POST: https://www.facebook.com/groups/neoacademia/posts/10159588802818042
INTERLOCUTOR:
Some ideas about Lao Tzu and the Tao.
I think we can agree that Lao Tzu is hard to understand. One reason for this is the archaic Chinese, which is abbreviated and often vague. But another reason is that translators don’t really understand what it means and often follow conventional traditions of translation because they know they will be accepted. The character Tao (Dao) is a good example. Most translators translate this as ‘way’ but to me this doesn’t seem to mean anything considering way that Lao Tzu defines and uses the word.
In chapter 25 he says:
“There was something undifferentiated and yet complete, which existed before heaven and earth. Soundless and formless, it depends on nothing and does not change. It operates everywhere and is free from danger. It may be considered the mother of the universe. I do not know its name; I call it Tao.” (Wing-Tsit Chan)
Also, in chapter 4 he says it is “empty like a bowl” and also, “bottomless”.
My Chinese character dictionary gives among the many meanings this one from the I Ching: 宇宙万物的本源 which I would translate ‘origin of all things in the universe’.
Finally, the Japanese scholar Hachiya Kunio whose edition of ‘Lao Tzu I have just finished reading, says that Tao is:
いっさいの現象の根底にある永遠に存在する実在
Which roughly translated means: ‘the eternal reality underlying all phenomena’
None of these descriptions can be satisfied by the translation, ‘way’.
Of course, the character does mean ‘way’ and is sometimes used in Lao Tzu with this meaning but not when referring to ‘the Tao’
A look at the opening line of Lao Tzu gives a hint of the problem as I see it.
道可道，非常道。
Literally, this translates to: ‘Tao can Tao, not permanent Tao.’
In it, the character is used as noun, then a verb, then a noun again.
As I mentioned, many translators translate the noun as ‘way’ and the verb as ‘speak’ or ‘tell’ and thus you get Arthur Waley’s rendition:
“The way that can be told of is not the unvarying Way.
Some like Wing-Tsit Chan don’t translate the word but just keep it Tao:
“The Tao that can be told of is not the eternal Tao.”
Both of these solutions are impossible to form a picture of. What does ‘the Tao that can be told of’ mean? And how does ‘tell’ get represented by the character 道?
The character for Tao 道, consists of two parts, the left side bit ⻌ (辵) that signifies running and the right bit, 首 that signifies ‘a head’. Of course, with Chinese characters, one part usually carries the meaning and the other is phonetic, and my Chinese/Japanese dictionary tells me that this is the case with the left ‘running’ part carrying the meaning and the right ‘head’ part phonetic. The problem here is that the character for head 首 is pronounced ‘shou’, not ‘tao or dao’. This is explained away by saying that it represents the character 導 which is pronounced ‘dao’ but seems to me like they are fudging it since in order to pronounce the character 導 ‘dao’, you have to assume that 道 is also pronounced ‘dao’.
An intriguing alternative that I have heard from a calligrapher friend of mine in Japan (and have since confirmed on Japanese websites) says that the whole character is meant to be a understood as a whole and that there are no phonetic parts.
As I mentioned above, the left side ⻌ means running and the right side 首 means a head.
When you put these together you have someone running with a head. (don’t try this at home…)
The idea is that in prehistoric times, there were occasions when one would run around a circumscribed area carrying the head of a conquered enemy in order to demarcate the space for magical reasons. (Think of the scene in the Iliad when Achilles drags Hector’s dead body around the palace thereby magically taking the power from the Trojans.
I don’t know whether this explanation is correct but if it is, I believe it explains all the ways in which the word is used: 1. The path that the person runs along, 2. the space enclosed and even 3. the verb which is the action of running around the circle to demarcate the space.
Three possible translations would be:
1. A way, signifying the path taken
2. A space (or an area), signifying the enclosed space
3. To demarcate, delineate (or describe) to signify the action of doing it.
I think in Lao Tzu, the meaning of Tao is along the lines of 2. I would translate it as ‘existential space’ or even ‘reality’ following Professor Hachiya. And following this, I would translate the opening:
“Realities that can be described are not the unchanging (true) Tao. Names that can be given to it are not its unchanging (true)name.”
I could say a lot more but I will save it for another time.
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
Thank you for this post! In thinking about what you wrote, to me the literal interpretation seems less intuitive than the metaphorical interpretation. Instead of literal running, metaphorical running can be thought of as a 'flow'. Instead of a literal head, a metaphorical head could be thought of as 'logos'.
So the Dao would be "the flow of the logos".
Logos is a complex idea, just as the Dao is a complex idea. They are both given religious significance. Logos can refer to language, just as the Dao is being used as a verb for language. Language is founded upon logic. The laws of physics are the source of logic. So I view the laws of physics as the source of the logos.
So, the Dao would be something like "the flow of nature" (the laws of physics).
Under this paradigm, 道可道，非常道 would mean something like "The flow of nature that can be spoken of is not a complete representation of the flow of nature."
John Vervaeke is filming an interesting series where he tries to rebuild a modern neoplatonism that synthesizes Socrates with Taoist concepts. John's core concept in the series is the "dialectic into dialogos". Dia means something like through, across, by, over, and between. The combination of all of the meanings of "dia" makes me feel like the word "flow" is fitting for representing the idea. John incorporates the idea of flow into the actualization of this process of dialectic into dialogos. Based on my above analysis, dialogos is equivalent to the Dao. So the core principle of John's project is to use the dialectic to get us into alignment with the Dao.
Here is my summary and analysis of some of John's concepts.