Notes from the Author
It was not easy for a modern
Westernized mind like mine, and especially a Christian mind,
to enter at all easily into the subtle meanings
conveyed by the arcane and aphoristic language in which
you chose to express them. Suffice it to say, at the outset
that your style was a felicitous balance of poetry and
philosophy and employed a form that well suited its content.
So, bravo for getting the Taoist interpretation of life just
right with such economy of words!
THE NATURE OF
TAO
This was, for me, the most illuminating part of
your website, since the complementary
nature of Heaven and Earth
is an observation that I think most people can relate
to. Wonder and self-forgetfulness come to most of us
quite naturally when we surrender ourselves to the
simple enjoyment of natural beauty; and this pattern of
the natural and the transcendent glory expressing or
reflecting each other has, in some measure, been
reproduced in great art, music, poetry, religion and
philosophy in many cultures. It has even found
expression in the words of the apostle Paul in his
epistle to the Roman church: 'Since the creation of the world,
God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine
nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from
what has been made, so that men are without excuse'
(Romans 1:20). So, in Christianity, as well as
in Taoism, Earth does express Heaven.
But does Heaven succour the Earth? I
would say, much more so in Christianity than in Taoism. The
rationale behind the Taoist insistence on living in accordance
with manmade conditions for decent living stems from a
pragmatic outlook: the Way of Earth, 'well-worn',
'approachable' and 'good enough'. It also requires from
individuals a 'seeking to become wholesome' by using their
intellects and intuition (the Way of Heaven) to look for what
is most in tune with nature and their own natures. The Taoist
way to avoid regrets seems to be to tone down expectations to
the 'good enough' basis required for a contented and
stress-free life.
But Christianity's view differs from
this. It states that the only basis for a full and satsfying
life is in recognition of, and obedience to, the will of God,
the Abrahamic God, called YHWH or God our Father. It states
that it is the Bible that holds the answer to how contentment
can be found: it is in the redemption of the world by a
heavenly emissary, Jesus Christ, who, by his words and
example, can bring the dictates of our human reason (the Way
of Earth) in line with the dictates of divine reason (the Way
of Heaven), founded on eternal truth. The next two passages
explain this:
17 “Why do you ask me about what is
good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is
good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
Jesus
replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit
adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false
testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[a] and ‘love your neighbor as
yourself.’[b]”
20 “All these I have kept,” the young
man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to
be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the
poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then
come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he
went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his
disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who
is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a
camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who
is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
20 Once,
on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would
come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of
God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor
will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because
the kingdom of God is in your midst.”(Luke 17:20,21).
The notion of the kingdom of Heaven is
radically different in Taoism, compared with Christianity. To
summarise at this point:
Taoism differs from Christianity is three important respects:
1. Taoism considers gods to be unimportant, and especially the Abrahamic one;
2. Taoism subordinates the value of Christ's judgment, concerning what is necessary to enter the kingdom of God (or the Way of Heaven) to the value of peoples' own judgments, concerning the 'insights' and 'wholesomeness' that they deem to be attainable via meditational states;
3. Taoism
considers redemption to be superfluous and salvation to be
already achieved, the way of Heaven and Earth being
'inseparable, inextricable, indivisible'.
While my view is that no one can live
wholesomely without Christianity and without the true God,
yours is that we must accept the Taoist's word for it that we
can live wholesomely in our own strength without faith in a,
or the, Redeemer. Whereas Paul said, 'For although they (the
Greeks) knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave
thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their
foolish hearts were darkened' (Romans 1:21), suggesting that
one can quench the human spirit by living without God, Tao
says that we can keep ourselves spiritual without God (unless
that God is Nature) by using meditational practices to learn
about oneself and the universe. I cannot agree with these New
Age alternatives. Knowledge and wisdom come from God alone,
and He preceded Lao Tse. Here is another wise man, King
Solomon:
2 My
son, if you accept my words
and store up my commands within you,
2 turning your ear to wisdom
and applying your heart to
understanding—
3 indeed, if you call out for insight
and cry aloud for understanding,
4 and if you look for it as for silver
and search for it as for hidden
treasure,
5 then you will understand the fear of
the Lord
and find the knowledge of God.
6 For the Lord gives wisdom;
from his mouth come knowledge and
understanding.
7 He holds success in store for the upright,
he is a shield to those whose
walk is blameless,
8 for he guards the course of the just
and protects the way of his faithful
ones.
9 Then
you
will understand what is right and just
and fair—every good path.
10 For wisdom will enter your heart,
and knowledge will be pleasant to your
soul.
More particularly, such knowledge comes
from the Bible, as Paul explains to the young deacon, Timothy:
16 All Scripture is
God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
correcting and training in righteousness,
17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for
every good work.
I agree with your saying that 'the Way
of Heaven is an infinite reservoir'. On this point,
Chrisianity and Taoism agree. But a Christian could never say,
'so full it seems empty'. That would be irreverent and
self-contradictory.
With this aphoristic gem, above, and an
equally gnomic triplet ('Two ways? One Tao. No discord!') you
introduce the reader, directly and sympathetically, to your
view of Taoism. I have a soft spot for poetic diction and any
form of word-play, especially the punning couplets, such as
'Contrary? Wise', which brings us to the 'Contrariwise' set of
thoughts, which are well placed second. However, I could never
share your sentiment that there is no discord between the Way
of Heaven and the Way of Earth. In fact, Christianity is the
most powerful evidence to the contrary that I can think of.
Your next section, 'Contrariwise', will be a fitting
opportunity for me to explain why.
CONTRARIWISE
On the metaphysical level, this may be true. Everything in the universe has a direct opposite that it cannot exist without. For example, light is the absence of darkness. Also, we may know the light by the dark. The Taoist key to simple living and contentment is accepting that life is full of contraries and tensions. We must 'take the rough with the smooth' and not expect to be able to control everything and everyone. 'Appreciating light comes with knowing the dark', though simply and beautifully stated, is a truth we all too often forget.
Also it is conceivable that over-optimism is detrimental to a person as being likely to lead to despair. If a person attributes freedom to things and people dependent or contingent by nature (such as the way night follows day) and thinks that he can control or change them, he will get his fingers badly burned. 'Shakers and movers' of the earth may expect to be buried by their earth-moving activity. Those who obsessively find fault with nature and people will themselves be rebuffed and disturbed. But if a person takes for himself what is only his to take, and views what belongs to others, their opinions and choices, as their own concern, then no one will reciprocate by trying to compel, restrict or find fault with him in turn, and he will not make enemies. This is similar to Christ's commandment, 'Do not judge, or you too will be judged.' For in the same way as you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you' (Matt. 7:1,2). This demonstrated to me that you are elucidating here a living, workable ethic, which has much to be said for it.
Those with 'much ado in words and deeds will not master the things or the people they hope to master. But those of modesty, fidelity and discretion, who think serenely ('stillness gives birth to action') without wishing to impose on, or control, others or nature, who tranquilly 'choose the right (diplomatic or physical) tool for the task', will suffer neither harm, nor disappointment in what they undertake. Good advice.. . and there's more!
'The sage is skilful in anticipating and dissipating difficulties before they arise—eliminating unnecessary effort, disturbance and suffering.' This seems conventionally reasonable to me. The degree of discomfort and suffering in one's life depends on the quality of one's thoughts and on the care one takes to entertain no thoughts inconsistent with a pragmatic and reasonable nature, able to view life in the round ('when darkness falls, a candle can show the way', etc.). I think that the motto, 'Hope for the best, but expect the worst', approximates to this insight. Good insights for day to day living.
This can be applied to interpersonal
relationships. But I think that it can have no deep bearing on
spiritual realities. The crucifixion of Jesus, the promised
Messiah of the Jews, is a historical fact that was still
future for Lao Tse. The meaning that Christians have since
found in it depends on an interpretation of the Way of
Heaven and the Way of Earth being in a profound conflict
with each other and Jesus's bearing the brunt of that
conflict at Calvary. This sage, Jesus, far from
'dissipating difficulties' before they arose, went forth to
meet them, and proved his sageness in doing so. Long
before his death, Jesus's life was already conveying the idea
of an offering of himself to God; and such offerings as were
made in Judaism were made with the intention of bringing about
the reconciliation of sinners to God. This verse shows that
the Taoist's idea of the 'wisdom' that Contrariwise
elucidates, is not Christ's or God's idea of wisdom:
Luke 7:20-35 New
International Version (NIV)
20 When the men came to Jesus, they
said, “John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the
one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’”
21 At that very time Jesus cured many
who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave
sight to many who were blind. 22 So he replied to the
messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have
seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those
who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead
are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. 23 Blessed is anyone who does not
stumble on account of me.”
24 After John’s messengers left, Jesus
began to speak to the crowd about John: “What did you go
out into the wilderness to see? A reed swayed by the
wind? 25 If not, what did you go out to see?
A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear expensive
clothes and indulge in luxury are in palaces. 26 But what did you go out to see? A
prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 27 This is the one about whom it is
written:
“‘I
will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way before you.’
28 I tell you, among those born of women
there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in
the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
29 (All the people, even the tax
collectors, when they heard Jesus’ words, acknowledged that
God’s way was right, because they had been baptized by
John. 30 But the Pharisees and the experts in
the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because
they had not been baptized by John.)
31 Jesus went on to say, “To what,
then, can I compare the people of this generation? What are
they like? 32 They are like children sitting in the
marketplace and calling out to each other:
“‘We
played
the pipe for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge,
and you did not cry.’
33 For John the Baptist came neither
eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a
demon.’ 34 The Son of Man came eating and
drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a
friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ 35 But wisdom is proved right
by all her children.”
'But wisdom is proved right by all her children'. This wisdom, unlike the way of Tao, is definable. What wisdom is it? God's wisdom, and it is arrived at not by meditation but by reading the Bible, Christ's words and receiving the Son of Man. This Son of Man did 'guide opposites towards harmony in place of discord' in a Taoist way, and Jesus certainly chose the right tool for the task (the message of God's pardon in return for repentance and faith in His Son). But his approach to a contentious situation of hostile religious leaders was apt in an unexpected way: it was to invite martyrdom. He even preached it to his disciples: 'Take up your cross an follow me' (Matt. 10:38). But this view would be a scandal to a Taoist or even to a broad-minded person who leads a decent life. Taking up one's cross sounds like extremism, and contrary to the quietism that the goals of Tao embody. Here I come back to what I consider to be the assumption, implicit in your slogan, Two ways - one Tao'. This is what the apostle Paul writes: 'The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God' (Romans 8:7). Man, in regard to God's will, is constitutionally 'contrariwise'. There are two ways in Christianity, as in Taoism, but they are the way of godliness and the way of sinfulness, and they cannot be reconciled. One abandons the broad way to follow the narrow way, and both are clearly defined. Both are revealed to us; we don't have to work it out.
'No one comes to the Father but by me',
said Jesus. The Christian is not bidden to meditate or to
juggle with paradoxes, but to follow. 'If anyone chooses to do
God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from
God or whether I speak on my own' (John 7:17). This sage IS a
midwife. But it is not 'stillness that gives birth to action',
but action in following him that gives birth to stillness.
Faith, not quietism.
IMBALANCING ACT
'High tumbles to low'. I think that this means that influential people, due to low moral practices, unreasonable demands placed on subordinates, mishandling of conflict or indifference to their dissatisfaction, will sink in their esteem. 'Low grows to high' is, I think, a normal by-product of people deciding or trying to work together ('the stone of wickedness keeps the edge of goodness keen') either to minimize conflict, or to make it yield benefits ('stinking manure feeds sweet-scented flowers').
When Tao is hindered (when people refuse to talk to each other, when they make themselves unavailable, set up barriers, when there is jealousy, distrust, fear or dislike, or when morale is low because expected rewards for diligence are being denied), you have all the symptoms of conflict. When Tao flows smoothly (when people are friendly and approachable, do not set up barriers, when communication is good and rewards generous), morale will be high and name-calling and recrimination low and sweet-scented flowers bloom.
The best way to prevent conflict is to permit not liberal 'safe spaces' but 'dangerous spaces' – by encouraging healthy differences. 'Dangerous' does not mean spaces where overseers can let fly with criticisms and personal attacks or encouraging cliques to form. Preventing conflict involves more than agreeing to differ; it requires individuals to 'pull together', to be helpful and supportive to one another and to encourage the making of practical suggestions to make Tao flow more smoothly. This how to set the Tao on high and rule from below. You may not be the first to stress the importance of working together as a relationship, a family, a team or society, but you are the first to suggest that conflict avoidance deductively follows from following the great law of nature.
This is about how to work in a team and
to cooperate and be a good leader.
I read here (https://personaltao.com/taoism/becoming-taoist/ ), 'To define Tao is to lose Tao. Likewise, to attempt to define your own life, means to lose all the possible options within your life.'
Non-Taoists will define everything ; but a philosophy of life that is undefinable? It's a heady concept. It reminded me of Keats' negative capability:
'Writing to his brothers in 1817, Keats introduced the concept of negative capability as he discussed Shakespeare’s creativity. “At once it struck me, what quality went to form a Man of Achievement, especially in literature, and which Shakespeare possessed so enormously,” he wrote. “I mean Negative Capability, that is when man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.”. . .Holding too closely to one’s own view of the world is creatively counterproductive. (https://qz.com/938847/john-keats-theory-of-negative-capability-can-help-you-cultivate-a-creative-mindset/ ).
So is life according to Tao comparable to writing your own life story, in which the writer is a developing character in his or her own novel, born without essential knowledge of his or her own identity or soul? The only reason, that I can think of, why fighting over a definition of Tao may be counterproductive is that one can only discover it by living one's life to the full in terms relative one's own nature. No one can define that goal for us. If the Taoist aim is to live a more complete life by living it more simply and kindly ('where the Tao sinks deep, refreshing roots', 'like fallen rain on thrsty soil'), surely we must be able to state that objective so that its attainment, or the chances of its attainment, can be verified? But we cannot ('trying to make sense of Tao leads to bafflement'). Can it even be stated in measurable terms? 'Tao seems hidden, but stands clearly in plain sight'. If the overall objective is the simple life in harmony with nature and it is elusive, perhaps that objective can be broken down into sub-objectives, so that lesser goals can be achieved on the way to attaining the overall objective. Then the objective, however elusive it may be (because of the essential undefinability of Tao), is not evasive. But the subject must himself define those sub-objectives.
Personally I find this somewhat
bewildering. Christianity is more straightforward, in
comparison. Knowledge and wisdom come from God alone (Proverbs
2:5-10; 1 Corinthians 1:20-31) and from the Bible in
particular, which is God's Word (2 Timothy 3:16-17). God's
Word is, for me, 'fallen rain on thirsty soil'. It is never
'deceptive, tricky and twisted, but completely
straighforward'. If it seems twisted, it is because we make it
so (1 Corinthians 2:10-15).
SECRET
AGENT
'Tao deserves reverence, but has no use for worship.' By living in harmony with society, nature and oneself one can reduce conflict in one's relations with other people, the natural world ('hence it can shine out from people' who are not even into Taoism) and the components of one's psyche ('the vacuum that seeks to be filled'). The result is that life's vitality in not squandered is pointless conflict. The Tao deserves reverence because it describes ultimate reality, just like the Christian God, and just as 'knowing Tao is ineffably more precious than to know about Tao', the same applies to Christ - knowing him is more precious than knowing about him.
But the greatest difference between Taoism and Christianity, I believe, and the one that effectively prevents any ecumenical rapprochement between Chistians and Taoists is the fact that, while the Tao is an impersonal force or cosmic principle (as in Stoicism), the Christian God is a personal being. To 'bow low' to a force or to energy seems to me to be a misnomer, and, from a Christian point of view, it is a form of idolatry, rendering homage to the created thing (Nature) rather than the Creator. Paul is disaparaging towards Nature worship:
'Formerly, when you did not know God,'
writes Paul to the Galatian church,'you were slaves to those
who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God—or
rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to
those weak and miserable principles. Do you wish to be
enslaved by them all over again?' (Gal. 4:8,9).
'Dynamic balance, favouring bold
action, but avoiding rashness; taking initiatives, while
staying grounded.' This parallels what is done in any
organization or worthwhile project, carefully defining and
setting objectives, deciding on performance indicators, etc,
so that one can review one's progress. As one does so, one, as
it were sails, but remembers to take an anchor.
'Heaven and Earth are dancing partners! Tao the dance.' It's a dance of unselfconsciousness, going with the flow, living in the moment... although it is spontaneous action that does not preclude planning and self-preparation. The degree of attainment of this objective (i.e. the harmonization of the law of heaven and earth in the dance of life) has to be a matter of opinion as to how moral and spiritual values are to be taken into account. In other words, one cannot remain unselfconscious for long. Value judgments must come into play.
My misgivings about this were stated under Secret Agent in the form of a fundamental contradiction between Christian and Taoism. In Christianity, there are objective moral values, grounded in the transcendent, holy God of the Bible ('Heaven'). This God makes moral distinctions ('God is light; in him there is no darkness at all',1 John 1:5). It is to Him that we are morally accountable, and it is He who will one day judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:31; Rom. 1:18-2:6). Since He is 'a God of faithfulness and is without injustice' (Deut. 32:4), one can only dance with Him by following the same music score and dancing the same dance.
Since Taoism proclaims an impersonal principle that judges no one, it is not clear to me how the Taoist's unselfconscious choreography, in which he aspires to move stresslessly with the music of life, fits in with that of Heaven, when there is no partner there that answers to our concept of a personal God who will judge the world in righteousness. Dancing partners are people not phenomena. The Bible personalizes the dance with these choice verses:
'Walk before me and be perfect' (Genesis 17:1). 'I will walk among you and be your God' (Leviticus 26:12). 'Can two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?' (Amos 3:3).
It would be impossible for any
'unself-conscious' person' or someone on a 'brain holiday' to
walk with God.
UNDER-ACHIEVER
'Political theorists influenced by Laozi have advocated humility in leadership and a restrained approach to statecraft, either for ethical and pacifist reasons, or for tactical ends. In a different context, various anti-authoritarian movements have embraced the Laozi teachings on the power of the weak.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laozi
I support limited and honest government and hate oppression in all its guises, and so I cannot object to your sentiments here. Indeed, I welcome them.
This lists the negative aspects of taking things to excess well. I find that the four couplets that begin this section are the most satisfying of any of the sections.
I did discover, however, in your assertion,
'In social or political groups, imbalance can lead to bigotry, an inability to realise when long-held ideals have become irrelevant or impractical to implement',
a potential source of disharmony between the interests of idealists and those of the ruling elites. In the West these powerful elites comprise, not only the government in power, with its legislative and judiciary influence, but also multinational corporations, liberal media and educational interests, whose embrace of economic and cultural globalism threatens the three principles on which prosperity and well-being reside: economic, cultural and border security. Who decides when 'long-held ideals have become irrelevant or impractical to implement'? Is it not those vested, globalist interests that have a disproportionate ability to prevent those ideals from being realized for the majority?
A Taoist philosophy of life that tends towards quietism for a significant minority of the population could be used by powerful elites as a means of socal control, since the more people who can be persuaded to accept a looming scenario in which their long-held ideals become 'irrelevant' and 'impracticable', the less trouble they are likely to be.
If our leaders are self-indulgent,
power-hungry, lying, corrupt liberal elitists and do not fit
the Taoist ideal of the under-achiever, they will simply
accuse die-hards in that case of bigotry, just as today's
champaign socialists, lefty liberals and Soros's' stooges do.
Although it is unlikely that Taoism would be promoted for
political purposes, the fact that it glosses over the dangers
of disharmony between the interests of the rulers and the
ruled cannot be ignored. What if a society is being subverted
by cultural Marxists? Should we kow-Tau to the new order being
imposed on us? This is how Marxist subversion worked in the
Netherlands: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SV7CLhxdXA
SELFLESSNESS
Your use of the word, 'office politics', suggests that this is about being a good manager of people.
'Send power down' is about how best to organize other people's work, by delegating, 'recognizing and harnessing talents' ('sending power down') and encouraging one's staff to use their initiative ('following the led').
'Looking up' must mean being sure of own's own responsibilities, first and foremost, and wielding the influence one needs, and getting the support one needs from those in power ('feet planted firmly'), to counteract the influence of certain powerful people whose wishes run counter to one's own ('the interplay of personalities' that distorts one's objectives).
One must 'look keenly' at those tactics people in one's organization use when exercizing power for dubious purposes: flattery, circulating gossip, bribery, distorting information, forming cliques, creating a 'them' and 'us' climate of distrust and dissatisfaction. All these dubious uses of power come under the rubric of 'self-interested motivations, fostering intrigue, duplicity and 'the petty gripes of office politics'.
All this is very true. Where Tau comes in ('let Tau speak—and pride be dumb'), I think, is with the manager's humbling realization, in seeking enough power and consensus to vanquish all opposition for the general good, that other people's goals will be at least as justifiable as their own.
VACANCY
Meditation clears the head so that
communication is lucid without being shallow.
MODERATION
Self-evident.
EQUANIMITY
Strife and opposition are both necessary and good. Life has its ups and downs, opposites in a state of tension: good times alternating with bad times, the rough with the smooth, where neither will competely obliterate the other. One should seek to understand the universal tension of opposites and use that knowledge to bring one's life into balance. Be anxious about nothing. Be content with the way things are. Go where life takes you.
HARDY PERENNIAL
The apt phrase you used in 'Hardy Perennial', 'Old roots nourish fresh flowering' gives me hope that Taoists may be willing to move from their position, eventually.
I wish you well in your ambitious
project of replying to all 81 chapters in Lao Tsu's exposition
and adding a comments section. This would be an excellent way
to clarify points and probe one another's positions.
As for my own religious convictions, I feel that I have gained something of value from Taoism. It has, at least, helped me to come up with a new incentives to persuade you to move closer to my position.