Immortals, Deities and Gods

[devoid]

Hi Friends,

 

Sorry in advance if this starting post gets a bit long or too philosophical...

 

As the topic suggests:

Immortals, Deities and Gods - are these one and the same in a Taoist sense?

I have been pondering upon this for some time and thought I would ask for your thoughts and ideas.

 

Probably, we first need to agree on what we mean when we talk about an immortal:

To me, an immortal is somebody who used to walk the face of the earth in a human body until death, but in which case the spirit and to some extent the will power of this person remained fairly intact since death and did not since:

• recycle into the Tao
  
• enter a new physical body through some sort of rebirth
  

Such an immortal would be likely to be much a stronger spirit and guide than other spirits (i.e. non-immortal, common dead people, if you like). Over time I suppose the immortal would probably learn to influence events in accordance with cause and effect. At least more so than the average person in transit from life back to the tao (or to some intermediate congregation before returning to the tao or earth). I suppose possible intermediate congregations could even be those lead by some immortal, such as e.g. Laozi, Buddha, Jesus, or whomever the new person joining the congregation would feel was the answer to their calling while alive.

 

Now, if the above where to be the case, surely immortals can be thought of as deities or even gods (with gods, I use the plural as I can't really see how a monotheistic god would make sense in a taoist model) although I speculate that an immortal like Jesus might help a good Christian even if there was no such thing as a monotheistic god.

 

So, with these words I hope to have started an interesting discussion. I apologize in advance if I have offended or upset anyone - I want to say up front that this is not my intention.

[Marblehead]

Well, there is at least one member here who does not believe in the existence of any of the three - me.

 

However, I try hard to not say that those who do believe are delusional. Afterall, they apparently have a reason for believing.

 

Also, I will leave open what becomes of us upon death. I haven't died yet so I don't know.

[3bob]

Hi Friends,

 

Sorry in advance if this starting post gets a bit long or too philosophical...

 

As the topic suggests:

 

I have been pondering upon this for some time and thought I would ask for your thoughts and ideas.

 

Probably, we first need to agree on what we mean when we talk about an immortal:

To me, an immortal is somebody who used to walk the face of the earth in a human body until death, but in which case the spirit and to some extent the will power of this person remained fairly intact since death and did not since:

• recycle into the Tao
  
• enter a new physical body through some sort of rebirth
  

Such an immortal would be likely to be much a stronger spirit and guide than other spirits (i.e. non-immortal, common dead people, if you like). Over time I suppose the immortal would probably learn to influence events in accordance with cause and effect. At least more so than the average person in transit from life back to the tao (or to some intermediate congregation before returning to the tao or earth). I suppose possible intermediate congregations could even be those lead by some immortal, such as e.g. Laozi, Buddha, Jesus, or whomever the new person joining the congregation would feel was the answer to their calling while alive.

 

Now, if the above where to be the case, surely immortals can be thought of as deities or even gods (with gods, I use the plural as I can't really see how a monotheistic god would make sense in a taoist model) although I speculate that an immortal like Jesus might help a good Christian even if there was no such thing as a monotheistic god.

 

So, with these words I hope to have started an interesting discussion. I apologize in advance if I have offended or upset anyone - I want to say up front that this is not my intention.

 

It depends on their/our spiritual evolution. Thus in that sense they are not "one in the same" and neither are we but exist as particular Beings within creation. Btw, to me an aspect of beleif is kind of like hope, it's ok but not really enough by itself, thus only direct experience on such a subject can really give you answers beyond speculations about what someone else may say. Another point, imo most of us human beings or at least myslef don't have "the need to know" a great deal about such orders of souls unless their is a specific purpose or reason. We may have some experiences and help given to us by them but then again we have our own dharmic place and work to fulfill and they have theirs. (which may cross at times)

 

Om

[devoid]

Well, there is at least one member here who does not believe in the existence of any of the three - me.

 

However, I try hard to not say that those who do believe are delusional. Afterall, they apparently have a reason for believing.

 

Also, I will leave open what becomes of us upon death. I haven't died yet so I don't know.

 

Hi Marblehead,

 

I think your perspective is a very valid one. If not currently the one I subscribe the most to, it certainly was for a very long time - i.e. I guess one could coin it the agnostic and analytical approach. I also agree that any deviation from this path could only come from experience. As you say: Either we'll never really know or we'll only really know once we're dead

 

If you'll let me I would like to check if I have understood this view (that neither immortals, deities, nor gods exist) properly, in the light of taoist literature:

 

Since immortals are mentioned many times in various of "the classics", surely they do exist in Taoism - if nothing else, then simply because they are mentioned as a term. I guess in this sense, and from this view, the sheer passing on of their teachings - i.e. the passing on of what this person wrote, said or did makes them immortal in a philosophical sense.

 

Have I understood that right?

[devoid]

It depends on their/our spiritual evolution. Thus in that sense they are not "one in the same" and neither are we but exist as particular Beings within creation. Btw, to me an aspect of beleif is kind of like hope, it's ok but not really enough by itself, thus only direct experience on such a subject can really give you answers beyond speculations about what someone else may say. Another point, imo most of us human beings or at least myslef don't have "the need to know" a great deal about such orders of souls unless their is a specific purpose or reason. We may have some experiences and help given to us by them but then again we have our own dharmic place and work to fulfill and they have theirs. (which may cross at times)

 

Om

 

Well said, 3bob,

 

Indeed, it does depend on ones own perspective on this.

 

As you say, for any given immortals, deities or gods (and assuming they exist) it would ultimately have to depend on their individual evolution, i.e. born on Earth, somewhere else or even growing straight out of the Tao.

 

I guess, from this point of view, one could classify immortals as having walked the earth in human form until death while deities or gods may have evolved through different paths.

 

Or do you see it differently?

[C T]

Through His awakening, the historical Buddha has removed Himself from the wheel of existence, no longer bound to the cycle of birth and death. Hence it would not be accurate to categorize Him as an Immortal.

 

Years ago, i remember asking Mother, who is Taoist, similar questions.

 

She explained that in Taoist understanding, Immortals are mostly real people who had lived virtuously, have been extremely compassionate and benevolent to king and country, and after passing, get to become venerated as such.

 

Deities are of many varieties and have a sort of hierarchy to which they belong. Some are very lowly, like local tree/forest/hill spirits that supposedly 'protected' local villages in exchange for a 'good meal' and alcohol. (yes its true)

 

Then they are the more sophisticated ones higher up the ladder, who sits in the various layers of heaven, earth and hell. Usually worshipped by the middle/upper middle class. These deities get their images made in factories, then every Chinese household would buy all these images and put them on numerous altars around the house, in the kitchen and even in the outside of the houses. The richer the family, the more altars they have - the more altars they have, the more deities they can afford to worship. Its not cheap, because each major deity have their own special, auspicious day of worship, and on these days people generally make huge offerings as a form of repayment for a 'higher' form of protection and blessing (as compared to the earth-bound or local spirits, who mostly only get attention from the peasant folks). Each time one of these celebratory days come around, the villages come alive with processions, song and dance, temples get clouded over with smoke from an array of large to small spiralling incense and joss sticks, and the only person in the village who does not immediately benefit from these celebrations is the local undertaker, but then, sooner or later, his turn to reap some of the commercial benefits always come, so he is not too perturbed by it all.

 

The gods are those beings who supposedly rule over the universe, where some of their duties include maintaining the balance between light and dark. They too have their place on altars, and are deeply venerated by those who care to ponder about being taken care of in the afterlife, for its only these gods that have the power to ensure that humans are 'safe' after death. Like benefactors of the after-life, sort of.

 

Hope this helps explain certain things in a small way, from the original Chinese perspective (not necessarily the correct one, perhaps just one of a thousand other 'mistaken' ones i think - after all, who knows for sure?)

[Marblehead]

 

Since immortals are mentioned many times in various of "the classics", surely they do exist in Taoism - if nothing else, then simply because they are mentioned as a term. I guess in this sense, and from this view, the sheer passing on of their teachings - i.e. the passing on of what this person wrote, said or did makes them immortal in a philosophical sense.

 

Have I understood that right?

 

Indeed. Both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu spoke of 'immortals'.

 

"To die yet not be forgotten, that is true immortality." This is a quote, likely paraphrased, from one of the many translations of the TTC.

 

With Lao Tzu, when he spoke of immortality I think part of his words were a result of earlier Chinese culture and shamanistic beliefs and part his own understanding of immortality.

 

Chuang Tzu, I think, was a bit more of a mystic than was Lao Tzu. I think he actually believed in the possibility of immortals. However, I think his stories used the concept of immortals more for the purpose of presenting an understanding rather than speaking to the immortal itself.

 

So yes, my understanding is that immortality is not a physical or even a spiritual thing but more at the lasting memory of a person after they have passed on. So, in my mind both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu are immortals because they (their wisdom) still lives in my (and many others) mind.

[Apech]

 

 

So yes, my understanding is that immortality is not a physical or even a spiritual thing but more at the lasting memory of a person after they have passed on. So, in my mind both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu are immortals because they (their wisdom) still lives in my (and many others) mind.

 

That's not really immortality unless the minds in which they live go on forever. But it is a common belief - indeed there is an Ancient Egyptian story called "The Shipwrecked Sailor" where the hero of the story who has been marooned on an island and is saved by a god in the form of a huge serpent, asks the serpent what he can do for him .... the god says "make my name remembered" ... so even the gods care about this... being remembered for ever. And since people still read and study the story I suppose it has worked.

 

To me immortality is about relating to that which is eternal. In any non-dualist system there is the individual and the infinite, like the atman and the brahman - if you realise that these two are not different then in a sense you become as immortal as the absolute ...

[Marblehead]

That's not really immortality unless the minds in which they live go on forever.

 

And I suggest that this will go on forever because what is in my mind will be shared with others younger than myself and they will share with those younger than themselves, etc, forever.

 

There are those who have so influenced humanity that their names and wisdom will never be forgotten.

 

I can't speak about the gods, I don't know any.

[Xianren]

An Immortal is one who has attained Enlightenment after the rules of his Daoist Cultivation school. Its been said in the past that they travel everywhere they want to, or some are taken to heaven by Dragons or Cranes. Buddha, or the Buddhas, which is more common because their wasnt Shakyamuni alone. Of course Shakyamuni teached his school, but their were the ones before him, or after him. He is no immortal, he is a Buddha and also Jesus is no Immortal. It is possible to call them gods If you understand god

as a word to descrice that they are far different from humans.

 

 

Kind regards,

Xian

[Birch]

Are people still talking about, imagining, revering, talking to, asking for help, invoking a given "entity"? Is the "entity" incarnated right now on Earth?

 

If the entity is not presently incarnated then I reckon an "immortal" would fit that description pretty neatly.

 

Jimi Hendrix would qualify Not that I've asked him for help recently because I don't play guitar.

 

If we mean "immortal" as pertaining to "universal consciousness" then everyone is, well, except for the mortal parts of them they currently incarnate.

 

Sorry if I'm rambling. Lurgy still in effect.

[devoid]

Hi Cowtao,

 

Your stinging sarcasm really made me laugh I agree that one needs to keep an eye out not to get caught up in the materialistic. I would even advise not get caught up in formalism, but probably that's a different discussion altogether...

 

I read between the lines in your post that within taoism one should stick to immortals and the tao and then leave it at that. I think that's a valid statement.

[devoid]

An Immortal is one who has attained Enlightenment after the rules of his Daoist Cultivation school. Its been said in the past that they travel everywhere they want to, or some are taken to heaven by Dragons or Cranes. Buddha, or the Buddhas, which is more common because their wasnt Shakyamuni alone. Of course Shakyamuni teached his school, but their were the ones before him, or after him. He is no immortal, he is a Buddha and also Jesus is no Immortal. It is possible to call them gods If you understand god

as a word to descrice that they are far different from humans.

Hi Xian,

 

I am not sure I got this. Did Buddha not reached enlightenment, like a taoist?

 

Perhaps one could argue that Jesus had some nepotist predisposition to becoming enlightened, but I guess that would require the acceptance of a monotheistic god.

 

Thus, in a taoist sense (regardless of whether according to Marblehead's definition or the definition I attempted to post initially) I still think that we can consider both immortals.

 

If not, I think we would need an different definition of what an immortal is?

[devoid]

To me immortality is about relating to that which is eternal. In any non-dualist system there is the individual and the infinite, like the atman and the brahman - if you realise that these two are not different then in a sense you become as immortal as the absolute ...

Hi apepch7,

 

I guess that you are saying that there can be no immortality except within eternity?

 

But how would that correspond to the taoist concept that everything comes from one, only to eventually return to one? (doesn't that defeat the concept of eternity?)

[devoid]

Are people still talking about, imagining, revering, talking to, asking for help, invoking a given "entity"? Is the "entity" incarnated right now on Earth?

 

If the entity is not presently incarnated then I reckon an "immortal" would fit that description pretty neatly.

Hi Kate,

 

Thanks for posting this. I guess this is at the core of where I was coming from in my initial post: I.e. regardless of whether one is receiving help or guidance from an immortal, a deity, or a god, what's really the difference and does it matter? (assuming, of course, that ones motivations are pure, should intent be involved..)

 

If we mean "immortal" as pertaining to "universal consciousness" then everyone is, well, except for the mortal parts of them they currently incarnate.

Universal Consciousness: I guess that's a New Age term for talking about an aspect of the tao - i.e. the aspect of knowledge within the tao?

[Apech]

 

I can't speak about the gods, I don't know any.

 

I know a few so I'll put in a word for you. I'm not telling what I'll say though.

[Apech]

Hi apepch7,

 

I guess that you are saying that there can be no immortality except within eternity?

 

But how would that correspond to the taoist concept that everything comes from one, only to eventually return to one? (doesn't that defeat the concept of eternity?)

 

Depends what you mean by eternal ... there's two versions. Eternal as in a infinitely long period of time ... or eternity as in stepping out of time in an instant ... to quote William Blake:

To see a world in a Grain of Sand,

And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,

Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand,

And eternity in an hour.

 

If immortal means a physical body that never dies - I don't believe in that because all physical things are subject to entropy ... eventually they decompose ... its natural and in accordance with Tao.

[Marblehead]

I know a few so I'll put in a word for you. I'm not telling what I'll say though.

 

Thanks, I think.

[Xianren]

[Birch]

Hi Kate,

 

 

Universal Consciousness: I guess that's a New Age term for talking about an aspect of the tao - i.e. the aspect of knowledge within the tao?

 

 

I wasn't aware I was using a "new age" term.

 

Apech, come back with the difference between "awareness" and "consciousness" again? Please, i can't splain it as well as you can

 

But I'll try. The "consciousness" part is the part you tell yourself you "know" with words. The "awareness" part is something I find difficult to explain. For instance, I am sitting opposite a very large green plant (= "consciousness") and I can feel it there at the same time without it needing to be a "plant" (= "awareness"?????)

 

Sorry, I often get confused with the words thing.

[Apech]

I wasn't aware I was using a "new age" term.

 

Apech, come back with the difference between "awareness" and "consciousness" again? Please, i can't splain it as well as you can

 

 

 

hello

 

I just go to the etymology of these words ...

 

consciousness = 'with' 'knowing' ... that which allows knowing to occur ... maybe?

 

awareness = similar to consciousness but with the sense of alertness for danger ... think of the word 'wary' which has the same root.

 

universe = Lat. 'one' 'turn' meaning everything within the cycle of existence.

 

so universal consciousness would mean something like that which is everywhere and allows everything to be known. If you were religious you would mean the omniscience of God ... I think this may be Tao as mother of the ten thousand things - better ask a proper Tao scholar.

[devoid]

Hi Xian,

 

So, in your definition, I understand that immortals and deities are different because they represent the result of different cultivation paths (implying different values, practices, etc.). Therefore there must be a difference in their types of enlightenment.

 

Thanks for clarifying this.

 

I am still somehow caught up with the inherently taoist principle that there are many (different) ways leading to the tao. But, I guess, in the light of what you said we need to consider that there can be many forms of enlightenment even if there is only one tao. I find this interesting and good food for thought.

[devoid]

Hi Kate and apepch7,

 

Thanks for clarifying the awareness vs. consciousness for me.

[Apech]

 

 

I am still somehow caught up with the inherently taoist principle that there are many (different) ways leading to the tao. But, I guess, in the light of what you said we need to consider that there can be many forms of enlightenment even if there is only one tao. I find this interesting and good food for thought.

 

If enlightenment = realizing the true nature of reality ... then how can there be more than one form of enlightenment?

 

This is just a question BTW

[baiqi]

I have some difficulties to understand why the chinese word "xian"仙 is translated by "immortal". It's etimology suggests more someone like a hermit living in the mountain (人human+山mountain=仙). A more esoteric approach would be a "mountain man".

 

Anyway, an immortal is someone who does not die. It's that simple. Gods? They live very long, but they can die (in all the world's mythologies I know of). So who, or what doesn't die? Everything seem to die...Except the Tao itself. If you are the Tao, you're immortal! If you're one of the 10000 phenomena, you will die sooner or later.

 

More Chinese again...the "shen" 神 are entities worhty of respect... This word is translated by gods or deities. Also, as you probably know, it is one of the three treasures in inner alchemy.