The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao…

So, how does one even begin? It’s a treacherous path that only a fool or a Sage will dare tread.

But fortunately for us mortals, Lao Tzu went on to write another 5000 words to explain himself, the whole time treading the thin line between the fool and the Sage. Or, the tortoise.

I could go into a lengthy discourse about Taoism to give my interpretaion. Suffice it to say instead that the Encyclopedia of Philosophy writes “Lao-Tzu equated Tao with Heaven…it is eternal, spontaneous, nameless, and indescribable…It is absolute and mystical.”

If one wishes to understand the meaning of those terms, he might begin by examining mysticism. However, my aim is not to argue about it, but to point out that those I have read on Lao-Tzu accept his mysticism as a belief in something (specifically the Tao) that transcends reality. Similarly, to repeat “Chuang-tsu wrote ‘that which is the universe is my body; that which directs the universe is my spirit.’ Since the universe contains all of reality, what he means by the spirit is something else.

Lucretius may have an argument, but it is not with me, for I did not create the phrases about transcending reality, but took them as standard interpretations given on Taoism and on many other outlooks.

It would be very interesting to read your essay about Chinese thought.

Some years ago there was an argument about “Asian values” and how they were different to “Western” ones. It was really little more than some tyrants and their cronies attempting to justify their own moral corruption on racial grounds. There was one bright spot. An intellectual from Singapore (unfortunately I do not recall this brave man’s name) disputed the comments issuing from the govt. apologists. He stated that there was a long history of Asian people who supported individual freedom and opposed the ideas being promoted by the “Asian values” gang. He went on to state that many of these people had met “severe fates” at the hands of their opponents but their ideas had not been extinguished.

With the increasing importance of Asian countries such as China, politically and economically, it is important to know the argument that they are “morally different” is false. It is important to know something of the history and intellectual inheritance from this part of the World.

Lucretius, please do go ahead and write your article.

Talofa!

Sione

I have never disputed the fact that Lao-Tzu had much to say about many topics–particularly metaphysics and aesthetics. I am well aware of his impact on Chinese culture. e.g. it’s why Chinese people love to paint bamboos, which are hollow inside, flexible yet strong outside. They symbolize certain desirable features in human beings. Another interesting example–the most influential weichi(go) player ever claims to be inspired by the tao te ching, that his aim is not to win but to gain the tao. countless examples–gardens and martial arts, etc.

However, to characterize his thinking as “believing in things that transcend reality” is inaccurate. What does that mean?

I think Lao-Tzu was the first thinker to have grasped the spontaneous and complex organization that characterize many phenomena, including human society. That’s his primary importance as a thinker.

Now I have acknowledged that I didn’t see the exact words of lucretius. Yet, consider the following, via
http://wayist.org/ttc%20compared/chap01.htm

Byrn: The tao that can be described is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be spoken is not the eternal Name.

Chan: The Tao that can be told of is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

Maybry: The Tao that can be described in words is not the true Tao. The Name that can be named is not the true Name.

Mitchell: The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name.

Wu: Tao can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao; Names can be named, but not the Eternal name.

Can anyone say that there is some essential difference between these wordings, or be confident that if he reads one of these translations, he could not remember it as one of the other translations?

Given the language and the nature of Taoism, though, it’s easy to read what you want into it, as if it were deliberately vague and paradoxical. So I’ve tried to adapt certain concepts and ideas from Taoism without accepting it unreservedly.

It is not quite true that I haven’t seen “The Tao could be described. Not the eternal Tao. The name could be named. Not the eternal Name” for I have read translations that say very much the same thing, namely that the eternal Tao cannot be characterized or named. I have read many translations, and they say virtually the same thing, namely that we can never capture the quintessence that directs existence. Lao-Tzu says for example that “My teachings are very easy to understand and to put into practice, but no one can understand them or put them into practice.” Since I couldn’t have read the very words of lucretius, I apologize, and stand corrected. Still, his translation said the same thing as other translations, namely that what is ultimate cannot be characterized or named.

Next, I did not say Lao-Tzu wrote “what can be described and named is of no significance” but that what cannot be described or named is of greater significance. To a Taoist, the door is not as important as the space provided when it is moved aside. This is the essence of mysticism, namely subordinating reality to what transcends it. As an aside, Chuang-tsu wrote ‘that which is the universe is my body; that which directs the universe is my spirit.’ Can there be any doubt that he viewed his spirit as more fundamental than his body?

Yet let me explain why I fundamentally depart from lucretius’ claim that Taoism should be viewed primarily as a political document. First, if one were to ask what are the religions of China, the standard answer would be Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism. Second, the first three Google entries for ‘Taoism, definition’ are “Chinese religion over 4000 years old; A principal philosophy and system of religion of China; the basic, eternal principle of the universe that transcends reality”.

Although Taoism has a sound political perspective, it cannot hold a candle to those of von Mises, Hayek, Rand, et al. Conversely, when it comes to dealing with ultimates, these scholars cannot hold a candle to Lao-Tzu. The Tao Te Ching is the guide for dealing with the intangible, the intuitive, the subjective, and the inexpressible. It is there that it shines, and brings out what is within the individual, rather than giving him what comes from without. To suggest that Lao-Tzu was as concerned with worldly and tangible matters, as with other-worldly intangibles, would go against the essence of being guided by the Tao, and being a mystic.

How can one seek the true meaning of the Tao Te Ching? Not by authorities, for they differ from one to another, but from what it educes from deep within, which can be said to be attunement to the Tao.

Ky Leong points out another mistake of mine, when he writes that the tortoise of the Chu Prince, referred to Zuang Zi. I thought he was giving an interpretation of the legend where officials offered Lao-Tzu the position of advisor to the Emperor. There Lao-Tzu spoke of the tortoise carved onto a vase, and asked whether it was as happy as it would be if it became alive and crawled in the mud. When an official said it would be happier in the mud, Lao-Tzu replied ‘then do not place me in the position of being on the beautiful showcase of the Emperor, but allow me to move around freely in the mud.’ Again, I apologize and stand corrected.

Zhuang Zi also said to the high officials: “The prince keeps this tortoise carefully enclosed in a chest in his ancestral temple…” (it later died of suffocation?) This, to me, reads like “silencing” of dissent. The Prince was obviously concerned with Zhuang Zi “wagging its tail in the mud” – spreading anti-statist sentiments or libertarian teachings amongst the populace (an activist anarchist working outside the “system”.)

The Prince had no genuine intention of engaging Zhuang Zi as state advisor.

But the translation I offered was entirely my own. It’s highly literal–so much so that I doubt anyone else (or myself for that matter) would translate it this way for publication. So you haven’t seen it before.
Now it’s not accurate to say that Lao-Tzu was primarily concerned with what cannot be described or named. This is probably the most common misunderstanding of Lao-Tzu. He said that what can be described and named is not eternal. That’s merely a distinction drawn without any bias. He certainly did not want to say that what can be described and named is of no significance. “Named, the mother of all things.”

In the next lines (now I paraphrase) he stated that, without desire, as a disinterested observer you see certainly aspects of the world (the character is impossible to translate exactly); but with desire, as a participant (interested party), you see other aspects (again the character is very general). Here too he does not prefer the one over the other.And this distinction is similar to the named/nameless distinction.

The Chinese communists/marxists did correctly say that Lao-Tzu anticipated by some two thousand years Hegel’s dialectical methods. Lao-Tzu is always dialectical in the Hegelian sense, but not as confused and verbose as Hegel.

As to his different translation of the first paragraph, he is again speaking about minor disparities. Lucretius mentions distinctions without a difference, for both translations begin with ultimates that transcend reality, and not with political considerations. I had encountered the given translation, as well as a number of others. My point was that “Lao-Tzu grounds his outlooks in a mystery that precedes creation” and is as easily made by use of any one of them, such as “The Tao could be described. Not the eternal Tao. The name could be named. Not the eternal Name.”

I cannot see how anyone can view this, or any of the many translations, as an introduction primarily for a political perspective, rather than a mystical one. It is as though one said that the “Sermon on the Mount” was an introduction for social work.

Again, I agree that Lao-Tzu’s political perspective is that “the government that interferes the least is the best.” In this sense his philosophy of inaction is similar to Hayek’s spontaneous order. However. Lao-Tzu’s view is universal and transcendent, while Hayek’s is specific to society. Lao-Tzu was primarily concerned with what cannot be described, and cannot be named, whereas Hayek was primarily concerned with what can be named and applied.

If the prince were sincerely seeking advice on and appeared intent on implementing such advice as to how to most quickly dismantle the state, or even portions of the state, like the FED for instance, i would hope an anarchist would step up to the plate, execute the operation, and resign.

But if the advice sought was how best to optimize the operations of the state, i would expect and hope he would decline the kind offer.

Perhaps the Taoist would decline both offers. Or perhaps only the latter form of the offer was ever made.

Ky quotes a passage that is precisely my point, namely that of the tortoise. Anarchists & activists (and perhaps the reader) would take an offered position as advisor to the prince, whereas Lao-Tzu would not. Even those of us who are not constructed to fill such positions, would prefer it if a Lao-Tzu were our president (or his advisor, or a Justice of the Supreme Court). If you believe otherwise, I will concede that you, as an anarchist, are a true follower of Taoism. Will you, the reader, concede that if you would want Lao-Tzu to replace our president, you would not be a true Taoist?

As an aside, in 1909 von Mises joined the Vienna Chamber of Commerce and Industry (a semi-governmental organization) and worked there for 25 years. He briefly became an adjunct member of the new republican government of German Austria in 1919. Are there any Taoist anarchists out there who think he should not have been a participant in these govermental matters?

I agree with Nathan Shepperd that “Lao Tzu is not being specifically political, although general inaction will imply political inaction as well.” However, I would word it as not being ‘primarily’ political.

Why are the people starving?
Because the rulers eat up the money in taxes
Therefore the people are starving

Why are the people rebellious?
Because the rulers interfere too much
Therefore they are rebellious

That’s a helpful site, Mr. Leong. Having read through the Tao Te Ching I can see that while Lao Tzu is clearly against governing people with violence, he does not advocate trying to do something about it. Maybe Rothbard is right that it was a philosophical way of dealing with the situation in China at the time. Still, Allen Weingarten is probably right that Lao Tzu is not being specifically political, although general inaction will imply political inaction as well.

I suppose anarchism is different because it deals with avoiding politicial systems of human organisation, however, it isn’t a ascetic withdrawl from all social interaction. Like Rothbard, and anarchist is going to stay outside of the political system (and politically soiled economics), even if it means a certain amount of isolation.
Ultimately Rothbard had a huge effect because of his perseverence, and that is the sort of example we have.

Those who know do not talk.
Those who talk do not know.

Keep your mouth closed,
Guard your senses.
Temper your sharpness.
Simplify your problems.
Mask your brightness.
Be at one with the dust of the earth.
This is the primal union.

He who has achieved this state
Is unconcerned with friends and enemies,
With good and harm, with honor and disgrace.
This therefore is the highest state of man.

So, Allen W would be correct in saying that “…he (Lao Tzu) would not for example have been a contributor to this Blog.”

But on the question of whether Lao Tzu and/or Zhuang Zi (Chuang Tzu) were anti-statists/libertarians I will have to go with lucretius: “Moreover, the key message in Lao/Zhuang thought is the dignity of the individual and the worthlessness of the state… Confucianism entirely justified the state (monarchy in this case) and advocated obedience to the benign ruler.”

I take from the book “True Classic of the Southern Flower Country” (Nanhua Zhenjing) containing many Zhuang Zi anecdotes, one of which is:

Outer chapters: Autumn Floods
Zhuangzi was fishing on the Pu River when the Prince of Chu sent two high officials to see him and said, “Our Prince desires to burden you with the administration of the Chu State.” Zhuangzi went on fishing without turning his head and said, “I have heard that in Chu there is a sacred tortoise (metaphor for sage or wise man) which died when it was three thousand years old. The prince keeps this tortoise carefully enclosed in a chest in his ancestral temple. Now would this tortoise rather be dead and have its remains venerated, or would it rather be alive and wagging its tail in the mud?” (http://www.chinaknowledge.de/index.html)

The Tao could be described.
Not the eternal Tao.
The name could be named.
Not the eternal Name.
Nameless, the beginning of heaven and earth.
Named, the mother of all things.

The translator you quoted did not grasp the Chinese very well. Mainly imposing his own views on the text. Typical example of translation from texts of “eastern mysticism.”

Instead of talking about things like “reality” and “existence,” I think it’s better to understand the text first. Basic scholarship is not too difficult, but more difficult than vague mysticism.

Lao-Tsu’s political philosophy is simple: the government that interferes the least is the best. All considered, the tao is very similar to Hayek’s spontaneous order.

However, the issue of what kind of outlook Lao-Tzu had, does not require an appeal to authorities, for whichever version of the Tao Te Ching one uses has the same 81 paragraphs, and although there are minor differences in interpretation, all follow from reference to a sense of the Tao. For example, Witter Bynner (relying on Kiang Kang-hu as a check) translates the first paragraph as:

“Existence is beyond the power of words to define;
Terms may be used, But none of them are absolute.
In the beginning of heaven and earth there were no words…”

Different translations provide the same framework, wherein Lao-Tzu grounds his outlooks in a mystery that precedes creation. This inner sense is the final desideratum for the sage, and I do not know of any translation that does not depend on it. Lao-Tzu does not begin his work aiming at political resolution, but with the requirements of the Tao. One can compare it to religious works, such as the Bible or the New Testament, but not to a political treatise, for it deals with all of existence rather than with a discipline aimed at man’s needs. Surely the Tao applies to politics, and to science, art, and everything else, for it constitutes a Weltanschauung. That however does not categorize it as any of its components, for its basis is not only universal, but of that which transcends the universe.

One can give different interpretations about myth, the singularity of the author, and the translation of any particular symbol. Chinese letters are made to reflect different levels of existence. However, no matter which interpretation is given, it maintains a view that is not confined to a component of reality (such as a political treatise) but to all of reality, including what is beyond reality.

It is true that Taoism was denounced by the communists, but that was not only because of its political positions, but also because it provides a very different framework than dialectical materialism, which also constitutes a Weltanschauung. Similarly, communists denounced the Bible and the New Testament for its politics, but that in no way indicates that these are defined as political documents.

Note that by the same reasoning Objectivism is a Weltanschauung, and cannot be defined as a political philosophy, for at the very least it contains metaphysics, epistemology, and morality as well.