Friday, December 9, 2011

Is Tao Everything?

Shawn Tedrow


I have heard by some that Tao is everything. I haven't been able to swallow the bait of this philosophy though. I am not saying that Tao isn't everything; just that I have many, many, thoughts and concerns, which arise, that cause me not to embrace such a teaching.

What is odd is that people that embrace this Tao is everything teaching, actually BELIEVE this doctrine, and swallow it, bait, line, hook, and sinker. A believer in this teaching once said, how could it be otherwise than Tao is everything? I guess there isn’t any room for any further discussion regarding this teaching. I mean, how I dare possibly suggest something contrary. Such heresy!

Here are a few contrary thoughts that Lao Tzu mentions with my added comments:
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
If the Tao that can be told is not Tao, is the Tao that can be told Tao, since Tao is everything?

Tao doesn’t take sides.
If Tao doesn’t take sides, is the action of taking sides, Tao? Does Tao that doesn’t take sides, also take sides, because Tao is everything?

When man interferes with the Tao, sky becomes filthy.
How can man interfere with Tao if Tao is everything? Is Tao interfering with itself since Tao is everything? Also, are filthy polluted skies Tao?

When a country goes counter to the Tao, warheads are stockpiled outside cities.
Is a country’s action that goes counter to the Tao, Tao, since Tao is everything? Are warheads stockpiled, Tao? Was the Iraq war Tao since Tao is everything?
You might be wondering why I am going to such length in sharing an opposite view that Tao is everything. I believe that it is a huge leap in thinking that Tao is everything from what Lao Tzu is seemingly saying. Maybe Lao Tzu was talking about an old fashion different kind of Tao than today’s Tao? Is it possible that a new Tao has arisen that is way more with it, and evolved than the old Tao? I mean, get with the times Tao!

Hey, all is not lost. We can now start two Tao Churches. One could be called, The Orthodox Church of Tao, and the other could be, The Tao of the Latter Day Sages. Which one do you want to join? In my heart I am Orthodox but my mind really digs the idea about being a Latter Day Sage. How cool would that be!

Oops, I got a little sidetracked. Sorry about that. Back to getting to this serious stuff I was writing.

I have mentioned before in a previous post, Now we see through a Glass Darkly, about “goes too far”. This is when the mind goes too far in interpreting.

You might think, so what, to each their own path and thinking. I feel that BELIEVING that Tao is everything, when it might not be so, may lead to a much distorted view, and an unnatural way to embrace life. It goes too far.

The Tao is everything teaching reminds me of the spirit of the Hindu Caste belief, with its untouchables. It goes too far.

Being a pupil in life’s classroom of the the study of human nature, what is of interest to me is, why, and what motivates a person to think this way? Is it possible that this Tao is everything thinking, relieves and brings delusional comfort to one’s own Iraq war within oneself? What authored this teaching?

If someone said reality is everything, I could buy into that but I cannot buy into Tao being everything.

You can check out Shawn's other musings here.

2 comments:

  1. Shawn raises a number of interesting points about faith and belief and knowledge, and I can just feel the non-dualists start to itch.

    But many of these statements (in the TTC) are just statements. For some reason they often make me think of Wittgenstein, especially the first and last propositions of The Tractatus:

    “The world is everything that is the case...What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.”

    I am not a "Tao is everything" Taoist; I really don't know what that means. As Shawn suggests, how can you be out of harmony with Tao if Tao is everything. But from Lao Tzu on, (and before, really) it is all about attaining and achieving harmony with Tao. And, IMHO, that doesn't happen by just saying "Tao is everything...I'm in harmony."

    I actually had a dialog with someone the other day that did seem to want to have two Tao/Dao-isms. People who were of the old school, he said, called themselves Daoists; modern, new (age) ones called themselves Taoists. (This is ludicrous.) Dao is Tao is 道. Unspeakable!

    My own understanding, if I have any, of Dao/Tao has been enhanced through diagrams, not the least of which is the taiji, not words. In fact, I have had someone say if you contemplate the taiji for a long time, then you will understand Tao. No talking needed.

    I think there is more interesting and very Taoist understanding (about our limitations) to be found in Wittgenstein:

    "Like everything metaphysical the harmony between thought and reality is to be found in the grammar of the language."

    “The limits of my language means the limits of my world.”

    “Not how the world is, but that it is, is the mystery.”

    “Only describe, don't explain.”

    “The limits of my language are the limits of my mind. All I know is what I have words for.”

    “Sometimes, in doing philosophy, one just wants to utter an inarticulate sound.”

    “Suppose someone were to say: 'Imagine this butterfly exactly as it is, but ugly instead of beautiful'?!”

    “Logic takes care of itself; all we have to do is to look and see how it does it.”

    “The human body is the best picture of the human soul.”

    ReplyDelete
  2. As Shawn suggests, how can you be out of harmony with Tao if Tao is everything. But from Lao Tzu on, (and before, really) it is all about attaining and achieving harmony with Tao. And, IMHO, that doesn't happen by just saying "Tao is everything...I'm in harmony."


    Well, maybe it's like "god's plan," where there's no way to be out of step with it, as it all comes out for the good, but if we get in tune with it consciously, it's like getting grace or something, and now for you it's a less turbulent flow? Like pulling the rocks out of the river, perhaps.

    As for the Tao taking sides, well, if I take sides, I'm still with the Tao which does not take sides, because the Tao has taken both sides, or all sides, and thus no sides. You gotta get used to paradox if you're gonna be looking into all this stuff.

    ReplyDelete

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