and all sorts of stuff that had absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, that is, how different people experience the identical thing differently.

 

Well, I do get to understand some of the things you say so all is not lost.

 

Be well!

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

The Buddhas point exactly, which is why even an experience transcending the concept talking about an experience of a pre-existing wholeness that is eternal and static as well as in motion, described within all the variables of paradox, is considered empty by designation of dependent origination. Therefore, for Buddhism, liberation is not an experience (something I've mentioned over and over again), but rather the recognition that all levels of experience and experiencing, as well as the concepts pointing to experiences, are inherently empty and originate dependently. That also there was no beginning, and that oneness at the beginning of the big bang, was suppressed potentiality left over from the big crunch of the universe before and it's based upon the collective consensual mind states all in agreement that they are of one source and one essence and that they should blissfully do away with form and merge into formless singularity of potentiality. But, what Buddhism teaches is how to become free from this never ending and never beginning cycle of merging into a oneness at the end of the expression of form. Buddhas teaching of dependent origination actually subverts the calling of the mystery, it actually quits the calling to merge into a singularity that becomes the potential for the next coming universe even after this one goes through it's big crunch. So, Buddhism transcends the logic that makes itself abundantly clear that it is natural through how the galaxies are really one star expressing many planets, only to explode and reabsorb all this back into a single potentiality to be many once again in another way. Buddhahood is freedom from that cycle. It's not the surrendering to it.

 

 

Enough with the Buddhism already!!!! This thread is on The Tao Te Ching!!!!

 

 

 

.

[Vajrahridaya]

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

[Vajrahridaya]

Well, I must confess that I have little choice but to remain with my understanding that makes sense to me.

 

We cannot look beyond the beginning because everything that existed prior to that became nothing just prior to the new beginning.

 

So we can suppose all we want but we will never be able to prove any of it.

 

 

The Buddha talked about being able to remember past the so called beginning, as that beginning had a beginning so on and so forth... That's why Buddhism is the only path that talks about beginninglessness. The Buddha proved it to himself and spoke from that proof and convinced plenty. I have proven his words to myself as well, so I don't believe blindly. I have seen past this so called beginning. I have tried to prove it to you. But, as the Buddha failed to prove it to everyone, so I will fail to prove it to people as I have merely a fraction of the Buddhas realization.

 

And besides, what does it matter one way or the other? Does it effect my life in any way?

 

It was a teaching for people that already agreed that we have past lives and will have future lives. He was talking to Hindu's who already agreed with the logic of reincarnation. So, really, it will matter to your future lives only, probably not this life, unless you realize something more, and you realize that previous to this life, you have other lives that this life is based upon. Those that believe in a beginning to the universe, generally think that they too had a beginning and will have an end. Much as you believe.

 

I have two baskets that I throw all my new knowledge into. One is titled "This Matters" the other is titled "This Doesn't Matter". Whether or not there was a universe before the existence ot this one goes into the "This Doesn't Matter" basket.

 

Just as the fact that you had a previous life goes into the it doesn't matter basket as well as you don't feel you will have a future life. I understand. You can't see the connections.

 

Like I said before, the more you take away from a thing in the process of understanding what it is made of the less you have of what it really was when it was whole and complete.

 

Oh we dismantle it only to see the perfection of it all.

 

Yes, it is true that if you take a logical statement and then take away words from the phrase that caused it to be logical you will no longer have a logical statement. If I point to the moon and say "Look at the moon" and you say "I can't see Mars" then the entire point has been lost.

 

LOL! I like that...

 

Well, I do get to understand some of the things you say so all is not lost.

 

Be well!

 

Nothing is ever lost forever!

 

Even the previous moment can be completely re-experienced through meditation.

 

 

Ugh.

I think I would hang myself if I had to sit next to you on a plane!!!

.

 

Suicide is no ones fault but the one who commits it. Unless you had a gun pointed to your head or something like that.

 

Basically, the offended make more violence than the offender. As the offender is innocent but the offended manifest their own reaction and are the cause and effect of it, so the offended has lost innocence.

[Marblehead]

[Vajrahridaya]

 

By the way:

 

This statement: Basically, the offended make more violence than the offender. As the offender is innocent but the offended manifest their own reaction and are the cause and effect of it, so the offended has lost innocence.

 

is not only poppy-cock but it is just plain bullshit. Sounds so much like kill the victim and let the perpetrator go free. What vulgarities of humanity!

 

Be well!

 

Marblehead,

 

You completely re-contextualized it, showing the relativity of it's definition. When the offender's intention is merely discussion and not to offend at all, but the reader is offended, creating a reaction out of subjective reading, it is NOT the fault of the writer that the reader is offended when the written declares no intention on the side of the writer to offend.

 

Of course, this is not always the case, sometimes I do like to get sarcastic and express how foolish I think someone is being. But, not outright, mostly it's only after post after post of being insulted in no uncertain terms. Anyway... my point was within a particular context and not within the context that you were ascribing to it, which is also true and correct.

[Marblehead]

Marblehead,

 

You completely re-contextualized it, showing the relativity of it's definition. When the offender's intention is merely discussion and not to offend at all, but the reader is offended, creating a reaction out of subjective reading, it is NOT the fault of the writer that the reader is offended when the written declares no intention on the side of the writer to offend.

 

Of course, this is not always the case, sometimes I do like to get sarcastic and express how foolish I think someone is being. But, not outright, mostly it's only after post after post of being insulted in no uncertain terms. Anyway... my point was within a particular context and not within the context that you were ascribing to it, which is also true and correct.

 

Okay. Now you are speaking to the object and not in the abstract.

 

Although I cannot retract what I said (and wouldn't want to because it was a truth at that moment in time) I will now agree with what you have just said.

 

(Yes, I too sometimes say things for the sole purpose of riling your [and others'] thought processes.)

 

(PS Chuang Tzu did this too so I don't feel I am being non-Tao when I do it.)

 

Be well!

Edited August 16, 2009 by Marblehead

[Li TaoRen]

Agree. Many so-called Taoists forget about the cultivation of virtue. It is so important to work for the betterment of all things. When we get lost in a search for power we will eventually head down the path to the Dark Side. I like how the Native Americans approached this. All decisions were made with the consideration of how it would affect the next seven generations. It is funny how"ego" in its benign state is our survival mechanism, yet in its empowered state will ultimately bring about the destruction of humanity. This is why whatever someone believes is great when it gets results. Eliminate the root!

Indeed, more and more I'm starting to find out the co-relations between Taoism and Vajrayana. It's quite amazing and exciting actually. I'm having new revelations about Taoism through this board. It's so nice.

 

Dharma also just means, the way, or the way about doing that, the way about doing this, or the best way to do something. Like, that's dharmic or adharmic. As in, the dharmic way to do something means, to do something with the entire cosmos in your mind. Like if you were to go to school, make your approach dharmic, as in for the benefit of beings and to make it non-selfish. Also in a way that flows. Because if one is referencing the whole in one's actions and thought, then your movement is in conjunction with the way the universe is moving. So yeah, Dharma means The Way that the universe works and if your one with the way the universe works, then you are in a space of benefit, both for you and for all you come into contact with, which of course chain reacts and the butterfly effect happens.

[Vajrahridaya]

Agree. Many so-called Taoists forget about the cultivation of virtue. It is so important to work for the betterment of all things. When we get lost in a search for power we will eventually head down the path to the Dark Side. I like how the Native Americans approached this. All decisions were made with the consideration of how it would affect the next seven generations. It is funny how"ego" in its benign state is our survival mechanism, yet in its empowered state will ultimately bring about the destruction of humanity. This is why whatever someone believes is great when it gets results. Eliminate the root!

 

Ah see now this makes sense. I've heard that about Native American practice, it must be the Hopi's or the Navajo's... as they seem to be some of the more enlightened tribes. There are many tribes and not all of the Native American tribes are all that spiritual.

 

Now, if the Tao just means seeing the wholeness of the flow without reification of a supreme identity... then... that's like saying it's the Dharma. But, I see quotes that seem to reify it as some sort of supreme source of all being, some sort of substratum, rather than just the realization of all interconnected phenomena.

[Marblehead]

Nice post Li TaoRen.

 

Be well!

[Pietro]

... I too sometimes say things for the sole purpose of riling your [and others'] thought processes.

...

But then you are teaching us!

I should start calling you sensei,

sensei!

[Marblehead]

But then you are teaching us!

I should start calling you sensei,

sensei!

 

Hehehe. Please don't label me. It is so hard to live up to others' expectations.

 

Be well!

[Pietro]

Hehehe. Please don't label me. It is so hard to live up to others' expectations.

 

Be well!

 

Yes,

sensei

[Wayfarer64]

I provided links to several books (Strunk and White) with the hope that Vajra would read and learn to write more clearly. Vajra's writing is an attempt to impress on his audience that he is some sort of scholar.

 

The syntax of his writing needs much improvement.

ralis

Vajra uses abstractions and paraphrases from books he has read instead of speaking from experience. For example, if one analyzes his use of the term non dualism, then one will see he contradicts what the real definition is. Non dualism means unity with no separation i.e, oneness.

ralis

 

 

He actually comes across as a pedantic fool most of the time...He, like Denty before him- has a firm grasp on the tripe offered by others stuck in Buddist beliefs. It is nothing new. It is poorly stated and obnoxious in the extreme. But there again, he is not alone in his subjecting folks to dangerous jargon and small-minded reasoning. He wastes all of our time here trying to express his erudition and just shows us how little he LIVES the teachings he expounds so poorly...

 

AND THAT GOES FOR ANYONE WITH ANY BELIEFS... It is not reality !- it is in yr f-ing head, and that is all it really is...If the "truths" you find resonate - just go out and try to live those truths.

 

Beliefs are not to be followed by serious people. those that do follow belief systems are dogmatic and simple minded no matter how well they express there foolishness. I feel sorry for those lost enough to follow such a path from here...

 

So, hey out there- wise up! Please - stop mentally jacking-off around here and get a life that amounts to more than bantering words about as if it matters!-

 

love to all- (even Denty!!!)

[~jK~]

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?

 

The Taoists in China do not see the Tao as having a god. Rather they have the: "Zi or Tzu or Tze" all are same just different English spellings. They are considered to be of a level of intell that they can see the most simple and natural way that natural law works in society.

Most Chinese will write their names as:

Confucious is Kung Fu Tze

LaoZu is Lao Tze

Chung zu is Zhuang Zi

The Zi's and Tze's mean Child as in Child's mind.

When Chinese use the term 'god' , unless they are christian, moslem, or hebrew - they mean 'natural law'

 

CHUNG Yoon Ngan at : http://www.asiawind.com/forums/list.php?f=2 is a -very- good person to write about questions of this nature. He is retired and writes for Austrailian newspapers on Chinese culture.