Friday, September 30, 2011

Tao Bible - Isaiah 30:27-28

Behold, the name of the LORD cometh from far, burning with his anger, and the burden thereof is heavy: his lips are full of indignation, and his tongue as a devouring fire: And his breath, as an overflowing stream, shall reach to the midst of the neck, to sift the nations with the sieve of vanity: and there shall be a bridle in the jaws of the people, causing them to err.
~ King James version ~

Man follows Earth.
Earth follows heaven.
Heaven follows the Tao.
Tao follows what is natural.
~ from Verse 25 of the Tao Te Ching ~
The Christian God is an entity filled with desire and emotion. Tao is desireless and, thus, emotionless. God often becomes angry and indignant, but Tao simply is.

If you're interested in reading more from this experimental series, go to the Tao Bible Index page.


  1. I think the personification of Yahweh into an entity with desire and emotion is what makes the religion resonate with people. The mind can't grasp naked truths like Taoism gives us. The religion is doomed from when it says "the Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao." We can't help but form ideas about Tao, even you, good sir; to say the Tao is this and not this... kinda self defeating.

    We cannot grasp the infinite, so we turn it into the finite, the ten-thousand-things. It's natural, and no wonder that Taoism doesn't have billions of devotees like Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, which at least approaches us on a human level, however flawed. I'm not talking about a popularity contest, I'm just saying that it makese sense, the personification. It's been going on for as long as we have records, and probably much much longer.

    I'm starting to think this may not be a vast error or confusion, but just the way the human mind deals with it. It's still talking about the same things.

    Just spouting off some early morning ideas, hope you don't mind.

  2. Can you point to an instance in which I have tried to define Tao? I don't think I have because it's beyond definition.

    Like the Taoist sages, both Scott and I discuss the manifestations, but not the source itself.

  3. @Brandon:
    I am reminded of a HIndu incantation that goes something like:
    Forgive these limitations due to my humanness:
    Thou art formless, but I worship you in these forms; thou art infinite, but I worship you in this place,
    thou art timeless but I worship you now.

    Something like that.

  4. @Rambling Taoist: You did it in this very post:

    Tao is desireless and, thus, emotionless.

    You are constantly saying what the Tao is and isn't. That is the very definition of defining something. Drawing a line around what is included, and all the rest that isn't.

    If you're talking about the manifestations of the Tao, rather than the Tao itself, stop using the word Tao. Also, if you're talking about the manifestations, then the Tao DOES have desires, anger, retribution... because we humans would be part of that manifestation, and we have those traits.

    @baroness: exactly.

  5. @Brandon

    if we create machines capable of thought and desire, they will still not be human, such as a human is a part of the tao, but not the tao itself


Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.