by Ethan Johnson
December 3, 2007

CAVEAT: I am unsure that anyone can ever really "understand" the Tao, but I have some thoughts on the body of work just the same. This is one article in an occasional series, to be authored in my leisure.

No sooner did I write my most recent heartwarming holiday hit, when I got something of a taste of my own medicine when I retired to my reading corner to read the introduction to the copy (translation) of the Tao Te Ching that I most prefer. I was under the erroneous impression that the work was written solely by Lao Tzu. We are meant to think so, similar to the way that Plato attributed most things to Socrates. Thus, the ebb and flow of the work ranges from minimal and poetic to more substantial paragraphs (insofar as Romanized punctuation applies to ancient Chinese). Recent discoveries have shed new light on who wrote the various tracts, how, and when. I will review and absorb the material as it becomes available to me.

It is a disservice to all interested parties if I do not mention something briefly about my own spiritual development. I was raised Unitarian, but to this day am unsure that that means, exactly. It didn't instill me with a sense of dogma and ritual, in any case. I read a few metaphysical-themed works in my 20s, most notably the Seth material by Jane Roberts. As a teen, my parents took me to the Olcott Library in Wheaton IL on occasion to browse through the aisles and get exposure to various avenues of spiritual thought. I am not what one would think of as a traditional Christian, though upon review I do find I am sympathetic to what I believe to be the core message (which, sadly for the traditionalists, does not embrace a view of salvation and/or a fall from/return to grace). I have taken part in metaphysics-related discussion groups (more like a book club), and have sat in on various church services, most recently the United Church of Christ (Sunday services) and Catholic Mass (weddings plural). Therefore: let us not conclude that I am something of a Godless heathen with an axe to grind concerning religion and/or spirituality in and of itself.

I say this because the Tao - as with existence itself - is necessarily viewed through the lens of the observer. So too was it written by its authors. We must take not only our own subjective biases into account, but those of the authors, as this is necessary to understand not only what they wrote, but why.

The authors of the Tao seem to observe existence, and therefore the Tao in binary terms. There is fear because there is courage. There is up because there is down. There is beauty because there is ugliness. There is hate because there is love. And, most notably, the Tao is best defined as "un-being" in contrast to that which is focused in a state of being (such as our human selves). How un-being brought being into existence is unknown even to the authors. And to a great extent, is an answer they aren't particularly interested in seeking. What matters is bringing one's existence into aaccordance with the Tao, usually defined as "nature" but only partially.

If the Tao is nameless, ineffable, and beyond the scope of human expression, what then, must be its nature in human terms? Robert Wilkinson writes in the introduction to my copy of the Tao Te Ching:

Now it has seemed to many philosophers, firstly that there must be an ultimate reality in order to give rise to the world we experience, and secondly that this reality must not be subject to the limitations of any of the individual entities within it: how could what was another individual, however powerful, account for the existence of all there is? Whatever is ultimate must be radically different in nature from everything else there is, and the way in which the Tao is is referred to in the Tao Te Ching makes it clear that the Taoists were fully aware of this line of thought.

Note that this view is essentially in alignment with my thoughts on the nature of God - and summarizes my exasperation with those who would reduce the idea of God to mere human terms, such as a stern parent or benevolent Santa Claus figure - both skeptics and believers alike.

Now: It is plain not possible to know the "mind" of God, anymore than one might "know" the Tao. The very word "mind" is a distinctly human concept. This is not a characteristic of something along the lines of the Tao (or God). The Taoists opt to at least spell out what one might to do to live in accordance with the Tao, without laying claim to knowing explicitly what something like the Tao might "want". Unlike the God of what is now the Bible, the Tao does not explicity reveal itself nor does it issue forth any edicts. Its laws are its own, and All That Is is free to act of its own volition, which may not be in accordance with the Tao. But, the Taoists warn, that which is not in accordance with the Tao does not last.

What strikes me as being the central conflict throughout the Tao Te Ching is that humans, despite their faults, do possess certain qualities not found amongst the rest of the natural world. Specifically, humans possess the ability, if not the desire, to control their physical enviromnent - insofar as that is possible. We can live on houseboats, in caves, in houses, in tents, even in the most desolate expanses of the Earth. Even in orbit. I say this to underline the fact that despite any shortcomings, humans have accomplished much that might be termed "unnatural", and generally are disinclined to turn away from those unnatural achievements. Tao or no, humans will continue to explore space. Humans will occupy spaces that normally should spell certain doom. And humans will desire.

To live in accordance with the Tao, then, is regressive. This means the giving up of self, of desire, of ego, of want, and yes, of possessions (as an extension of ego and desire). Humans tend to enjoy the possession of things. The achievement of goals. The glory of victory. The pride of success. The Jesus mythos speaks of a path that is rather simple, yet extremely difficult. In short, with apologies:

• Jesus: Give up everything to serve the benefit of mankind (and be the physical representation of the Christ consciousness).
• Taoism: Give up everything to serve as a mirror to nature (and be the physical representation of the qualities of the Tao).

If a great many people are either incapable or unwilling to surrender everything to the service of humanity, how then, can one be willing to surrender everything in the service of the Tao?

The Taoists, as mentioned in the blockquoted text above, reasoned that the Tao must necesarily be extraordinary and unlike anything found in physical reality. Conversely, to cast aside millennia of human nature and be willing to be the Blank Slate, the Uncarved Block, and indeed, the mirror to nature requires a human of extraordinary quality, and unlike anyone known in the annals of humankind. And similar to the Jesus mythos, it's a challenge anyone can accept but few, if any, will master. <EM>