Expert: Joe McSorley - 4/10/2004

Question
Dear Mr. Joe McSorley,

1. The 'Tao Te Ching' states that we should transcend good and evil. Yet that same tract condemns certain behaviours (such as travelling, making profit, seeking fame, etc.), whilst exalting other behaviours (quiteness, passivity, austerity, etc.). Isn't the Tao Te Ching itself labelling things as good and other things as evil ?

2. The sacred texts of both Buddhism and Taoism both condemn the use of weapons, and military glory. Yet it would seem that Buddhist and Taoist monks (ex. Shaolin monks) applied themselves to perfect their prowress in martial arts. Isn't this contradictory ? And

3. How does the military text of "The Art of War" fit in with the Tao Te Ching ?

I would appreciated your help in sorting out the above.


Answer

 It would have helped me if you had given me the tract in the Tao Te Ching you are talking about.  I don't know what translation you are using and I don't know exactly where you are reading this.  This is not to say that there are not some problems with the text.  It starts with “ The Tao that can be name is not the eternal Tao” yet goes on for eighty-one verses which is a little contradictory in itself.  It is the extreme difficulty of the subject that makes it so hard to talk about for Lao Tzu, plus, he was trying to write it so that one could apply it to everyday life and in governing.  He is not ‘condemning fame and the other behaviors.  What he is doing is saying that to pursue these things is not the way to find Tao.  By pursuing fame, power, and riches or to hope to gain knowledge of self by travel, discourse and simple learning all miss the mark of revealing Tao.  Inactivity as simple inactivity also misses the mark, thus he states “Act without action, do without ado' (ch 63) There is no simple right or wrong here but an attempt to get beyond the normal dualistic way of seeing things.  If one achieves this realization then there are behaviors that one does not do simply because they are against your fundamental nature or the Tao.  There are beneficial practices for reaching the Tao and detrimental ones.  This isn't a matter of good and evil but a matter of practicality.  There are foods that are good for you and then there's junk food.  It's not good and evil but what is beneficial and detrimental.  The Tao Te Ching is not a code of ethics but an attempt to describe the way the Tao works in its natural state.  It is also an attempt to teach this to the rulers of the day that they might create harmony in their kingdoms thus he talks about the way of the sword as ultimately failing.
  When you talk about the sacred texts of Buddhism I have no idea what you are referring to.  Since my concentration is Zen (not relying on words or letters) it makes it particularly difficult to address this particular statement.  However, there are some ways to view this.  First you make the assumption, and understandably so, that martial arts was a given in the temples.  In all my years of study of early Chan Buddhism in China I have never heard a patriarch ever mention them, not once.  In my thirty years in martial arts I have constant references to Shaolin and martial arts yet see no historical connection.  There is a very good piece written by Adam Hsu, a martial arts master, about this.  Most of the Shaolin story is a myth created about 100 years ago to sell a particular style of martial arts.  Before that the arts were not associated with the temples.  I recently asked a friend of mine, who was in China, to visit a monastery for me that is associated with a particular style of kung fu.  When they went there and inquired about the martial arts there the Abbot replied, “ We have no martial arts here, why do monks need martial arts”?
I was pleasantly surprised by this answer. Historically speaking persecuted soldiers hid out in temples and it is thought they may have passed their training on to the monks for self defense but it was not a standard part of Buddhist or Taoist teaching by any means.  Regardless of this the rigors of military training is not unlike the rigors of being a monk so many warrior types sought to supplement their training by studying the philosophy and learning to master themselves.  If one is to truly master any physical discipline, from kung fu to basketball, one must first master their own mind.  To go into battle fearful of death makes one a poor fighter so many warriors sought to overcome their fear of death by religious training.  Now the question is how does one who actually achieve a religious insight then continue to battle?  I would say they would not.  This does not mean they could not defend themselves but they could no longer fight for some concocted ideal.  All creatures of nature seek to preserve their lives so this is natural.  It is the act of aggression that is unnatural.  
  If one truly masters a martial art they transcend the need for aggression and violence.  They realize the oneness of self and opponent and seek to harmonize rather than to crush.
The more one truly realize this the more they have no desire to fight.  In this sense prowess in the martial arts leads away from violence and towards harmony and those who only seek to overcome an enemy, are in fact, creating that enemy.
   I don't know of any connection between Sun Tzu and Lao Tzu, they are two distinctively different texts.  One thing you might think about.  If you have undertaken Taoist or Buddhist training and gained any real insight you can apply it to any aspect of your life from gardening to basketball.  It will improve anything you are undertaking.  You must also beware of a simple complacency when dealing with ideas of good and evil and war.  If you are being overrun and murdered and raped by invaders is it good or right to standby?  If you continue to let this evil spread are you complicit in it if you can stop it?  The true compassion is to stop it to not only prevent the victims from being hurt but also to enlighten the perpetrators of their self destruction and ignorance.  To let it to continue to grow and destroy countless lives shows no compassion at all.
  I hope this helps you.  Take care,
              Joe