Philosophical Daoism - Additional Thoughts

(NOTE: I used the Wade-Giles rather than the Pinyin system of transliteration in this entry, which is why many of the terms are spelled differently than in my later entry on Philosophical Daoism.) 

Taoist philosophy strikes a chord within me like no other world philosophy or religion.  I have studied numerous religions and philosophies, but I have found none as profound or life-changing as philosophical Taoism.  Philosophical Taoism (or Tao Chia), which has had little influence for the past 2000 years, should not be confused with the forms of religious Taoism that have arisen after it, which emphasize ceremonial magic, divination, and external and internal alchemy.

The central practice in philosophical Taoism as I understand it is wu-wei.  This word literally translates from Chinese into English as "not acting" or "not doing," but it does not literally mean sitting around and doing nothing.  Rather, it means first recognizing that attempting to change oneself or the external world by acting according to one's conceptual distinctions between right and wrong, true and false, etc. often does not lead to any positive change, and usually does not lead to the desired or intended result.  This way of thinking is foreign to most people in the world, who believe that voluntary intentions have almost a one-to-one relationship with people's actions most of the time.  Philosophical Taoism, on the other hand, holds that actions based on artificial conceptual constructs such as right and wrong, true and false, etc., are not actually based on the way things really are, and thus only lead to endless changes and no lasting happiness or genuine freedom.

Second, wu-wei means taking a somewhat "passive" approach to existence, accepting that one has little control over the endless changes of the external world, and accepting that trying to force oneself to be moral, righteous, or good by some artificial standards of morality is bound to fail.

I will discuss the objections that I anticipate receiving a little bit further down, but right now I will attempt to describe the universe and human nature as they are understood by Chuang Tzu, Lao Tzu, and Lieh Tzu, the main three proponents of Philosophical Taoism.  The most important concept in Taoism is, predictably, the Tao.  "Tao" literally means "way" or "route" in Chinese.  In Taoism, it means the "natural" way of the universe, which is both the origin and underlying reality of all things.  However, I believe that such a metaphysical understanding of the Tao can be quite misleading, since all three major Taoist philosophers shun systematic understandings of the universe.  I prefer to think of the Tao as a river (which is one of the favorite analogies used by all three philosophers), something that meanders through the universe, lying beneath the surface experiences of sentient beings, but able to chip away at the artificial conceptual edifices (which are like the rocks and soil, which at first seem stronger and sturdier than water, but which are in the end eroded by water) through which sentient beings interpret their experiences.  My understanding of the Tao may sound either over-flowery or philosophically evasive, but I cannot think of a better way to describe it.

If the Tao is the passive "river" lying behind people's experiences and their interpretation thereof, the Te is the activity of the Tao.  The Te is the actual chipping away of the "rocky surfaces" of peoples' (and even animals') interpretive artifices.  But at the same time, the Te "creates" these interpretive artifices, since, paradoxically, nothing exists which contradicts the Tao.  Even actions that are not wu-wei do not contradict the Tao, even if those who do not live in a manner that constitutes wu-wei are unaware of the natural flow of things which is the Tao.  In other words, the actions of those who live according to artificial conceptual constructs lead neither to lasting happiness nor genuine freedom, even though from a "panoramic" or universal point of view, the Tao is everywhere and in all things as the "river" that effortlessly causes the things of the universe to exist as they do.

According to all three philosophers, but especially Chuang Tzu (who is the greatest philosopher of all time from any culture, in my opinion), it is because people insist on clinging to their narrow artificial views of right and wrong and true and false, among other dualities, that they fail to live according to the principle of wu-wei, and thus fail to achieving lasting happiness or freedom, either individually or collectively.

Contrary to claims I have read all over the internet, Taoism does not teach that people or the universe are inherently good or benevolent.  The Chinese philosophy that teaches those things is Taoism's greatest rival in the Warring States and Han periods, Confucianism.  Confucianism holds that T'ien, or Heaven (not in the Christian sense, but in the sense of the universe's "rule maker"), out of benevolence, dictates universal moral norms that will lead to harmony within people, between people, and in the universe in general if they are properly followed, and that all people are born with the intrinsic ability and desire to live according to those moral norms.  Children should respect and obey their parents, older siblings, and other older relatives; political subjects should respect and obey their rulers as long as they are ruling morally, according to the mandate or will of heaven; at the same time parents should provide for the needs of and ensure the overall well-being of children, while rulers should do the same for their subjects, and if all of them do these things, Heaven will continue to provide for the needs of all.  Confucianism (especially through Confucius and Mencius, the most important early advocates of it, but also Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan, who founded the rival traditions of Neo-Confucianism) holds that benevolence is an inherent principle and the natural way of the universe, and that benevolence runs through all of these relationships: child to parent, subject to ruler, ruler to Heaven, and Heaven to ruler, ruler to subject, parent to child.

Taoism, while it also idealizes harmony within oneself and between oneself and the external world, including other people to a degree, holds that nature is not in fact benevolent.  As Lao Tzu puts it in the Tao Te Ching, "Heaven and Earth are not kind: the ten thousand things are straw dogs to them," and furthermore, "Sages are not kind: people are straw dogs to them."

Before we go off accusing Lao Tzu of advocating fascism or something similar, we should try to understand what he is really trying to say with these passages. He is saying first, that Heaven (which should be understood as that which dictates the conditions present on earth) and Earth show no partiality to living organisms, and in fact function almost like ruthless slave-masters.  Because of them, people are not free to choose when they die; they are not free from disease, natural disasters, and the like; and they must work and toil in order to remain alive for any length of time.  Heaven and Earth treat living organisms like they are petty objects that can swept aside at will, at least in a metaphorical sense.

Second, Lao Tzu is saying that a sage is one who has no illusions about the indifferent nature of the universe towards living beings, and thus ultimately gives up the distinction between life and death. Only if death is seen as no different than life, and not just intellectually, can a person truly be free of the anxiety that comes from realizing that nature is completely indifferent to the plight of sentient beings and will not hesitate to bring suffering and death upon them.  One even overcomes the anxiety of realizing that many other people will not hesitate to cause one harm or abandon one if it is in their perceived self-interest to do so.  This is what it means to treat people as "straw dogs," in my opinion.

Wu-wei, then, involves accepting nature as it is, and giving up all of one's ordinary conceptual distinctions, including ultimately even that between life and death.  This is understandably a frightening prospect for many people, and even sounds like a recipe for nihilism and sociopathic behavior to many people.  Yet I would ask these questions of the people who object to Philosophical Taoism for these reasons: have moralistic systems that praise some and condemn others for their actions ever actually improved human behavior on a large (or even a small) scale?  Even if they have, have these moralistic systems been any less cruel or barbaric in practice than those condemned or punished by the advocates and representatives of these systems?  Have these moralistic systems caused more or less self-laceration, self-hatred, guilt, and overall unhappiness in those who embrace and have embraced (whether by choice or force, but almost always the latter) them?  I am not saying that Taoism will bring world peace or universal social harmony.  It most certainly will not, although it does tend to support a laissez-faire, hands-off approach to human social relations, an approach which underlies the great systems that have created all of the modetrnity's unprecedented prosperity, liberty (though still greatly limited, it is far greater than it was in the vast majority of pre-modern societies), equality, and access to information (these systems being capitalism and liberalism in the broad sense of "pro-liberty").  What Philosophical Taoism can bring is a way of life that frees individual people from all of the assumptions and artificial dualistic thoughts that cause so much guilt, unhappiness, and feelings of inadequacy.  This may only work for some people, and it may only be necessary for some people, but in my experience, Philosophical Taoism has a greater power to do this than any other world religion or philosophy.