The Taoist Conception of God

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

 

Thank you for your contributions here taomeow, and flowinghands.

 

 

 

Don't go chasin' Star Vega!

 

The Jade Emperor might get upset!

 

And er... about those peaches...

 

I ate of the fruits of my meditation.

 

Even a stupid monkey can learn a few tricks.

 

...

Edited December 15, 2013 by Captain Mar-Vell

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

 

The Jade Emperor would be Shang Ti.

 

Who would be the Almighty God, Lord of Heaven.

 

Many minor deities serve him.

 

I think we approach the heavenly realms.

 

...

Edited December 15, 2013 by Captain Mar-Vell

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

 

I wonder also whether this figure might be related to The Most Ancient of Days.

 

That is, an elderly robed figure with a long white beard but full of power and authority.

 

Or does that figure stand above and/or beyond the Lord of Heaven?

 

Therefore related to some aspect of The Three Pure Ones?

 

Perhaps "Time" is a related concept, The Supreme Pure One in the Taoist triune.

 

...

Edited December 15, 2013 by Captain Mar-Vell

[Taomeow]

Basically, the problem with Westerners (as well as Asians who didn't have a taoist-proper education) tackling taoist religion mirrors the problem they have had for at least a couple thousand years with their own religions:

 

to wit, they have been bereft of astro-theology, which used to be taught in Mystery Schools, i.e. places of learning and empirical immersion attached to temples and initiating their students on a strictly individual basis.

 

Without such initiation and learning, sincere believers and skeptical "researchers" alike wind up spinning tall tales about deities and demons, and/or debate their existence or non-existence in this or that system.

 

Deities of astro-theology the real science behind "religious" beliefs all have multiple aspects. One of these aspects is often personified and is an actual guy or gal with particular props and assorted features ascribed to them for recognition (or perhaps actually manifesting, should the deity choose to show up as a personified entity, which they can do and would do when the spirit so moves them). This is the aspect the un-initiated and un-educated would be shown. This is kindergarten level of astro-theology, aka "religion." But there's also the Ph.D. level. Westerners have been admitted to this level of their own religions, let alone someone else's, only by the very inner circles whose members don't share their learning with the general population. Most Asians, ditto.

 

As a result they tackle taoist theology from the basis of the same kindergarten-level knowledge and experience they have been led to believe is the whole story. For anyone with even marginal exposure to astro-theology this is exceedingly funny, or else excruciatingly boring, depending on the disposition of his or her "humors."

 

The real events and personages behind every deity are stars and planets, chaos and order, fractals and power laws, time and space, relativity and determinism, existence and creation, nonexistence and destruction, the great cosmic processes of Conception, Growth, Fruition, Consummation, and on and on. These are learned by immersion, not by choosing a guy or gal to pray to. Taoist astro-theology is not accessible without specific methods of immersion which are neither taught to the idle (or busybody) "researchers" nor constitute common knowledge of sincere "believers" because they have nothing whatsoever to do with beliefs.

 

Interestingly, it is my understanding that even Christianity is in the same boat. I've rather limited exposure to its secret teachings, but even the little I've come across (e.g. some old astro-theological texts of the Rosicrucians) was enough to convince me that it used to be, and for the initiated and secretive still is, a science that goes from the kindergarten toys somewhere where Dorothy promptly discovers she ain't in Kansas anymore.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Taomeow

[Walker]

I originally posted this article in remembrance of the master who asked that it be written, so in keeping with that intent, I don't want to turn this post into a fighting ground.

 

However, unfortunately, many people here posted without having read the article in full, and without having understood this message. Many responses, therefore, really do not reflect what the article is actually about.

 

Out of respect for Master Hsuan, Dr. Hickey, and readers who might first skim the big block of text and then be convinced not to go back and read it because of responses that misrepresent the essay's content, I have taken the time to reread both the essay and the responses, and hopefully set a few misconceptions straight.

 

______

 

Starjumper:

 

You can't reach enlightenment by studying literature.

 

The article already addresses your point, Starjumper. It states:

 

The literature of mysticism is replete with actual accounts or veiled references to acquaintance with both the impersonal and the personal aspects of the Supreme. These accounts and references are impossible to understand in their fullness at the level of ordinary awareness, which functions on the basis of mind, not holistic awareness. Therefore, a mythology grows up around them, which reflects not the holistic dimension of the scriptures but only a very limited grasp of this dimension. However, when mystical spirituality dawns, one comes to appreciate the scriptures oneself not only in terms of intellectual understanding but also with reference to the level of awareness of the seers who recorded them.

 

and

 

 

A realized sage can interpret the scriptures correctly, illuminating their inner message on the basis of spiritual insight. Since the Taoist scriptures are recorded in extremely metaphorical terms that are understandable only to those who have the requisite inner experience to penetrate the metaphors, these scriptures are essentially teaching manuals for the use of sages who have realized Tao. Hence, it is generally not useful or even realistic to attempt to comprehend them without the guidance of a realized master. The erroneous views of Taoism that prevail are largely the result of the uninitiated misinterpreting its cryptic symbols and metaphors.

 

______

 

Starjumper:

 

I'm no expert on Buddhism, but original Buddhism says that either there is no god, or that it can't be known (so don't waste any energy on it). The Buddhist sects who have gods have either devolved towards fundamentalism and/or acquired them through the folk religions that it absorbed.

 

To be clear, the author does not attempt to assert that Buddhists believe in God, in the sense of a creator god. He states,

 

The Taoist sages report that the transcendental state is indeed empty, just as Buddhist Arhats hold that ultimate reality is empty (shunya). However, this emptiness is not the emptiness of lack. Rather, this void is the origin of all things. The Void in which everything is latent is the formless source of all form and the changeless origin of all changes.

 

However, it is worth noting that Buddhism has held that there are various "gods" since very early days. Hence, one of the Buddha's ten appellations is "Teacher of Gods and Men." However, this is a big aside.

 

______

 

Flowing Hands:

 

 

Well a very long post and I think some misconceptions.

 

The Immortals in Heaven do not know of the beginning of all things, ie why there was a big bang that created all dimensions, form, sound and light. But they know that it happened many billions of years ago. The concept of ONE GOD who created all things is just nonsense and a human conception. There are literally hundreds of Gods and Goddesses in the Heavenly realm, some came into being at the very beginning of all things. Some are relatively young by comparison. At one time no one God controlled what happened in Heaven and what the Gods did, but eventually there came a time when wu wei needed to installed and not relied upon by each individual God to be ultimately wise. So a single God was chosen to make sure all others followed that wisdom. Yu whang Shan Ti was chosen and now any interference with the world must be passed by him. There was never one creator, all Gods are given life by the same forces that we are.

 

As we understand it 'God' does not exist in Taoism.

 

I am not really sure what you are disagreeing with, Flowing Hands. Yes, the author does at one point call the Jade Emperor creator, but if one pays attention, He is only in this position "as such." In detail, Hickey writes:

 

 

Finally, the Jade Emperor is Tao as the administrator who does all without doing anything.

The Jade Emperor is the one who administers origination for the Celestial Venerable of the Primordial Origin, oversees rule in accordance with natural law for the Celestial Venerable of the Magic Jewel, and manages returning to the origin by initiation and instruction for the Celestial Venerable of the Tao and Teh. As such, the Jade Emperor is the Creator, Heavenly Ruler, and the Eternal Master. To him is accorded the titles of Transcendental Supreme Personage (hsuan hsuan shang jen) and Mysterious Heavenly Ruler (hsuan hsuan shang ti). As the eternal Master he is also Lao Tzu. To the Universe he administers, He is God or Heaven (t'ien).

The Jade Emperor is called the assistant of the three Celestial Venerables in some ancient texts and their ruler in others.

 

...

 

Similarly, for the sage established in holistic awareness there is no contradiction in considering the Jade Emperor to be the "assistant" of the three Celestial Venerables, as well as their "superior." The Jade Emperor serves the three Celestial Venerables from the perspective of administering the cosmic functions that they respectively oversee, namely, origination, rule in accordance with natural law, and return to the origin. At the same time, the Jade Emperor is over the three Celestial Venerables from the perspective of his function as the Supreme Personage and Heavenly King. To sages, these differences are merely apparent, since the same wholeness displays itself to them in apparent diversity without forfeiting its unity and integrity thereby.

 

As to whether creation traces back to ONE GOD, although the author constantly remakes the point that there is no real contradiction between anthropomorphic "God" and emptiness, it is pretty clear where he ultimately stands on the point of origin:

 

From the vantage of mystical spirituality, self-subsistent wholeness is the origin of phenomena.

 

 

______

 

Shanlung:

 

Probably enough words to write ten Tao Te Ching.

And more then enough words to entangle the mind.

If GOD required that many words to know, then the more words the more God will be known?

 

...

 

In this searching for God, it seems Westerners cannot let go of their cherished sentiments that there must be a God and will look for that where ever they are and even in Taoism as well.

 

First of all, Shanlung, with your liberal copying and pasting, you display a remarkable dis-economy with words for a man who claims to see excess verbiage as an obstacle.

 

Secondly, Zhuangzi is very clear when he says, "得意忘言," which tells us we can forget the words after we obtain the meaning. He does not tell us to do away with all words. After all, the Zhuangzi is quite a long text.

 

Thirdly, your bigoted remark about Westerners' "cherished sentiments" suggests that you really did not read and comprehend the essay, or you would have notice when the author said:

 

In order for Western educated people to comprehend the Eastern conception of God, they must realize that their own popular conception of God is as credulous as those popular conceptions of God they criticize in others. To many Westerners ritualistic Hinduism seems to be grossly polytheistic and Buddhism atheistic, while religious Taoism appears to be superstitious. No doubt, many naive practitioners of these religions are indeed credulous of ill-informed. However, the popular concept of God many in the West hold, if not most, is no less naive.

 

Fourthly, after castigating the author and Westerners in general you paste your writings, which include,

 

 

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.

 

You fail to realize that the author has already made the same exact points. Below which I paste just one of many examples from the source text:

 

Human beings tend to project their own image onto Heaven. The Bible says that God created humanity in his own image, but the fact is that human beings create their ideas about God in their own likeness. The popular conception of God is anthropomorphic, whereas the sages report that God's nature is a great mystery that is only penetrated through spiritual union. No idea of God can even approximate the reality because the ordinary human mind is so far removed from it. The infinite cannot be compressed into the finite. To appreciate the reality of the divine, the finite must expand to the infinite, which is the task of mystical spirituality.

 

If you had approached this post with an open mind instead of with your prejudice, you might have realized there was nothing at all for your to disagree with. You could have then spared us some unnecessary verbiage, no?

 

______

 

Taomeow, in addition to thanking you for providing that fascinating piece of history, I must also thank you for pointing out a very important reality which is lost on many, many people who would call themselves students of Daoist teachings. That reality is that there is no central dogma in Daoism, and that furthermore, no Daoist feels that this fact diminished the tradition nor creates contradiction.

 

Regarding what you say about esoteric astrology, it is certainly a deep and important part of Daoism... which I have only the barest of bare introductions to! My only question for you--which might be better discussed elsewhere--is, how can "beings" as exalted, transcendent, subtle, and primordial as the Three Purities be limited to reliance on the physical existence of certain stars or constellations? Or maybe they pertain to the "chaos and order, fractals and power laws, time and space, relativity and determinism, existence and creation, nonexistence and destruction, the great cosmic processes of Conception, Growth, Fruition, Consummation, and on and on" that you mention, and not distinct cosmic bodies?

 

 

_____

 

Notvoid:

 

I was thinking that I might reply to some of the responses posted here, and then I thought how can I reply to someone when it is very obvious they didn't even bother to read through the whole Preface piece which you posted before they commented? If they didn't even bother to read through the text and posted a comment in which they strongly 'disagreed' with whatever they imagined the text was about, then they also may well wouldn't even bother to give any real consideration to anything I or anyone else might write as well in response to their own comments. I guess this is pretty much a product of where we are in our modern times.

 

Yes, what you point out is rather dismaying. The original post has been disagreed with and even attacked by people who have not even given it a proper read-through.

 

Could we more often embody the virtues of respect, patience, slowness, and thinking before speaking, we would not just make this board a better place, but also greatly improve our own personal cultivation practices, reaping immediate personal benefit. Practitioners do well to make these virtues their friends.

 

I understand why you hesitated before replying and thank you for your thought.

 

 

______

 

 

Vitalii, I think you make an important point.

 

 

 

______

 

ChiDragon:

 

I see nothing in the contents that is pertaining to the title of the OP. This article has too much western influences which is trying to equate Tao to the gods or deities from other cultures. IMO This article should have been payed more attention to the text and context of the Tao Te Ching instead of most often spoken about the gods in other religions.

 

ChiDragon, how could you have read the essay and not seen its connection to the title?

 

Secondly, you have misinterpreted the author. He does not try to equate the Tao to gods and deities. He even deeply criticizes common understandings of gods, calling these understandings "credulous" and "naive"--see above in the quotes in response to Shanlung's post.

 

Instead of equating Dao to gods and deities, Dr. Hickey does the opposite, saying that deep understanding of core teachings of all religions all point to the same holistic reality that Dao represents.

 

The impersonal aspect of the Absolute is reachable through mystical practice. Those who attain to the level of holistic awareness report that it is ineffable. In the words of the Tao Teh Ching, "Those who know do not say; those who say do not know."

 

 

______

 

My thanks to those who have contributed to this discussion, especially those who actually read the article!

 

Finally, a question:

 

Captain Mar-Vell, did you know Master Hsuan Yuan?

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

 

No, I did not sir.

 

But I was terribly impressed by that piece written by Mr Hickey.

 

And I found myself in complete agreement with the Divine Revelations granted to Master Hsuan Yuan.

 

They concur with my intutions I mean.

 

Well, rather more than intuitions, to be honest.

 

Make of that what you will dear sir.

 

http://halcyonhierophant.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/thetaobumscom-shameless-plug.html

 

So thank you again Walker for bringing that to my attention.

 

...

Edited December 17, 2013 by Captain Mar-Vell

[Walker]

Your blog is inaccessible in China, but you are most welcome!

[shanlung]

Walker,

 

I happily admit I see stuff with my prejudice.

I cannot know how to see stuff with your prejudice, opps, with your intellect.

 

 

 

Idiot on the Path.

Edited December 17, 2013 by shanlung

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

 

Were one to see without prejudice, virtue would be clearly visible.

 

...

[PLB]

The Hickey article makes many good arguments for the idea that the desire and work for enlightenment involves the same reality even though different traditions frame and describe the work differently.

One element he didn't touch upon is the idea of a God who is a witness to what has been made. The "personal" element of the divine is not only about the personification of the creator but also tries to address the question of whether our particular form of life is only a concern for ourselves living it or has to do with all the things that happened or will happen after "we" are gone.

Earnest people could decide upon different paths in that regard and their paths would be different.

I don't know what is the truth but I see the importance and influence of that kind of decision.