Expert: Joe McSorley - 2/20/2003

Question
Hi, I have three questions for you, actually.   I am not nearly an expert in these religions/philosophies, but I am interested.

Here is my first question:
Hindus and Taoists both believe in a force flowing through all creation.  Is there any link between these beliefs.  Basically, have Taoist borrowed the idea of the Tao from the Hindu Atman?

My second concerns wu wei.  From my understanding, this practice requires its followers to let nature take its course.  Does that create many problems for Taoists in their daily lives?  Are there many gray areas -- and if there are, how are they dealt with -- with human necessities that require disrupting nature?

And finally, how well do Taoist beliefs function independently of other outlooks?  I have read that Buddhist and Taoist beliefs are often intermixed and followed together, but is it common for a person to be strictly a Taoist, following no other set of beliefs and rejecting the Buddhist idea of Nirvana?


Answer
Hi Angela,
  Good questions and not so easily answered.  In regards to Hindus and Taoists there is an assumption of what Hindu belief is and this can be very problematic.  Hinduism is thought to consist of 5 different religions so it's hard to pinpoint anything here.  Since you mention Atman I will address it through the realm of Atman/Anatman which is considered to be the highest articulation of Hinduism.  This idea, better expressed through Sunyatta, is very difficult to explain but ultimately means the non-dualistic nature of things.  In Taoism it ‘s the interpenetration of all things, that nothing exists without everything else and that the very basis of being is it's negation, non-being.  I think this interpenetration, sometimes described as the ‘undifferentiated ultimate continuum' is often mistaken for a force that flows through nature.  This would be a duality, wouldn't it?  The duality between the force and that which it flows through.  So, perhaps this might be an expression of nature or the Tao, but is not the Tao.  “The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao'  supports this.  I think in a particular aspect you can see this flow of energy as a particular expression of Tao/Atman/nature but it is not this thing called ‘Tao'.  I find the vital energy or chi/qi of the Chinese teachings to coincide directly with Kundalini of yoga.  I have no doubt that this energy is real and able to be manipulated but it is not “ The Tao' just an expression of life energy.  Tao cannot be confined to just living for that puts it in contrast to non-living and death.  This pursuit of Tao through alchemy and qigong I think is an aberration of the teaching of Chuang tzu and Lao Tzu.  They don't say ‘ seek the life force through exercise and alchemy'.  Chuang tzu makes the proclamation “Heaven, earth and I arise simultaneously”, this is an articulation of non-dualism and interpenetration and does not view Tao as something that ‘runs through' life.
  If this interpenetration or suyatta is truly an expression of reality then it should be of no surprise that other philosophies would embrace it.  I think their might be some logical progression of Hinduism into Taoism but I don't know how to prove it.  There is clearly this progression into Buddhism.
    Wu Wei is another misunderstood concept.  Many Buddhist scholars along with their Taoist counterparts use the term ‘wu-wei'.  I have been told by Chinese scholars that the term ‘wu-wei' really should be read as ‘wei-wu-wei', literally to ‘do-no-do' or to ‘do without doing'.  The way most people express it is in the negative as just ‘no doing' or no voluntary action but that is misleading.  Here's an example.  To become proficient at playing a musical instrument you need to practice.  This practice is ‘doing'.  The more you practice the more you are ‘doing' but you hope to reach a point where your playing becomes unconscious so that you are no longer ‘doing'.  When you reach this point you are doing it without doing, no voluntary action, you are moving freely.  Now practicing the scales got you there but practicing the scales is not ‘it'.  You need to transcend the doing to get to the non-doing.  Most people mistake this non-doing as being placid and blank but it is the exact opposite, it is active and dynamic.  So through meditation or any other practice you strive to reach the point that you are no longer doing it, you are ‘it'.
  Now the huge problem we have here is defining ‘nature' and letting ‘nature' take its course.  How does one who is alienated from nature decide what nature is?  I find talking about Taoism in general to be very problematic.  
   Practicing Taoism is a tricky thing and just proclaiming it's following  the ‘natural order' is even more problematic.  Since there is no dogma and the truth is something only the individual can come to there is no central belief system.
Lao Tzu envisioned his writings to guide the rulers to become ‘emperor sages' that they would rule in harmony with nature and man.  Chuang Tzu is much deeper than Lao and in his writings tries to explain the relativity of things, man in particular, and the interpenetration of things.  There are no real formal schools of Taoism and it's articulations today go from to harmonious to bizarre.  There is a thread that some Taoists follow to be ‘all natural' and anything synthetic or man made is wrong.  Some of these folks feel that passing gas, belching and all other ‘natural' forms of being human should never be controlled but expressed fully.  It's an odd interpretation to me.  One teacher actually said to me “We Taoists piss in the yard”.   The problem with the anti-societal thinking is that society is natural.  Insects, elephants, wolves and chimps have social structures and behavior they adhere to so it is consistent with nature for man to do the same.  Taoism, as taught today, is also caught up in magic and alchemy.  There are little of the real teachings of either Lao or Chuang in it.  It is very difficult to ‘follow' Taoism for this reason and more difficult to define what's ‘natural'.  Is it natural to sit in a cave and contemplate or to practice breathing exercises?  Where, in nature, does this occur naturally.  You cannot judge nature from the outside and say what is natural.
  To address your third question I would have to ask; and what is it that Taoists believe?  It is not a religion or a set of beliefs but an attempt to overcome the alienation of self and the world or dualism.  To adhere to beliefs as a Taoist or a Buddhist totally misses the mark and is worthless.  It's like believing in swimming.  You either can or you can't, period.  Adhering to a belief enforces dualism and reinforces the schism between believer and that which is believed.  If one is truly an expression of nature/life/tao, one does not need to believe in these things.
  I know these are difficult topics and I hope I am not too obscure in my attempt to explain them.  I hope this has helped you. Please don't hesitate to inquire further.
Take care,
       Joe