Does Taoism believe in a God?

[Azoro]

Hey Bums,

 

I was having a discussion with someone about Taoism, and I'm trying to figure out some basic info about same. Wonder if you would mind sharing your opinions on this:

 

 

There is something that I still don't understand about the distinction

between Taoism and Christianity.

 

When considering these passages quoted from the link:

 

"a force which flows through all life and is the first cause of

everything. The goal of everyone is to become one with the Tao. Tai

Chi, a technique of exercise using slow deliberate movements, is used

to balance the flow of energy or "chi" within the body. People should

develop virtue and seek compassion, moderation and humility. One

should plan any action in advance and achieve it through minimal

action."

 

... and

 

"The concept of a personified deity is foreign to Taoism, as is the

concept of the creation of the universe."

 

... and this from PosterA

 

>>>With that in mind, the quote I cited above was intriguing to me. As far as I understand Taoism--which itself is doubtful--the Tao itself is beyond all dualities or, better, the source of all dualities. If so, the distinction between a "personified deity" and whatever the opposite of a "personified deity" might be ("Prime Mover"? Godhead?) may be artificial. Once the flow of creation from the Tao has begun, the flow of complementary opposites goes with it. <<<

 

What I would like to know is this; when speaking of the Tao force

which flows through all life and is the first cause of everything, is

the Tao regarded as omnipotent and omniscient, as is God in

Christianity?

 

I guess the question would be, in Taoism, is the Tao regarded as a

being, or entity which has a consciousness and intent, and which is

regarded as having created everything, and that is aware of our every

action and thought, or is the Tao distinct from that in that the force

that flows through all life that makes us all interconnected (in a

quantum physics way, which I know practically nothing of, lol), is not

explicitly or implicitly regarded as a supreme being?

 

Do you see the distinction? One suggests a supreme being that created

everything and knows everything, and is in charge of everything, where

the other suggests that there simply IS everything, and that we are

all a part of that everything, interconnected.

 

Does that distinction exist between Taoist and Christian beliefs?

Because this statement:

 

>>>The concept of a personified deity is foreign to Taoism, as is the

concept of the creation of the universe." <<<

 

...seems to explicitly say that.

 

Again, I don't wish to offend, PosterB, because I know your background is

in Christianity, and I'm not implying that one belief is better than

the other, (and since you're involved in both, you must regard them as

at least, highly complimentary of one another.) I just want to know

if there is that fundamental distinction between the two.

 

I'm trying to choose a spiritual path that I'm comfortable with, and

the reason that Taoism seems like it might appeal is that (I think) it

lacks what I consider the incongruity of there being an all powerful

being while at the same time there is so much suffering in the world

(the age old question of 'If there were an all powerful being capable

of ending suffering, why would it not do so?). That's an aspect of

Christianity that I've never been able to reconcile, so I'm wondering

if Taoism does or does not share the belief that there is an all

powerful being. It's a very fundamental question to me.

[dao zhen]

From the traditional Taoist scripture titled "The Serenity and Tranquility Canon" there carries a message which reads as follows:

 

"Tao is formless, but it gives birth to Heaven and Earth;

Tao is merciless and gentle, but charges and empowers the movements of the Sun and the Moon;

Tao is nameless and without form, but always nourishes all of the myriad things in the Universe.

We really don't know what name we should give it, being so grand, we are forced to call it Tao."

 

By Lao Tzi's description, Tao does exists before the division of Yin and Yang, and serves as the original source of the entire Universe, the very beginning of Heaven and Earth, the root of all myriad things, and the pivot of all transformation and change in the Universe.

 

Tao is free of any form, appearance, shape or something that could stand for it.

 

Tao carries no color or smell, exists everywhere, and is always in a complete and constant state.

 

It is so grand it fills up the entire universe.

 

It does not decline or increase but exists forever.

 

Being formless it cannot be named, but really exists as an entity.

 

For people's convenience to recognize, distinguish and master the essentials of it, the name of Tao came into being.

 

~ From, "Revealing the Tao Te Ching"

[Taoist81]

Hey Bums,

 

I was having a discussion with someone about Taoism, and I'm trying to figure out some basic info about same. Wonder if you would mind sharing your opinions on this:

 

First off, the Tao Te Ching calls the Tao the "forefather of the gods". There are also a multitude of gods in the "religion" of Taoism (if you respect a division in Taoism at all).

However, there is one problem with the question here. The implication is that there is actually a difference between "god" and what the Chinese call Tao. Lao Tzu calls it "something" that "mysteriously formed" and off handedly (almost) dubs it "Tao". The flowing, impartial, ever-present nature associated with the Tao is actually no different from the "true" idea of "God" in the western tradition. Most people now think of God as some big Daddy in the sky. However, if you really dig into this idea through meditation, contemplation and (if you know how) actual exploration, the idea falls apart. Even in Isaiah God is described as "forming light and creating darkness, creating peace and causing calamity." The anthropomorphic idea that most people have of God is quite foreign (and severely diluted) from what the early believers held in awe. Jesus, if there was such a man, taught that he and "the father" were one, and that he desired his disciples to be one "as [he] and [his] father are one". He points to flowers and birds as examples of effortless living dependant on nothing more than God. Likewise, Taoist teachers have looked toward nature for examples throughout history. If you look at the "deeper" forms of Christianity and other Western faiths, you find not the empty shell that most associate with the names of these religions that dump their responsibilities on some old bearded man in the sky (though this is a valuable image for some things) but a deep reverence for a God that is all but identical with what Lao Tzu calls the Tao.

[Azoro]

Thanks, Dao Zhen. What I really want to know is if Daoists believe there is a distinction between the nature of the Tao and the nature of the Christian God.

 

One seems to imply an Is-ness. That the Tao IS everywhere and in everything, but without the inherent idea that Christianity has of an all-knowing, all-powerful, sentient God in control of everything, and if you simply believe in it, then you are saved for eternity.

 

I mean, they both seem to share the idea that the Tao is everywhere and in everything, just that Christianity would probably call that Spirit, or the Holy Spirit. What I'm trying to get at is that in Christianity, there is something greater that manifests the Spirit, whereas in Taoism the Spirit (the Tao) is it. There is no God or Supreme Being that manifests it pulling all the strings. It just is, and it is what interconnects everything.

 

I'm wondering if I have the concepts right.

 

See, the thing about the God concept, which I could never reconcile, is that if there is an all-powerful, all-knowing God, why would it allow such suffering to exist. It just seemed terribly incongruent, and so, I could never believe in that construct.

 

Which is why I think I would like Taoism, because I already believed in the idea that there is a universal force which connects everything, and the more attuned you are with it, the better the harmony there will be, the more aware you'll be. You don't fight it, but rather flow with it. So, that aspect of spiritualism (if that's what it is), I am already fully on board with, and I like it the more if there is not the idea that there is an some all powerful entity consciously pulling all the universal strings.

 

That's really the question I'd like to get answered; Is there a differentiation between the God concept as I have described, and the Tao concept. My sense is that there is. They both recognize the Tao/Spirit as being universal and in everything, but one is subordinate to a higher God, pulling all the universal strings, so to speak, whereas in the other, the Tao/Spirit simply IS, subject to no higher authority.

 

Is there a (yes or no) distinction?

 

Sorry if I'm seeming like a pain in the ass on this. I just need to know.

[muz]

the concept of god and tao is exactly the same, all that is different is that at some point in history christianity gave this concept a human form and used it to control people through fear

[Azoro]

[ted]

The Tao is a force, like gravity. By blending our behaivior with its laws we benefit ourselves and others.

Most "religious" Taoists do believe in a God realm. Offerings, prayers, talismens and reciting of Mantra can be forms of request. Other Taoists see the entire Taoist cosmology representing the human body. Meditations and prayers to various Gods are tools to visualise concentration of energy in the various organs of the practitioner.

I think depending on your level of education and intelligence the various scriptures have different levels of meaning.

Edited July 3, 2008 by ted

[Taoist81]

[ted]

But when a true Christian (i.e. one who really believes, not just in emergencies) prays, it is as Jesus taught, that is, "Thy will be done". Even Jesus subjected his petitions to God to "God's will". So in the end, there is no difference. A believer can pray for answers or health etc. all day long, and it will change nothing unless it is already God's will to do something. Similarly, a Taoist, following close to the Tao will see the "will" of the Tao carried out in his life. He may do an I Ching reading for answers, or perform a sacrifice to some deity, but in the end the Tao simply "is", just as God simply "is". Prayer and meditation are simply ways to bring the individual closer to the "divine". "I do not know its name. Call it Tao. For lack of a better word I call it Great." says Lao Tzu. Similarly in the deeper mystic traditions of the Abrahamic faiths, the highest concept of God that man can com close to imagining is titled "I am" or rather simply "Being". Beyond that is the Limitless and Nothing.

So, in the deepest ways, there is no difference between Tao and "God". In the baser forms of religion, there are differences in some ways, in that "god" would simply be lower than the Tao. No different than the many Taoist deities that one can petition for changes in your health or bank account.

"Will" is the key word here. The Tao has no will, motivation or desire. It is like saying gravity wills its force, the difference being conscious motivation. The will of God changes, obviously before the world was created he did not will it to be so. But for whatever reason, he changed his mind and created the world. I think you cloud the issue when you equate the will of God to the force of Tao. Gods will is based on his love of the world. The Tao is not motivated, inhibbited, angered or apeased. God speaks to his disciples, odering them to do outrageous things like saccrificing their favorite son to prove their faith and then changing the son to a lamb at the last moment. We can argue allegory all day, but in my interpretation the Christian God and his actions imply more then a force reacting blindly, but an emotional being.

[Wun Yuen Gong]

Daoist religion is not true Dao! IMHO

[Taoist81]

"Will" is the key word here. The Tao has no will, motivation or desire. It is like saying gravity wills its force, the difference being conscious motivation. The will of God changes, obviously before the world was created he did not will it to be so. But for whatever reason, he changed his mind and created the world. I think you cloud the issue when you equate the will of God to the force of Tao. Gods will is based on his love of the world. The Tao is not motivated, inhibbited, angered or apeased. God speaks to his disciples, odering them to do outrageous things like saccrificing their favorite son to prove their faith and then changing the son to a lamb at the last moment. We can argue allegory all day, but in my interpretation the Christian God and his actions imply more then a force reacting blindly, but an emotional being.

 

"Will" in the context of the current conversation is an unfortunately required ambiguity. Again, in the higher or mystic "concepts" (another unfortunate concession) "God" has no "changable will" any more than Tao can be said to. The base god of parts of the Old Testament (and some of the New Testament) seems at first glance to be "angered" or "partial". "He" is even described as such in some cases. But again, it is a matter of deep "exploration". If you follow that train of thought, then yes, "God" is subordinate to "Tao" because Tao lies behind all. However, if you look deeper, you see that the "higher" concept of "God" is synonymous with Tao and just as changing/unchangable. The "ten thousand things" still return to the "source" no matter what a particular civilization calls it.

 

Daoist religion is not true Dao! IMHO

 

You are not the only one who feels this way.

[beancurdturtle]

What is called "the dao" is the potentiality, it is not manifest. Everything is manifest from it. It's not thinking. It's not pulling strings. It has no grand plan, or compassion, or purpose for anything. It is impartial. People grant the dao divinity or power only because they assume something powerful must have a higher purpose.

 

God is a concept, an icon, an idol. Something people make responsible for what they can't control. Something people can blame for things that don't go the way they wish they would.

 

There is no correlation between the dao and god.

[Taoist81]

God is a concept, an icon, an idol. Something people make responsible for what they can't control. Something people can blame for things that don't go the way they wish they would.

 

That is a very limited idea of "God".

 

What is called "the dao" is the potentiality, it is not manifest. Everything is manifest from it. It's not thinking. It's not pulling strings. It has no grand plan, or compassion, or purpose for anything. It is impartial. People grant the dao divinity or power only because they assume something powerful must have a higher purpose.

Hmm, that sounds more like it. Ehieh

 

There is no correlation between the dao and god.

That is a statement of misunderstanding, to say the least.

 

Edit: It may be helpful to clarify that this post is coming from someone who is not Xtian, Jewish or Muslim and for all intents and purposes is an atheist/agnostic, mystic, humanist. One who does not hold to new age fluffy-crap adulterations of reality.

Edited July 4, 2008 by Taoist81

[beancurdturtle]

That is a very limited idea of "God".

It's not an idea, it's a summary description.

 

How would you describe the Christian God?

 

That is a statement of misunderstanding, to say the least.

I understand what the dao is, and I understand what god is. From my understanding there is little correlation between something that is, and something that is an icon for a thing that doesn't exist.

 

I'm all ears - well not literally, cause I'd look pretty silly. But I am interested in knowing the basis for your dismissal of my comments.

 

P.s.:

Wait, you are right. It was limited. Let me take another stab at it:

 

God is a concept, an icon, an idol. Something people make responsible for what they can't control, and don't understand. Something people can blame for things that don't go the way they wish they would.

 

Ok, that's got it.

Edited July 4, 2008 by beancurdturtle

[Azoro]

What is called "the dao" is the potentiality, it is not manifest. Everything is manifest from it. It's not thinking. It's not pulling strings. It has no grand plan, or compassion, or purpose for anything. It is impartial. People grant the dao divinity or power only because they assume something powerful must have a higher purpose.

 

God is a concept, an icon, an idol. Something people make responsible for what they can't control. Something people can blame for things that don't go the way they wish they would.

 

There is no correlation between the dao and god.

Thanks, beancurdle.

 

That is the distinction that I thought (actually hoped) might exist, but it seems that not all share your view on it.

 

In a search for a path that either venerates nature itself, or venerates an imagined creator or author of nature, I find myself drawn to the former.

[beancurdturtle]

I don't have anything against someone having a god, or having religion. They can both be a powerful force for right action and thoughts.

 

If there was truly a god or gods, they would come from the dao.

Edited July 4, 2008 by beancurdturtle

[Jakara]

The main differences here is that "God" in any of the abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) is personified. "He" is described as being able to comminucate with humans directly or indirectly as if he were a human himself or with certain human-like attributes.

 

In Taoism the Tao has no such personification, it has no dualistic attributes whatsoever. We are told by the Tao Te Ching that it existed before dualism itself and therefore cannot be the same if God is strictly an independent "being".

 

The exception to this is if the abrahamic religions experienced the same phenomena as what the Taoists called "Tao" but simply personified it for ease of understanding for the masses. Its not unreasonable given that Tao has no dualistic attributes, the only people that could understand are those very few who experienced non-dualistic meditation.

Therefore in order to let others understand you'd have to put it into more familiar terms.

 

Just a thought anyway.

[beancurdturtle]

Therefore in order to let others understand you'd have to put it into more familiar terms.

 

Just a thought anyway.

And a true thought.

 

The trouble with putting god into familiar terms is, once done, you have objectified god (or at least the concept of god) - god is now a manifest thing. Anything manifest - things, thoughts, concepts, all - are manifest from the dao.

 

The more base trouble with having a manifest, all powerful god is; where did this god manifest from?

Edited July 4, 2008 by beancurdturtle

[Ben D]

"Does Taoism believe in a God?"

 

According to my understanding, Taoism does not have beliefs.

 

The Tao is complete and has no need of affirmation, nor does it make affirmations.

 

Belief in any form implies duality, ie. one who believes, and the belief itself.

 

Since the Tao is beyond duality, any move towards discrimination is an immediate fall from the Tao.

 

P.S. Actually I also understand that the Abrahamic God concept was also originally meant to convey Oneness, (Omnipresence) but the popular understanding of it now is a degenerated anthropocentric/anthropomorphic duality comprising of a good creator god and the separate adversary evil destroyer god Satan.

 

It is said the the Tao is lost when discrimination begins,...ying and yang emerge , then similarly in the Abrahamic tradition, the fall from Perfection takes place when discrimination begins, ie. to eat of the fruit of the tree of good and evil,.. good and evil come into being.

[beancurdturtle]

According to my understanding, Taoism does not have beliefs.

 

The Tao is complete and has no need of affirmation, nor does it make affirmations.

 

Belief in any form implies duality, ie. one who believes, and the belief itself.

Well said, thank you.

[Taoist81]

How would you describe the Christian God?

That would depend greatly on the Christian you are speaking with. If you were to go back to the quite obviously "mystic" Jesus (if ther was such a man) he would likely say that "God" is "that which is and is not".

 

I understand what the dao is, and I understand what god is. From my understanding there is little correlation between something that is, and something that is an icon for a thing that doesn't exist.

Claiming you "understand" what either is, is an obvious overstatement, but an understandable one. However, calling "god" and "icon" clarifies that we are not talking about the same thing.

 

I'm all ears - well not literally, cause I'd look pretty silly. But I am interested in knowing the basis for your dismissal of my comments.

He he. Yes, Ferengi look quite odd. There was no "dismissal", only a pointing out of the limitations of your definition. Looking at the Sefer Yetzirah, or the Zohar, or the writings of Rumi show clearly the limit to the definition you give for the English word "god". Comparing your definition to "Tao" would be no different from comparing "Tao" to the English word "way".

 

P.s.:

Wait, you are right. It was limited. Let me take another stab at it:

 

God is a concept, an icon, an idol. Something people make responsible for what they can't control, and don't understand. Something people can blame for things that don't go the way they wish they would.

 

Ok, that's got it.

 

Again, that is completely disregarding the deeper (and possibly original) meaning of the Western concept of "God". Take a look at the western traditions that actually question themselves and that actually produce results and you will see that "God" is not simply an "icon". You are quite right that that is how the majority of "christians" perceive it. But anyone who actually takes the time to explore ANY of the Western theologies will find the exact same results as a Taoist who truly explores his/her "faith".

[beancurdturtle]

That would depend greatly on the Christian you are speaking with. If you were to go back to the quite obviously "mystic" Jesus (if ther was such a man) he would likely say that "God" is "that which is and is not".

I wasn't asking what a random Christian's concept of god was. I was asking "How would you describe the Christian God?" Not the mythology, not the "deeper" meaning, simply - your brief description.

 

Claiming you "understand" what either is, is an obvious overstatement, but an understandable one. However, calling "god" and "icon" clarifies that we are not talking about the same thing.

What makes you so well informed about me that you can judge my level of understanding of either the dao or of the Christian god? And what about your illusion of my lack of understanding is understandable? Or is that just subtle one-upmanship?

 

My description is about what base purpose god and fulfills for most believers in god. You are focusing on the centuries of mythology, the "deeper meaning" of the mythology, the dogma and so forth.

 

My perspective is that the base meaning and value of any given thing lies in the purpose it fulfills. That is why I described god as I did.

 

I was a Christian for 24 years. I have been studying daoism for 24 years. I understand both - whether you have the capacity to believe so or not.

 

He he. Yes, Ferengi look quite odd. There was no "dismissal", only a pointing out of the limitations of your definition. Looking at the Sefer Yetzirah, or the Zohar, or the writings of Rumi show clearly the limit to the definition you give for the English word "god". Comparing your definition to "Tao" would be no different from comparing "Tao" to the English word "way".

Do you truly feel that "That is a statement of misunderstanding, to say the least." is not a dismissal? If you had said "that is a very simplistic statement." I would agree with you. Instead you dismissed it as a "statement of misunderstanding."

 

It is a limited definition. But it is a valid definition if you ask, "What base purpose does the Christian god serve for believers?"

 

I can tell you the purpose for a shovel (a scoop like tool for moving dirt), or I can tell you what wood the handle is made of, what color the paint is, how much rust is on the blade, etc. From which description will you better understand what a shovel really is?

 

And the meaning of your last sentence here has escaped me.

 

Again, that is completely disregarding the deeper (and possibly original) meaning of the Western concept of "God". Take a look at the western traditions that actually question themselves and that actually produce results and you will see that "God" is not simply an "icon". You are quite right that that is how the majority of "Christians" perceive it. But anyone who actually takes the time to explore ANY of the Western theologies will find the exact same results as a Taoist who truly explores his/her "faith".

The deeper (and possibly original) meaning of the Western concept of "God" has very little to do with whether there is a correlation between the Christian concept of god, and the dao.

 

Look, Azoro refined his original question:

"That's the distinction I'm trying to get at. In Taoism, is there the concept of a supreme being that would intervene in the affairs of men (or the universe for that matter), because that is implied in Christianity, or is the belief that the Tao IS, and is everywhere, and we strive to become one with that essence, but that direct intervention is not part of the equation?"

With brevity and focus, I answered his question.

 

I'm not sure what drives your need to dismiss my statements, and question - or rather completely discount - my understanding. Where does your need to feel superior come from?

[林愛偉]

A being becomes a god through their merit and virtue. That which is called Dao, is just as it is, non-dual, and yet all things reside in it, as it. One the discriminating mind points to the direction, label, of "Dao". there is already a falsity, and thus separation begins...Yin and Yang. Those two are relative, and will be that way till the mind of relativity/duality is transformed.

 

When a cultivator of the way communicates with beings of the god-mind, it is not the manner in which Christians would. Though the God of the 33rd Heaven is the same god of Judeo-Christian faith, when asked for things, the methods are a bit different in Daoism. The only way to actually get a response is through a sincere heart, proper in virtue and moral.

 

The god of the 33rd Heaven, Judeo-Christian god, in Daoism is none other than the Jade Emperor; Yu Huang Da Di. Hindu and Buddhist schools; Shakra Indra.

 

 

Peace,

Lin

[beancurdturtle]

When a cultivator of the way communicates with beings of the god-mind, it is not the manner in which Christians would. Though the God of the 33rd Heaven is the same god of Judeo-Christian faith, when asked for things, the methods are a bit different in Daoism. The only way to actually get a response is through a sincere heart, proper in virtue and moral.

Brother Lin,

 

I appreciate your comments.

 

Reading your thoughts, a question comes to mind. The question is in the context of my belief, "the base meaning and value of any given thing lies in the purpose it fulfills." In this case, what purpose does god (the Judeo-Christian god) commonly fullfill to believers?

 

The common prayers to the western god, or "god-mind," are for absolution from sin or guilt, requests for strength to prevent sinning in the future, and to fulfill material or emotional desire.

 

What makes up the communication when a cultivator in your description communicates with the god-mind?

 

Peace,

[林愛偉]

 

 

What makes up the communication when a cultivator in your description communicates with the god-mind?

 

Peace,

 

 

Virtue, sincere in virtue, and concentration.

 

 

Peace,

Lin