| Subject: | Re: Tao is not a deity
| | Date: | Sun, 27 Jul 2003 04:15:20 GMT
| | From: | Messer Xin <xin@woc.com.org>
| | Newsgroups: | alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,alt.philosophy.taoism,talk.religion.buddhism,alt.zen,alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
|
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:49:27 -0400, naked ape wrote
(in message <bZHUa.5995$v9.2463@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>):
> "MDHJWH" <mdhjwh@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:808df0f8.0307210207.568a7792@posting.google.com...
>> buddhashortfatguy@yahoo.com (Leebert) wrote in message
> news:<e2d95f55.0307201906.481e179@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>>> That which can be named is not the tao.
>>
>> ..............then how does anyone here know what it is they are taking
> about?
>>
>> Ayn Marx
>
> The Tao Te Ching describes how the Tao works, what it does, and what it's
> like, but it never says what it is. My guess is that the Tao is simply the
> Law of Equivalence, the math Nature (energy/matter) abides by as it
> manifests itself. Nature doesn't have a will, but it does have law, the
> Tao... Ape;)
Yeah. Sure.
--
as for makin him a god
well he didnt have much use for gods
cuz all they do is stare in a mirror
marvelling at their own creation
kinda hard to strike up a conversation with people like that ya know
---dar
|