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

[Erdrickgr]

Speaking of the Tao, the Tao Te Ching says:

 

"Oh, it is tranquil! It appears infinite; I do not know from what it proceeds. It even appears to be antecedent to the Lord." (Goddard Translation)

 

"Oh, how calm it seems to remain! I know not whose son it is. Apparently even the Lord it precedes." (Susuki Translation)

 

"I do not know whose son it is. It might appear to have been before God." - (Legge Translation)

 

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?

[King Kabalabhati]

The way I've understood, behind the word "God" in Tao as well as in some other beliefs there is the black emptiness of the womb from which all things spring forth. In most religions there are godheads like the three men in Tao but they are simply representing this black emptiness which is maybe too scary for the people to worship as such

[Vajrahridaya]

The way I've understood, behind the word "God" in Tao as well as in some other beliefs there is the black emptiness of the womb from which all things spring forth. In most religions there are godheads like the three men in Tao but they are simply representing this black emptiness which is maybe too scary for the people to worship as such

 

The black void, or Mahashunya is the womb of material existence or *prakriti. It's not the absolute truth of all things and non-things (consciousness). It's the Jhana or meditative absorption of infinite nothingness or unconsciousness and is below the jhana of neither perception nor non-perception, which is below the state of a fully realized being who see's that these states of meditation originate dependently and are not the way of liberation in and of themselves. Meditative absorption alone does not guarantee liberation basically as it generally reifies (concrete ideation, grasping at) a source of all being.

 

Black is not the source of all existence. Though some good satan worshipers would like to have some dinner with you.

 

*Mulaprakriti can be translated as "the root of nature" or "root of Prakriti"[9]; it is a closer definition of 'basic matter; and is often defined as the essence of matter, that aspect of the Absolute which underlines all the objective aspect of Nature[10]. While plain Prakriti encompasses classical earth element, i.e. solid matter, Mulaprakriti includes any and all classical elements, including any considered not discovered yet (some tattvas-scientific principles.)[11]

Edited August 12, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Black is not the source of all existence. Though some good satan worshipers would like to have some dinner with you.

 

 

 

Because this may come across as racist to some people. I would like to clarify that neither is white the source of all existence. Of course 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.

[Stigweard]

[Sunya]

Hm that is chapter 4? well in my translation (Gia Fu Feng and Jane English)

it says:

 

The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled.

Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things!

Blunt the sharpness.

Untangle the knot.

Soften the glare,

Merge with the dust.

Oh, hidden deep but ever present!

I do not know from whence it comes.

It is the forefather of the gods.

 

I think that the point that Laozi was making was that the unnameable Dao is beginingless and the source of all that arises.

 

Chapter 42

The Tao begot one. One begot two. Two begot three. And three begot the ten thousand things.

 

Chapter 51

All things arise from Tao

 

Chapter 52

The beginning of the universe is the mother of all things. KNowing the mother, one also knows the sons. Knowing the sons, yet remaining in touch with the mother brings freedom from the fear of death.

 

Chapter 21

The greatest virtue is to follow Tao and Tao alone.

The Tao is elusive and intangible.

Oh it is intangible and elusive, and yet within is image.

Oh, it is elusive and intangible, and yet within is form.

Oh it is dim and dark, and yet within is essence.

This essence is very real, and therin lies faith.

 

 

 

Well, it was certainly radical for its time and no doubt Laozi was a great sage; this realization is much higher than anything i've ever attained. But.. this is, according to my understanding, is a realization that is tainted by grasping at an Ultimate and Absolute source, no different than the Brahman of Vedanta. This is not the Buddhist realization that there is no true and absolute source, using Taoist terms: the Mother and Sons and Tao and all the things arising from the Tao are all interdependent, no one higher than the other. According to Buddhism, Form is not within Tao. Tao is Form.

 

Tao as described in the hatched up translations of the Dao De Jing sounds like Stage 4 http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...experience.html where non-dual presence is experienced but taken as an ultimate reality

Edited August 12, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

Well, it was certainly radical for its time and no doubt Laozi was a great sage; this realization is much higher than anything i've ever attained. But.. this is, according to my understanding, is a realization that is tainted by grasping at an Ultimate and Absolute source, no different than the Brahman of Vedanta. This is not the Buddhist realization that there is no true and absolute source, using Taoist terms: the Mother and Sons and Tao and all the things arising from the Tao are all interdependent, no one higher than the other. According to Buddhism, Form is not within Tao. Tao is Form.

 

It seems to be the same as calling the Alaya Vijnana an ultimate Self, when really it's just one's own experience of conceptless absorption that when one comes out of, that potentiality seems to manifest dualism. When really it's just an altered state of consciousness where the experience of subject object duality is suppressed for a period of focus.

[Stigweard]

I think that the point that Laozi was making was that the unnameable Dao is beginingless and the source of all that arises.

 

Well, it was certainly radical for its time and no doubt Laozi was a great sage; this realization is much higher than anything i've ever attained. But.. this is, according to my understanding, is a realization that is tainted by grasping at an Ultimate and Absolute source, no different than the Brahman of Vedanta. This is not the Buddhist realization that there is no true and absolute source, using Taoist terms: the Mother and Sons and Tao and all the things arising from the Tao are all interdependent, no one higher than the other. According to Buddhism, Form is not within Tao. Tao is Form.

To try and 'grasp' at an 'Ultimate and Absolute source' is not quite Laozi's counsel:

 

Ch 14.

 

Look at it, but you cannot see it.

Because it is formless, you call it invisible.

Listen to it, but you cannot hear it.

Because it is soundless, you call it inaudible.

Grasp it but it is beyond reach.

Because it is subtle, you call it intangible.

These three are indescribable and imperceptible,

but in the mystical moment

you see it, hear it and grasp it,

the Unseen, Unheard and Unreachable

presents itself as the indefinable essence.

[Vajrahridaya]

To try and 'grasp' at an 'Ultimate and Absolute source' is not quite Laozi's counsel:

 

Ch 14.

 

Look at it, but you cannot see it.

Because it is formless, you call it invisible.

Listen to it, but you cannot hear it.

Because it is soundless, you call it inaudible.

Grasp it but it is beyond reach.

Because it is subtle, you call it intangible.

These three are indescribable and imperceptible,

but in the mystical moment

you see it, hear it and grasp it,

the Unseen, Unheard and Unreachable

presents itself as the indefinable essence.

 

This is a different type of grasping... not a tangible grasping, but it's grasping the intangible as an ultimate reality or identity. This can in no way be equated with the Buddha's emptiness. But it can with Vedanta's Brahman.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

The word 'source' by itself isn't a problem but how we understand it. Thusness told me that in Buddhism, though it sometimes talk about Source, it is refering to an individual source. Having a universal consciousness and having the same metaphysical essence is different. In buddhism, there is no such source, there is however individual stream of awareness.

 

Therefore one must still awake to the witness and later realize that it has nothing to do with a universal consciousness, nor seek to merge with it. Then one realizes anatta, non-dual, then one realizes the Dependent Origination. It is plain and simple and can be directly experience now, nothing mystical, just that when we read too much yet without the support of real time and direct experience, we conjure out all sort of nonsense. And as Thusness said, first experience the Witness, then realise that it's nondual Witnessing, then realise dependent origination. There is no denying of nondual witnessing, so one should keep the experience, don't deny that experience but also keep refining one's views, as Rob Burbea and Thusness have said.

 

There is no denial of one's individual stream of consciousness, and one has to have direct experience of it, and then one realizes it's non-dual nature. And one realizes when one is freed from the dichotomy of subject/object duality, it is anatta. Experience has always been so. And each moment of manifestation is luminous yet empty, there is nothing extraordinary. In hearing, only sound... if there is sound without efffort, how can it not be dependently originated? When we become bare and naked in awareness and not react to dogmas, it is plain, direct and simple.

 

Anyway, here's a text from The Supreme Source, a book from Dzogchen teacher Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinoche, which Thusness lent me since years ago and I haven't returned him and he told me it's very very well written.

 

Anyway here's some quotations from the book that may sound non-Buddhist but correctly understood it's not:

From the All-Creating King Tantra, in which Samantabhadra speaks directly to the listener:

 

"I, the supreme source ["All-Creating King"], am the sole maker, and no other agent exists in the world. The nature of phenomena is created through me ... The very manifestation of existence itself depends on me ... I am self-arising wisdom that has existed from the beginning. I am the supreme source of everything, pure and total consciousness ...'Consciousness' means that self-arising wisdom, the true essence, dominates and clearly perceives all the phenomena of the animate and inanimate universe. This self-arising fundamental substance, not produced by causes and condition, governs all things and gives life to all things ... As my nature is unhindered and all-pervading, it is the celestial abode of wisdom and luminous space: therein abides only self-arising wisdom. As I am the substance whence everything arises, the five great elements, the three worlds [i.e. the worlds of Desire, Form, and Formlessness] and the six classes of beings [hell-denizens, ghosts, animals, humans, Titans, and gods] are only my body, my voice, and my mind: I myself create my own nature ... The root of all phenomena is pure and total consciousness, the source. All that appears is my nature. All that manifests is my magical display. All sounds and words express only my meaning ...

 

"I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am 'the core', because I contain all phenomena. I am 'the seed', because I give birth to everything. I am 'the cause', because all comes forth from me. I am 'the trunk', because the ramificationsof every event sprout from me. I am 'the foundation', because all abides in me. I am called 'the root', because I am everything [emphasis added]" (Translation of "The All-Creating King", published as The Supreme Source, tr. by Adriano Clemente and Andrew Lukianowicz, Snow Lion Publications, Ithaca, New York 1999, pp. 137-141, 157).

 

So how is this different from a reified universal substratum? The Dalai Lama explains:

 

http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html

Q: You have said that according to Buddhist philosophy there is no Creator, no God of creation, and this may initially put off many people who believe in a divine principle. Can you explain the difference between the Vajrayana Primordial Buddha and a Creator God?

 

A: I understand the Primordial Buddha, also known as Buddha Samantabhadra, to be the ultimate reality, the realm of the Dharmakaya-- the space of emptiness--where all phenomena, pure and impure, are dissolved. This is the explanation taught by the Sutras and Tantras. However, in the context of your question, the tantric tradition is the only one which explains the Dharmakaya in terms of Inherent clear light, the essential nature of the mind; this would seem imply that all phenomena, samsara and nirvana, arise from this clear and luminous source. Even the New School of Translation came to the conclusion that the "state of rest" of a practitioner of the Great Yoga--Great Yoga implies here the state of the practitioner who has reached a stage in meditation where the most subtle experience of clear light has been realized--that for as long as the practitioner remains in this ultimate sphere he or she remains totally free of any sort of veil obscuring the mind, and is immersed in a state of great bliss.

We can say, therefore, that this ultimate source, clear light, is close to the notion of a Creator, since all phenomena, whether they belong to samsara or nirvana, originate therein. But we must be careful in speaking of this source, we must not be led into error. I do not mean chat there exists somewhere, there, a sort of collective clear light, analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of Brahma as a substratum. We must not be inclined to deify this luminous space. We must understand that when we speak of ultimate or inherent clear light, we are speaking on an individual level.

 

Likewise, when we speak of karma as the cause of the universe we eliminate the notion of a unique entity called karma existing totally independently. Rather, collective karmic impressions, accumulated individually, are at the origin of the creation of a world. When, in the tantric context, we say that all worlds appear out of clear light, we do not visualize this source as a unique entity, but as the ultimate clear light of each being. We can also, on the basis of its pure essence, understand this clear light to be the Primordial Buddha. All the stages which make up the life of each living being--death, the intermediate state, and rebirth--represent nothing more than the various manifestations of the potential of clear light. It is both the most subtle consciousness and energy. The more clear light loses its subtlety, the more your experiences take shape.

 

In this way, death and the intermediate state are moments where the gross manifestations emanating from clear light are reabsorbed. At death we return to that original source, and from there a slightly more gross state emerges to form the intermediate state preceding rebirth. At the stage of rebirth, clear light is apparent in a physical incarnation. At death we return to this source. And so on. The ability to recognize subtle clear light, also called the Primordial Buddha, is equivalent to realizing nirvana, whereas ignorance of the nature of clear light leaves us to wander in the different realms of samsaric existence.

 

This is how I understand the concept of the Primordial Buddha. It would be a grave error to conceive of it as an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless time. If we had to accept the idea of an independent creator, the explanations given in the Pramanavartika, the "Compendium of Valid Knowledge" written by Dharmakirti, and in the ninth chapter of the text by Shantideva, which completely refutes the existence per se of all phenomena, would be negated. This, in turn, would refute the notion of the Primordial Buddha. The Buddhist point of view does not accept the validity of affirmations which do not stand up to logical examination. If a sutra describes the Primordial Buddha as an autonomous entity, we must be able to interpret this assertion without taking it literally. We call this type of sutra an "interpretable" sutra.

Edited August 12, 2009 by xabir2005

[nac]

Must every thread in a Taoist forum turn into a never-ending war between the Tibetan Buddhist perspective versus everything else? I know you guys are used to making a lot of Buddhism-centric posts in E-Sangha, but this seems unskillful to me, to say the least.

[Stigweard]

This is a different type of grasping... not a tangible grasping, but it's grasping the intangible as an ultimate reality or identity. This can in no way be equated with the Buddha's emptiness. But it can with Vedanta's Brahman.

In trying to compare Buddha's emptiness with Laozi's Tao you have missed them both.

[Vajrahridaya]

In trying to compare Buddha's emptiness with Laozi's Tao you have missed them both.

 

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.

 

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

 

So, what I'm saying is the the comparison is unequal.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

One does not experience emptiness, one realizes the emptiness of experience, thus the inherently liberated quality of all experiences, it's not a space of non-conceptual wholeness. It's seeing through, cutting through, seeing as transparent translucence.

 

Not trying to step on anyone's toes. Or beat anyone up.

[nac]

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.

Form is Emptiness. Emptiness is Form.

[Sunya]

Must every thread in a Taoist forum turn into a never-ending war between the Tibetan Buddhist perspective versus everything else? I know you guys are used to making a lot of Buddhism-centric posts in E-Sangha, but this seems unskillful to me, to say the least.

 

not Tibetan Buddhist, but Buddhist in general. And if people aren't prepared to openly question their religions goal then I don't think they are truly being open and honest. This is just a discussion, don't get angry

[Vajrahridaya]

Form is Emptiness. Emptiness is Form.

 

That is a different context. That's talking about one's realization of emptiness... it's not making emptiness an existing identity. It's saying that emptiness is not realized outside of phenomena. It's not as a transcending reality.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Must every thread in a Taoist forum turn into a never-ending war between the Tibetan Buddhist perspective versus everything else? I know you guys are used to making a lot of Buddhism-centric posts in E-Sangha, but this seems unskillful to me, to say the least.

 

Yeah, I don't know, I couldn't resist the title of the thread and put my 2 cents in. I keep getting different answers about the Tao... So... Just trying to get clarity as well here.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi All,

 

This is the way Robert G Henricks defined it:

 

"Lord" (Ti) was the name of the supreme deity of the Shang people (traditional dates 1766 - 1122 b.c.); Ti was also used as a name for the supreme god of the Chou (1122 - 221 b.c.), though they more commonly used the name "Heaven" (T'ien).

 

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.

 

Be well!

 

Yes, that's why I was confused, I hear all sorts of things, like there's no real consensus?

[Marblehead]

Yes, that's why I was confused, I hear all sorts of things, like there's no real consensus?

 

I have seen some translations of the TTC that will lead one very far from the essence of Taoism (the philosohpy).

 

Robert Henricks' translation is acclaimed to be one of the most grammatically correct translation. But even in his I have seen a few lines where it just didn't make sense for the words to be where they were. Kinda' made me think that they were lines that were added after the fact.

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

I have seen some translations of the TTC that will lead one very far from the essence of Taoism (the philosohpy).

 

Robert Henricks' translation is acclaimed to be one of the most grammatically correct translation. But even in his I have seen a few lines where it just didn't make sense for the words to be where they were. Kinda' made me think that they were lines that were added after the fact.

 

Be well!

 

I have the John C.H. Wu version. It's cool, it has the Chinese characters first then the translation. It's printed by Shambala.

[nac]

not Tibetan Buddhist, but Buddhist in general. And if people aren't prepared to openly question their religions goal then I don't think they are truly being open and honest. This is just a discussion, don't get angry

They've told you their thoughts on these issues several times. What's the point of bring it up in every thread? It's annoying!

[Marblehead]

I have the John C.H. Wu version. It's cool, it has the Chinese characters first then the translation. It's printed by Shambala.

 

Hehehe. I had to go look at the translation. Read a few of the chapters. Seems to me to be a pretty good translation. (Yes, I am opinionated but try to remain open-minded.)

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

Hehehe. I had to go look at the translation. Read a few of the chapters. Seems to me to be a pretty good translation. (Yes, I am opinionated but try to remain open-minded.)

 

Be well!

 

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