Part 2 of many.
Taoism is especially attractive to me because I get so hung up on the un-knowability of the God introduced in the Bible. I mean, seriously, has anyone reading this blog ever had a two-way conversation with that God?
I don't consider receiving a warm fuzzy feeling to be a two-way conversation. Nor does an all-encompassing profound inner peace count. I don't even consider a reading of 1st Thessalonians to be God speaking.
I'm a human being, dagnabit. If a relationship wants to be called a relationship, the communication has to flow in both directions in real time. Otherwise, who are we kidding? What kind of relationship is it? Those of you who are married: Imagine for a second that your spouse communicates with you exclusively through sometimes cryptic writings from centuries past. How long before divorce?
This isn't late-night Bible-trashing. This is out-loud wondering whether "relationship" is the best word to describe how we get along with God.
(And don't you dare trot out the line about "God is so great and you are so small, where do you get off making these kind of demands?" -- that's nothing but a lame cop-out. If a close personal relationship is the ultimate goal, then both parties have to communicate regularly. That's just how we're wired. Or me at least.
"That's why God sent Jesus, John. Don't you know anything? Of course we can't relate to this Universe-Creating Omnieverything God of Timelessness Eternity. Duh. Get to know Christ already." Mmmm. Same dead ends, people. And let's not even get into the questions surrounding how accurately -- or not -- Christ is portrayed in the Gospels we have left.)
One last pre-Tao point: anyone else have trouble developing an authentic "relationship" with a being that might not exist? I mean, I believe in God and all, but sometimes I wonder. And that gets in the way a lot. Consider the possibility that someone you know somewhat well, say, a friend with whom you just reconnected with on facebook after many years of separation, that this friend is imaginary. You made her up. She wasn't real a decade ago and her semi-regular comments on your status updates are a figment of your imagination. I know, crazy, huh? Now try making that friend the central figure of your life, and worship her. Try it out. See how that relationship feels.
I know. Apples to oranges. Although really, more like lemons to limes.
So enter Taoism, which instructs adherents to contemplate the Tao, to be in tune with it, even to love it. That sounds relational. But it's different in this tradition, and I take comfort there. From the Tao Te Ching:
"The Tao gives birth to all beings,
nourishes them, maintains them,
cares for them, comforts them, protects them,
takes them back to itself,
creating without possessing,
acting without expecting,
guiding without interfering.
That is why love of the Tao
is in the very nature of things."
That's juxtaposed with:
"Every being in the universe
is an expression of the Tao.
It springs into existence,
unconscious, perfect, free,
takes on a physical body,
lets circumstances complete it.
That is why every being
spontaneously honors the Tao."
What does that mean for a guy like me who reveres the Christ figure (in an extremely nontraditional way) but balks at the idea of striving to know and be known by God? Maybe I don't have to try so hard to experience God. Maybe I already am, and I just need to wake up to that fact.
[EDIT 6-5-09: The comments section is useful this time around. I actually explain a couple things a wee bit better than in the post itself.]
So where does faith fit in this?
ReplyDeleteWhy would you revere the Christ figure, though you've never seen him? Why would you believe in God if you don't think you can have a one on one "relationship" with him?
Just asking.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just suggesting that your argument here has a handful of dead-ends as well.
I agree with you second to the last sentence....maybe we don't have to work so hard.
I like it when my questions get answered with more questions. :) I'll answer both of those tonight when I have more than three minutes..
ReplyDeleteAlthough, briefly, notice how interesting it is that we arrive at similar conclusions from dissimilar starting points.
What is "Tao?" I mean, like, what's the noun of it? Is it an historical person, a god, a set of beliefs, a spirit?
ReplyDeletea&pmom - you probably found most of what you were looking for already, but here's the gist of how Lao Tzu, the purported "founder" of Taoism and the traditional "author" of the Tao Te Ching, "defines" the Tao. And yes, all those quote marks are completely necessary.
ReplyDelete"If you attempt to fix a picture of [the Tao] in your mind, you will lose it."
"There was something formless and perfect
before the universe was born.
It is serene. Empty.
Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.
It is the mother of the universe.
For lack of a better name,
I call it the Tao."
So you can go with "spirit," of the four you offered, but I'm thinking that word is still woefully inadequate. To shamelessly borrow from another tradition, I would simply say it is that it is.
(The Tao Te Ching would be Taoism's scripture.)
Brad: Just answering.
ReplyDelete"Why would you revere the Christ figure, though you've never seen him?" Well, that seems easy enough -- we all revere historical figures, family members, heroes. Why shouldn't I revere Christ? I want to be what Jesus was about, as far as I can tell. The four surviving Gospels are just so much about placing Jesus in a particular role and not so much about presenting his factual biography. Which is OK. It just means that I aim for the sum of their crossover material and build a Christian lifestyle/philosophy with those blocks. (Yes, this eliminates most of John.)
"Why would you believe in God if you don't think you can have a one on one 'relationship' with him?" That's the whole point. I don't hear from God regularly, I don't think it's possible to define what God IS, so for me, building a "relationship" with a mysterious silent entity seems fruitless. I am better off NOT viewing God as personal in exactly the way my tradition teaches. When I try and go that route, I hit the psychological roadblock of "stop fooling yourself John." That perception of self-deception actually pushes me away from the divine I wish to reach. Whatever "form" or "shape" that divine may be.
So it really just comes down to what you mean by the term "relationship." (Gotta love semantics-based discussion.) If relationship means living in tune with God, that's something I can do without lying to myself. If relationship means exploring the mind of God by trying to create one-on-one bonding time, and opening up my own heart to God, then I run into problems.