Tao ke Tao, and where is God

[shanlung]

道可道，非常道

Tao ke Tao , fei chang Tao

名可名，非常名

Ming ke Ming, fei chang Ming

 

The Tao that you think is the Tao, is not the Tao

The Name that you think is the Name, is not the Name

 

 

I think my first reading of Tao Te Ching was when I was 12 or 13 years old.

It did not took long for me to decide what I was reading was so laughable and corny.

 

I went back to read TTC again and again, and yet again , and again.

 

The TTC grew from a very thin pamphlet into volume thicker than telephone directory.

 

That simple thin pamphlet I recalled reading was the best. No interpretations and conjured stories to bury what LaoTzu wrote that can then be copywrited.

 

And the one was was corny was that little boy of 12.

 

How many of us read and re read the TTC in all its different versions from the thin to the thick?

 

And read the first couple of sentences, threw them aside and kept digging in the left over bath waters?

 

And kept asking what is the Tao.

 

Even to castigate Chuangtzu for not being a real Taoist as his writings never contained and invoke Tao. For all I know, LaoTzu was only a Pretender as he certaining talked of the Tao , even if his first couple of sentences denied everything he wrote subsequently.

 

When the Tao is beyond immeasurable and beyond infinite, even to think of the Tao and its concept, you cannot but defined the Tao, the Undefinable Tao , within the concept of what you think is the Tao.

 

Likewise, the Name that you try to give to that Name. Imprisoned the real Name into the representation you made in your mind of that Name. The Name so vast and primordial all squeezed into a tiny container of the Name?

 

Perhaps that came from the great East and West divide. The West, be it Chrisitianity, Judaism or Islam, demanded the concept of God. And the East? Godless or the refusal to accept the concept of God. But I have so say Judaism tried to limit the damage by evoking unpronouncable JHWH. Which failed as that became Jehovah, and yet another name.

 

But again, if God is that infinite and everywhere, by giving the thought of God, are people then differentiating anything outside their thought of what God is is then not God? Is God that limited ? That God must exist only within that name, or concept, of GOD? Or the limitation came from the very thinking of the concept God.

 

So those that want to talk of God, tell me then, where is your God. And why do you wish to limit your God by talking of Him , and of his Name.

 

My first posting into here came as a hit on a very old webpage I did about 10 years ago, and based on earlier writings I did on BBS before the Internet.

 

I reproduce that here, what was said by Taoist Master Tseng Lao Weng.

 

http://www.shanlung....taonirvana.html

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

ENLIGHTENMENT

 

From: khamba2 -

Date: Wed, Jun 2 1999 12:00 am

 

Groups: alt.philosophy.taoism

 

 

Paul Humphries <[email protected]> wrote:

 

 

>Hi!

 

>I feel a bit skeptical about enlightenment at the moment, so wish to ask

>some questions to anyone who has any ideas..

 

 

>When a person reaches the state of pure, total enlightment and absolute

>truth, what does this mean? Is it that they are now learning openly to

>the greatest of their potential? What sort of knowledge of reality

>emerges? What abilities does this give the person? How many truely

>enlightened masters exist, do you think? How do they live? Would they

>have any preferences in taste in music?

 

 

>Cheers!

 

 

 

Sorry that I am answering with this is an old letter. I do hope the

words of Taoist Master Tseng Lao Weng can answer a bit of your

question even if he did not mention his preferences for music be it

classical, hard rock or heavy metal.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----

 

 

I have mourned that many of my books stayed back in my home town

while I was wandering ,working and staying elsewhere.

 

 

But a selection of John Blofeld's books followed me.

 

 

I thought I quote one of my favorite portion from his book 'Taoism,

The Secret and Sublime' which may help others understand and decide

for themselves if Taoism is a philosophy or a religion.

 

 

I myself, never did feel that either path is important.

 

 

He was talking to this Taoist Master Tseng Lao Weng.

 

 

(now using also his format and capitalizations..)

--------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Having heard from me of Sir Edwin Arnold's lovely expression for

entering Nirvana, 'the dew-drop slips into the shining sea', he

exclaimed with delight, but added:

 

 

'And yet it does not capture the whole. Since the Tao is all and

nothing lies outside it, since its multiplicity and unity are

identical, when a finite being sheds the illusion of separate

existence, he is not lost in the Tao. By casting off his imaginary

limitations, he becomes immeasurable.

 

 

Plunge the finite into the infinite and, though only one remains, the

finite, far from being diminished, takes on the stature of infinity.

Such perception will bring you face to face with the true secret

cherished by all the accomplished sages. The mind of one who returns

to the Source thereby BECOMES the Source. Your own mind is DESTINED

TO BECOME THE UNIVERSE ITSELF!'

 

 

The Taoistic Idiot

 

aka

 

Shanlung

山 龍

Mountain Dragon

 

http://shanlung.com/

Edited February 14, 2018 by shanlung

[Celestial]

Good read. Thanks for posting this.

[Marblehead]

I never had that problem (first part of your post) because before I read the TTC for the first time I had already read Nietzsche and realized that "God is dead."

[GrandmasterP]

Graffito scrawled on a wall in Oriel College Oxford reads.......

'God is Dead'

signed...Nietzsche

Beneath that graffito is written, very neatly; and obviously by another hand....

'Nietzsche is Dead'

signed.... God

 

Good post Shanlung. Nice parrot too.

All these 'holy books' - authorized and authoritative texts 'to live by'. It's only some words.

Metaphorical fingers pointing to something that they themselves are not.

[et-thoughts]

The Tao that you think is the Tao, is not the Tao

 

Plunge the finite into the infinite and, though only one remains, the

finite, far from being diminished, takes on the stature of infinity.

Such perception will bring you face to face with the true secret

cherished by all the accomplished sages. The mind of one who returns

to the Source thereby BECOMES the Source. Your own mind is DESTINED

TO BECOME THE UNIVERSE ITSELF!'

 

 

eh eh LOL ROTFLOL... Ok...

'The Tao that you think is the Tao, is not the Tao'!

Plunge the finite into the infinite and the infinite can contain it and a bit more...

The infinite can take up the stature of the finite quite easily...

the finite can't take up the stature of the infinite...

... unless the infinite intervenes...

--- to make the what is impossible for the finite become possiblr for the finite... requires the infinite...

--- the finite remains finite... ... unless the infinite intervenes..

 

The mind that thinks it is DESTINED TO BECOME THE UNIVERSE ITSELF!' has much to learn about itself and the universe... I was LOL because of the notion that a mind thinks it is destined to contain the universe itself...

That Tao is not the Tao...

[Marblehead]

Graffito scrawled on a wall in Oriel College Oxford reads.......

'God is Dead'

signed...Nietzsche

Beneath that graffito is written, very neatly; and obviously by another hand....

'Nietzsche is Dead'

signed.... God

Yep. And both those who wrote on the wall are likely dead now too.

 

It was very brave for the second person to consider themself god. Actually, rather shameful.

[et-thoughts]

Yep. And both those who wrote on the wall are likely dead now too.

 

It was very brave for the second person to consider themself god. Actually, rather shameful.

 

How to you know that the second person actually considered themselves god... say instead of being a tool of God, a willing host that allows God to work in them through them with them... to deliver a message and make a point... those with God are alive forevermore...

[GrandmasterP]

I suspected a drunken undergraduate with a steady hand rather than any 'deity', were there such things.

[GrandmasterP]

That said, some undergraduates up at Oxford do labour under the impression that they are little 'gods'.

I blame their mothers.

[mYTHmAKER]

Yep. And both those who wrote on the wall are likely dead now too.

 

It was very brave for the second person to consider themself god. Actually, rather shameful.

 

Why shameful.

Is there anything in creation that is not part of - made from - seperate from - god / tao,

that is not a variation / combination of the one.

 

This includes me and you

Edited September 13, 2012 by mYTHmAKER

[Guest RBSA]

I liked the duel between N. and G . Good one .

 

Look , in all TTC there isn ' t a word about God . In our case it is better to take a book about God . Like Bible . And there isn ' t a word about God being infinite .

 

I had a similar problem . I wanted to know if God is all knowing . And there isn ' t a word in the Bible about God being all knowing .

[rene]

good morning sleeping dragon (-:

 

"The TTC grew from a very thin pamphlet into volume thicker than telephone directory. That simple thin pamphlet I recalled reading was the best. No interpretations and conjured stories to bury what LaoTzu wrote that can then be copywrited....How many of us read and re read the TTC in all its different versions from the thin to the thick? And read the first couple of sentences, threw them aside and kept digging in the left over bath waters?"

 

I got lucky that my first read was the F/E translation back in 1980 - but it spoiled me. In that one, Laozi's ideas rang out clear; in all the other versions, the mufflers were there from the start. Oh well. lol

 

But your thread is about Tao and God, so here are my ideas.

 

I dont know if the Western concepts of God are consistent enough to compare God with Tao. Some ideas about God are pretty expansive, others have God pretty well characterized and defined. Those with the more expansive concepts might be more likely to find a similarity to Tao; those with the more boundaried ideas, to me, seemed as they were selecting the 'positive' aspects to corral-up for their definitions. Either way fine; to each their own.

 

To me, even under the most expansive God ideas, Tao = God doesn't resonate. Even, as you state, LZ couldn't define Tao... and there are all kinds of definition-ideas about God.

 

I love Blofeld. I miss that book (Taoist Mysteries & Magic, Secret & Sublime) and almost re-ordered it with the other one coming now... What did you think of the last part of Ch 11? Oh I laughed and laughed at that exchange, all that hopping around and searching for what is not lost. :grin:

 

But what you posted was in the last Chapter if I remember right...

 

 

"He was talking to this Taoist Master Tseng Lao Weng.

(now using also his format and capitalizations..)

--------------------------------------------------------

Having heard from me of Sir Edwin Arnold's lovely expression for

entering Nirvana, 'the dew-drop slips into the shining sea', he

exclaimed with delight, but added:

 

'And yet it does not capture the whole. Since the Tao is all and

nothing lies outside it, since its multiplicity and unity are

identical, when a finite being sheds the illusion of separate

existence, he is not lost in the Tao. By casting off his imaginary

limitations, he becomes immeasurable.

 

Plunge the finite into the infinite and, though only one remains, the

finite, far from being diminished, takes on the stature of infinity.

Such perception will bring you face to face with the true secret

cherished by all the accomplished sages. The mind of one who returns

to the Source thereby BECOMES the Source. Your own mind is DESTINED

TO BECOME THE UNIVERSE ITSELF!' "

 

I think the right idea is there but the last words chosen to make the point missed the mark. The right idea is inside the words I bolded - but that last punch is too easily twisted... as other posts in this thread have proved out. To me, the right idea is one of unboundariedness, of both finite self and infinite self, simultaneously. And that's all laid out in Ch1, DDJ, F/E. Or so it seems to me. (-:

 

warm regards

[Marblehead]

How to you know that the second person actually considered themselves god... say instead of being a tool of God, a willing host that allows God to work in them through them with them... to deliver a message and make a point... those with God are alive forevermore...

Good try ET. Funny. If they signed "God" then I would assume they thought they were some kind of god. Who's god? I have no idea - there are so many of them.

[Marblehead]

I suspected a drunken undergraduate with a steady hand rather than any 'deity', were there such things.

That is likely closer to the truth than any other explanation.

[Marblehead]

I blame their mothers.

That's Mrs. God, right?

[Marblehead]

Why shameful.

Is there anything in creation that is not part of - made from - seperate from - god / tao,

that is not a variation / combination of the one.

 

This includes me and you

Shall we try to define God? It is already a given that we cannot define Tao.

[Marblehead]

I had a similar problem .

Just wanted to let you know that I read your post. I'm not going to knock any religion here.

[Marblehead]

Just wanted to add as a BTW note:

 

I watched a program last night about the creation of the universe and it was mostly scientific but they did allow for a Christian alternative view to be included in the program.

 

The basic defense was that we can never know God because he is beyond the (three) dimensions that we are aware of and even if it is true that there are really eleven dimensions as some theoretical physicists claim God is even beyond these dimensions.

 

And also, Nietzsche's comment was directed toward the Christian God specifically, suggesting that the Christians, especially Paul, had killed the Jewish concept of God.

 

It has been stated many times over that the creation of the concept of God was for the purpose of controlling the masses. Nothing has changed.

[et-thoughts]

Shall we try to define God? It is already a given that we cannot define Tao.

 

Just state that Tao is the way of God...

[et-thoughts]

Good try ET. Funny. If they signed "God" then I would assume they thought they were some kind of god. Who's god? I have no idea - there are so many of them.

 

Yea each one can assume and think a bunch of stuff... the question still stands "How to you know that the second person actually considered themselves god... say instead of being a tool of God, a willing host that allows God to work in them through them with them... to deliver a message and make a point... " the response - I would assume it based on what was written- exposes the point I was seeking to make... Yea each one can assume and think a bunch of stuff...

[shanlung]

Long long time ago, I was an undergrad. If God then was not walking with me, Destiny was. So I thought.

I was wrong. But what else was new?

 

I organised and demonstrated against the Americans in Vietnam and cheered to see them flying off the rooftops of Saigon to their aircraft carriers and ditching the chopters into the sea.

 

I despaired when the US withdrawal ended with the killing fields of Cambodia.

 

I rejoiced with the fall of the Shah of Iran to despair later at the coming of the Ayatollahs

 

I now mistrust any scrawlings on the walls, whether the hand is good or not. Such messages seemed always to have a cruel twist not seen at all in those words in the first place.

 

I learned to mistrust everything

 

I pity those who say or think "In God we trust, everyone else we audit"

They placed their trust in the wrong entity, if there is actually such an entity.

 

Why not give us just that wee bit more of wisdom? and that midge more of understanding and compassion in the making of us? Or he got so little to spare? or too indifferent to care?

 

But No! HE did not or he chose not.

 

A cosmic joke? at our expense?

 

As we see the Earth degraded with greed and corruption as we collectively went to rape and despoiled her.

 

To the point where the tipping point was reached perhaps 15 or more years ago.

 

And Rene, go check on when that note from Blofeld was first posted by me, in 1999 and that was a reposting of something I wrote in 1995. That was when I was living in a remote fishing village SaiKung off HongKong.

 

Somewhat like that Ancient Mariner and Wandering Jew, I seemed to be wandering all over. John Blofeld books got dog eared, then with pages missing, and then the entire book/books either got missing or misplaced.

 

But misplacing the books were a lot less painful than having to part with my beasties or birdies.

Books can be bought again or laughed off. Beasties and birdies took a part of my soul with them.

 

 

And my wandering not ended yet. Perhaps it just began.

 

 

 

Idiot reeling and lurching about on the Path

[et-thoughts]

the creation of the concept of God was for the purpose of controlling ...

 

Wether the ultimate perfection and truth, God:

- is a creation for the purpose of attaining the ultimate perfection and truth of sentient beings

- is the source of sentient beings and the ultimate perfection and truth of sentient beings seek

the fact remains with God sentient beings attain the ultimate perfection and truth...

[Marblehead]

Yea each one can assume and think a bunch of stuff... the question still stands "How to you know that the second person actually considered themselves god... say instead of being a tool of God, a willing host that allows God to work in them through them with them... to deliver a message and make a point... " the response - I would assume it based on what was written- exposes the point I was seeking to make... Yea each one can assume and think a bunch of stuff...

Why would I not assume that someone thought they were God if they signed "God"?

 

No, you are not a tool of God. You are a toll of your own desires. That is all. There are many people who are and who have been on this planet that have done some pretty horrible things. You wouldn't suggest that they were doing God's will, would you? And if you respond that God gave us all free will and that is why those who have done evil have done it or that they did it bacause the devfil commanded it I would suggest that any God who would allow such things to happen isn't someone I would look up to.

[Marblehead]

Just state that Tao is the way of God...

Or is God the way of Tao?

[rene]

And Rene, go check on when that note from Blofeld was first posted by me, in 1999 and that was a reposting of something I wrote in 1995...

Yes, I saw that, and read your links. Maybe I'm misunderstanding why you are posting all your old stuff. Is it because you still agree or hold the same or similar ideas that you used to? Or is it because you've changed your mind but still want us to know what you thought back then? Oh wait...this isn't the seeking approval thread. Never mind. (-:

 

I know what you mean about choices. I recently had to condense my already small pile of stuff into an even smaller portable pile. Books can be replaced; what we choose to keep has already chosen us.

 

warm regards