The Tao: Noun or Verb?

According to the World English Dictionary, in traditional grammar a verb is “any of a large class of words in a language that serve to indicate the occurrence or performance of an action.” The same source defines a noun as “a word or group of words that refers to a person, place, or thing” With this as a frame of reference, I believe that in order to properly understand the concept of Tao, it should be viewed as a verb.

.

Tao (Wade-Giles), or Dao (Pinyin) is a conception of ancient Chinese philosophy–particularly Taoism–that is traditionally translated as “way,” or “path.” As such, it is typically viewed as a noun or name. During nearly 40 years of studying the contextual usage of Tao–both in Taoist and Buddhist texts–I have come to understand it as referring to an action (verb). In this sense, a more accurate translation might be “process.”

The foundational text of Taoism–the Tao Te Ching (Wade-Giles), or Dao De Jing (Pinyin)–dates back to the 6^th century B.C.E. and is considered to be the primary source for understanding the concept of the Tao. Using this as a guide, let us consider how one’s understanding of Tao changes with its use as a verb rather than a noun.

The first chapter of the Tao Te Ching (Feng & English, 1972) begins:

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

The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

The nameless is the beginning of Heaven and Earth.

The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.

The first two lines indicate that the Tao that can be spoken of or named is not the eternal Tao. In an interesting bit of synchronicity, “name” is synonymous with “noun” in English grammar. Now I doubt that Lao Tzu–the mythological author of the Tao Te Ching–had English grammar in mind when writing about the Tao, but when translated into English, the text appears to be saying that the Tao cannot be named. Thus (at least from the standpoint of English grammar) it is not a noun.

The third line tells us that the “nameless” is the beginning of Heaven and Earth. If the nameless is a verb, indicating an action, then the Tao is the process that begets the material Universe (matter = noun). Then in line four, matter (the named) becomes the origin of everything thereafter.

From this line of thought, the first four lines of the Tao Te Ching are in essence saying that an ineffable, nameless action gives rise to that which can be named–matter. Matter–that which can be named–in turn, gives us everything else.

If we apply this concept to modern astrophysics, we could interpret the Tao as the action underlying the “Big Bang.” After all, the “Big Bang” was an event–not a thing–because prior to it, “things” (matter and a Universe in which it could be) did not exist.

We can further apply this principle to virtually any other domain with the Tao being understood as a nameless action underlying its named manifestations– life, growth, evolution, etc.

This reinforces the idea that Taoism is essentially pantheistic in that the Tao is not a “creator” (noun) as such, but rather the action (verb) infused throughout creation. It would also lend support to the concept that matter is not the foundation of being. Rather it is action which gives rise to being.

As a side note, in another instance of synchronicity, while looking up synonyms for the word “process”–the word “route” was listed. This brings us full circle back to the English translation of Tao as path. Perhaps in the subtleties of translating Chinese into English over the year this concept of Tao as a verb, rather than a noun, was lost.

I would invite you to ponder these thoughts as you study the Tao.

Ann Druyan–Writer, Producer, Activist

I wanted to share a quote by Ann Druyan, wife of the late Carl Sagan. I believe it captures the essence of the Taoist and Pantheist vision.

"The God of Spinoza, the God of Einstein is our ability to understand nature. That’s how we worship what is sacred, what is holy, by trying to find the deepest understanding of nature. Our bias against this is so strong you can hear it in the word “supernatural”–above the natural. As if our fantasies and our little stories that we make up, whether we made them up 10,000 years ago, or 5,000 years ago, or this week, as if our stories could compete with the reality of nature as revealed by science."

An Apple Tree, not a Buick

The observant reader will note the rather curious web address for this blog and may have wondered, WTF? Well your patience shall now be rewarded. Before I continue, I must express my appreciation for Alan Watts, who provided the nucleus for this idea. In fact, I have probably done little more than to expand upon his ideas and frame them within the context of natural pantheism.

An apple tree, not a Buick refers to my own way of explaining natural pantheism. The word “pantheism” comes from ancient Greek pan meaning “all” and theos meaning “God.” The basic idea of pantheism is that there is no entity that exists outside of and apart from creation. Pantheism is therefore nondualistic in that it does not view “God” or divinity as separate from us (I and the Father are One. –John 10:30). God is a part of everything, not apart from everything.

“Natural” pantheism views existence like an apple tree–it grows. Growth is the natural process of existence expressing itself. The tree already exists within the apple seed. It is self-creating. This is a natural rather than supernatural process.

In contrast, many religions view existence like a Buick. A Buick doesn’t grow–it’s manufactured. Something outside of it must create it. This is dualistic–creator and the creation are separate entities. Without the creator, there is no creation. Therefore, the creation is and always will be subservient to the creator.

Natural pantheism leads to what I call the “Big Namaste.” Namaste is a Sanskrit word that is a common greeting in India and Nepal. It is said while placing the hands together in a “prayer” position in front of the heart and bowing from the waist. It means “the One Spirit in me acknowledges and bows to the One Spirit in you.” Not bad for just one word! Its origin is from the Hindu concept that we are all an expression of the Divine. Pantheism takes this a step further in that we are not only an expression of the Divine, we are all part of it. In fact, EVERYTHING is a part of the Divine.

Once, just before sunset, I was walking alone in a meadow at Tipsoo Lake on Chinook Pass. Walking across the meadow towards me was a lone bull elk. The elk and I stopped when we were about 50 feet apart and looked directly at each other. I brought my hands together in front of my heart, bowed slightly from the waist, and whispered “Namaste.” Immediately afterward the elk and I continued our walk across the meadow, passing about 20 feet from each other. This is an example of “Big Namaste.” Whether it is another person, an animal, or a grain of sand–it’s all God.

Namaste!

Spiritual Eclecticism

Most of my prior posts were about how I got to be who I am. My future posts will be more about who I am and who I am becoming.

One of the spiritual realities that I have learned in my wanderings is that no one tradition has a monopoly on truth and that by remaining open-minded I am able discover truth wherever it may be. I cannot with any degree of honesty pin myself down to any of the established spiritual or religious categories. Although I love dogs, I can’t stand dogmas. So let me begin to answer two seemingly simple questions, “What is my religion” and “Do I believe in God?”

I suppose my best answer to the first question would be to just say I’m a “Spiritual Eclectic,” meaning that I draw upon many religious/spiritual/philosophical traditions, but ally myself with none. If I had to put my beliefs in one sentence, the best I can come up with at the moment would be: I’m equal parts Taoist, Buddhist, Natural Pantheist, and Existentialist bound together with a liberal dose* of Amazonian shamanism. Maybe you can understand why I don’t normally like to get into casual exchanges with people about religion. If someone REALLY wants to know “what I am” the answer’s going to take awhile.

The second question is problematic on two levels. First, it is framed as a “yes” or “no” question. Second, it presupposes that there is a universal definition of “God” that both the person asking and the person answering agree upon. I’m not just being a smart ass (well, maybe a little) when I give my usual response: “First you have to tell me what you mean by God.” This usually ends the conversation (try it if you don’t believe me), but if it doesn’t–this answer’s going to take awhile as well. But you’ll have to wait for my next post.

*Yes, that pun was intended.