Chapter 1
We LDS are taught that there is but one "straight and narrow way", and few there are that find it. The broad and crooked ways of sin are often compared to the idea that the way of salvation and exaltation are defined by God, and that through our "following the Prophet", we will never be led astray.
The Taoist writers saw things a bit differently. Yes, there are right Ways, and wrong ones, but the "old sages" that wrote the Tao Te Ching didn't believe that the Way was immutable fixed, or constant. They believed that the Way was ever in motion: it "changed" with the conditions of the time, and as such, our ability to follow the Way depended entirely upon our openness and awareness of it.
We speak, in mormonism, that there must needs be an opposiiton in all things. We will discuss this further in Chapter 2, but in this case, there is a certain dualism between non-being and being, non-named and named, non-desire and desire, that when fused together yield the full range of life. While verses 3-6 pose opposites, the point of Taoism is not to dwell on the existence of opposites, but rather, that the integrated wholeness of opposites creates all things.
Ancient chinese spoke of "Yin" and "Yang", the feminine and the masculine, the black and the white, the receptive and the creative, etc.. These two are never meant to be that one is superior to the other, or that one is better than the other. Instead, Confucius rendered this simple expression: One yin, one yang: this is called "Tao", or "the Way". This means, "These two proceed forth together, but are differently named." Together, integrated, unified, yet still distinct and diverse: Unity amidst diversity, becomes a mystery within a mystery, a gateway to a multitude of wonder.
That mystery, and the wonders it evokes are called "Tao", pronounced "Dao": "the Way".
Is such a thing as the Way so foreign to us as LDS?
Certainly Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life". The earlier followers of Jesus were called "Followers of the Way". In Isaiah we read, "This is the Way, walk ye in it", and "An highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein."
Joseph Smith explained the Way in Doctrine and Covenants section 88 as the Power of God.
Section 88 goes on to describe that this law/power/Way is everywhere and governs everything. In effect, the "Power of God" is the laws of nature - functionally identical to the Chinese concept of "the Way", and that these laws are not constrained by the laws of the physical universe (physics), but also the laws and tendencies of human nature, of doing the right thing, of faith, priesthood, and all things that we equate with the power of God.
Orson Pratt, in the Seer, attempted to rationalize the idea that there were many gods in Mormon theology. Each one of us is potentially a god, with the capacity to eventually do things that god does. The challenge with such a theology is that the idea of "multiple gods" -- all somehow independent from one another, creates a chaotic universe and a denial of the fundamental precept of monotheism: there can be only "one" god. Pratt's solution is to propose that there is one set of universal, god-like principles -- the attributes of god -- and one who possess those attributes is god. Since one of those attributes is "unity", then anyone who is a god cannot be truly independent from other gods -- the unifying attributes make them one.
For his novel idea that what makes a person a god is unity with the god-like attributes, Brigham Young seriously chastized Orson Pratt and ordered the copies of the Seer to be destroyed. Yet there is considerable merit in Pratt's suggestion: The eternality of god is not in the individual, but in the underlying Power of God, which is One. Questions like, "Does god progress?", "who was God's Father?", "How can we become gods?", "What does it mean to be One with God?", all of these find an elegant answer in the idea that a "god" is simply a person who is one with the powers of the universe -- in total harmony with all that is.
This harmony, this idea that there are universal principles, attributes, and laws that are equated with the power of god, is the entire concept of what is "the Way". The Way is not god. It is not personal. It is not conscious. It is what makes God, personality, consciousness, and humanity happen. In like manner, we wouldn't say that the "power of god" is personal, conscious, or human in any way. The "power of god" is not even a thing we can say "exists". While we do not think in terms of the "power of god" as being god him- or herself, we do often speak in terms of "god" being "one", "truth", "the Way", "the Life" -- All abstract concepts that define something that defies description.
We hold in faith that God the Father is a literal being. This is something we cannot know in this life, but we have faith that it is true. Joseph's proclamation was that God was once like us, and is now an exalted man -- this, he said, was the great secret. If God was once a man and is now the "eternal, unchangeable god", then what makes god is not the being of god, but rather, the fact that God is "exalted", or permanently linked to god's divine, abstract, attributes. God is god by virtue of his oneness with the Way.
While this may seem quite abstract, it is not. The Way is not so much as an undefineable construct, but rather, a way of acting, of being, of living. Jesus said, "Come, follow me". He didn't say, "Come, worship me," and to such an enlightened soul as Jesus was, the idea of being worshiped might be antithetical to his teachings. Sure, we participate symbolically in partaking of his flesh and blood, not so much as a worship, but to remember him, and to live in his spirit: to follow the Way he taught. To say, like Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life", can be divided into four concepts: "I AM", is to BE fully and authentically in the present, connected with others and with one's self. To embody truth is to be fully authentic and honest in every possible regard. To embrace life, is to seek for life enhancing ideals -- to truly live each and every moment. These all are to live and be authentically in the Way -- in harmony with all that is.
"Names that can be named are by no means fixed names"
We invent terms to name things. The names we give them seem to be more about their meaning to us at a point time rather than some eternal, universal name. Even the name of God, JHWH, probably had more to do with "I AM" than any name we can give god. Such is the case: names that we name are by no means fully capable of defining what is.
"Non-being describes the origin of heaven and earth
Being describes the mother of the myriad things"
There are two ways of translating these pair of sayings. "Wu, ming" is to say "Non-being, names", where as "Wu ming" is to say Nameless/Without name. Yet, many editions put the comma between the wu and ming so that the statement cannot mean "nameless is the origin of heaven and earth", but instead, "Wu"/Nonbeing, "names" the origin of heaven and earth. I believe from the text that the old sages probably were juxtaposing the non-being of the Way against the "Mother" earth which produces the myriad things. The "wu"/nothing/non-being is to say that the Way itself is the "ground of being", but is not a "thing" or "being" in and of itself.
"Therefore, ever without desire, one can observe the wonder
Ever desiring, one observes the boundaries"
The "therefore" here indicates that this is the normative conclusion of the frist four lines. Two states of 'existence' are proposed: non-being and being, here equated to non-desire and desire. It isn't like one is superior to the other, but rather, when we are empty of desire, we see possibilities: the wonder. When we have desire, then we observe the physical manifestations -- the boundaries spoken of here.
"These two proceed forth together, but are differently named
Together, they are called "Mystery"
Mystery, and again Mystery
The gateway to a multitude of wonders."
Now the old sages brought together the dualism of "these two": non-being and being; non-desire and desire. It's like being and non-being are two sides of the same coin. To use terms from the LDS gospel, body and spirit are not superior one to another, but rather, when together, achieve the fulness of joy.
Additional Translation Notes
Most translators of this chapter try to equate the Way as being something ineffible. They translate the first line, "The way that can be told is not the eternal way." The chinese text does not support this translation. The term that is translated "told" is "Tao", or "The Way"; when used as a verb is not really translatable. Sometimes, the term "Tao" is equated with "Doctrine", as in "Lao Tzu's Tao" or "Confucius' Tao", so the translation of "told" is to equate a doctrinal statement as being something 'said' or 'told'. As well, the term they translate as "eternal" is "chang" or "constant, common, fixed". The old masters had a term for "eternal" -- several of them, but none of them were "chang".
So the literal translation of the first line, 道可道非常道, or dao ke dao fei chang dao, is "Way" "that can be" "wayed" "is NOT" "constant" "Way". The first word doesn't have an article. If it were to say "The Way", it would have an article (其/qi/the) or (此/ci/this) to be specific. Since classical chinese does not distinguish between singular and plural, I will use plural to generalize certern terms without forcing an article (a, the, this). Since the fei/"is NOT" is emphaticly stronger than "bu"/"is not", I have rendered it "are by no means".
Ways that can be followed are by no means fixed ways"Ways that can be followed are by no means fixed ways"
Names that can be named are by no means fixed names
Non-being describes the origin of heaven and earth
Being describes the mother of the myriad things
Therefore, ever without desire, one can observe the wonder
Ever desiring, one observes the boundaries
These two proceed forth together, but are differently named
Together, they are called "Mystery"
Mystery, and again Mystery
The gateway to a multitude of wonders.
We LDS are taught that there is but one "straight and narrow way", and few there are that find it. The broad and crooked ways of sin are often compared to the idea that the way of salvation and exaltation are defined by God, and that through our "following the Prophet", we will never be led astray.
The Taoist writers saw things a bit differently. Yes, there are right Ways, and wrong ones, but the "old sages" that wrote the Tao Te Ching didn't believe that the Way was immutable fixed, or constant. They believed that the Way was ever in motion: it "changed" with the conditions of the time, and as such, our ability to follow the Way depended entirely upon our openness and awareness of it.
We speak, in mormonism, that there must needs be an opposiiton in all things. We will discuss this further in Chapter 2, but in this case, there is a certain dualism between non-being and being, non-named and named, non-desire and desire, that when fused together yield the full range of life. While verses 3-6 pose opposites, the point of Taoism is not to dwell on the existence of opposites, but rather, that the integrated wholeness of opposites creates all things.
Ancient chinese spoke of "Yin" and "Yang", the feminine and the masculine, the black and the white, the receptive and the creative, etc.. These two are never meant to be that one is superior to the other, or that one is better than the other. Instead, Confucius rendered this simple expression: One yin, one yang: this is called "Tao", or "the Way". This means, "These two proceed forth together, but are differently named." Together, integrated, unified, yet still distinct and diverse: Unity amidst diversity, becomes a mystery within a mystery, a gateway to a multitude of wonder.
That mystery, and the wonders it evokes are called "Tao", pronounced "Dao": "the Way".
Is such a thing as the Way so foreign to us as LDS?
Certainly Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life". The earlier followers of Jesus were called "Followers of the Way". In Isaiah we read, "This is the Way, walk ye in it", and "An highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein."
Joseph Smith explained the Way in Doctrine and Covenants section 88 as the Power of God.
He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth;
Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.
As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;
As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;
And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.
And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;
Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—
The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.
D&C 88:6-13
Section 88 goes on to describe that this law/power/Way is everywhere and governs everything. In effect, the "Power of God" is the laws of nature - functionally identical to the Chinese concept of "the Way", and that these laws are not constrained by the laws of the physical universe (physics), but also the laws and tendencies of human nature, of doing the right thing, of faith, priesthood, and all things that we equate with the power of God.
Orson Pratt, in the Seer, attempted to rationalize the idea that there were many gods in Mormon theology. Each one of us is potentially a god, with the capacity to eventually do things that god does. The challenge with such a theology is that the idea of "multiple gods" -- all somehow independent from one another, creates a chaotic universe and a denial of the fundamental precept of monotheism: there can be only "one" god. Pratt's solution is to propose that there is one set of universal, god-like principles -- the attributes of god -- and one who possess those attributes is god. Since one of those attributes is "unity", then anyone who is a god cannot be truly independent from other gods -- the unifying attributes make them one.
For his novel idea that what makes a person a god is unity with the god-like attributes, Brigham Young seriously chastized Orson Pratt and ordered the copies of the Seer to be destroyed. Yet there is considerable merit in Pratt's suggestion: The eternality of god is not in the individual, but in the underlying Power of God, which is One. Questions like, "Does god progress?", "who was God's Father?", "How can we become gods?", "What does it mean to be One with God?", all of these find an elegant answer in the idea that a "god" is simply a person who is one with the powers of the universe -- in total harmony with all that is.
This harmony, this idea that there are universal principles, attributes, and laws that are equated with the power of god, is the entire concept of what is "the Way". The Way is not god. It is not personal. It is not conscious. It is what makes God, personality, consciousness, and humanity happen. In like manner, we wouldn't say that the "power of god" is personal, conscious, or human in any way. The "power of god" is not even a thing we can say "exists". While we do not think in terms of the "power of god" as being god him- or herself, we do often speak in terms of "god" being "one", "truth", "the Way", "the Life" -- All abstract concepts that define something that defies description.
We hold in faith that God the Father is a literal being. This is something we cannot know in this life, but we have faith that it is true. Joseph's proclamation was that God was once like us, and is now an exalted man -- this, he said, was the great secret. If God was once a man and is now the "eternal, unchangeable god", then what makes god is not the being of god, but rather, the fact that God is "exalted", or permanently linked to god's divine, abstract, attributes. God is god by virtue of his oneness with the Way.
While this may seem quite abstract, it is not. The Way is not so much as an undefineable construct, but rather, a way of acting, of being, of living. Jesus said, "Come, follow me". He didn't say, "Come, worship me," and to such an enlightened soul as Jesus was, the idea of being worshiped might be antithetical to his teachings. Sure, we participate symbolically in partaking of his flesh and blood, not so much as a worship, but to remember him, and to live in his spirit: to follow the Way he taught. To say, like Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life", can be divided into four concepts: "I AM", is to BE fully and authentically in the present, connected with others and with one's self. To embody truth is to be fully authentic and honest in every possible regard. To embrace life, is to seek for life enhancing ideals -- to truly live each and every moment. These all are to live and be authentically in the Way -- in harmony with all that is.
"Names that can be named are by no means fixed names"
We invent terms to name things. The names we give them seem to be more about their meaning to us at a point time rather than some eternal, universal name. Even the name of God, JHWH, probably had more to do with "I AM" than any name we can give god. Such is the case: names that we name are by no means fully capable of defining what is.
"Non-being describes the origin of heaven and earth
Being describes the mother of the myriad things"
There are two ways of translating these pair of sayings. "Wu, ming" is to say "Non-being, names", where as "Wu ming" is to say Nameless/Without name. Yet, many editions put the comma between the wu and ming so that the statement cannot mean "nameless is the origin of heaven and earth", but instead, "Wu"/Nonbeing, "names" the origin of heaven and earth. I believe from the text that the old sages probably were juxtaposing the non-being of the Way against the "Mother" earth which produces the myriad things. The "wu"/nothing/non-being is to say that the Way itself is the "ground of being", but is not a "thing" or "being" in and of itself.
"Therefore, ever without desire, one can observe the wonder
Ever desiring, one observes the boundaries"
The "therefore" here indicates that this is the normative conclusion of the frist four lines. Two states of 'existence' are proposed: non-being and being, here equated to non-desire and desire. It isn't like one is superior to the other, but rather, when we are empty of desire, we see possibilities: the wonder. When we have desire, then we observe the physical manifestations -- the boundaries spoken of here.
"These two proceed forth together, but are differently named
Together, they are called "Mystery"
Mystery, and again Mystery
The gateway to a multitude of wonders."
Now the old sages brought together the dualism of "these two": non-being and being; non-desire and desire. It's like being and non-being are two sides of the same coin. To use terms from the LDS gospel, body and spirit are not superior one to another, but rather, when together, achieve the fulness of joy.
Additional Translation Notes
Most translators of this chapter try to equate the Way as being something ineffible. They translate the first line, "The way that can be told is not the eternal way." The chinese text does not support this translation. The term that is translated "told" is "Tao", or "The Way"; when used as a verb is not really translatable. Sometimes, the term "Tao" is equated with "Doctrine", as in "Lao Tzu's Tao" or "Confucius' Tao", so the translation of "told" is to equate a doctrinal statement as being something 'said' or 'told'. As well, the term they translate as "eternal" is "chang" or "constant, common, fixed". The old masters had a term for "eternal" -- several of them, but none of them were "chang".
So the literal translation of the first line, 道可道非常道, or dao ke dao fei chang dao, is "Way" "that can be" "wayed" "is NOT" "constant" "Way". The first word doesn't have an article. If it were to say "The Way", it would have an article (其/qi/the) or (此/ci/this) to be specific. Since classical chinese does not distinguish between singular and plural, I will use plural to generalize certern terms without forcing an article (a, the, this). Since the fei/"is NOT" is emphaticly stronger than "bu"/"is not", I have rendered it "are by no means".
No comments:
Post a Comment