Expert: Joe McSorley - 2/26/2005

Question
Dear Joe;

The reason I asked about Lao Tse as a god is because I had read conflicting stories about him. My teacher did NOT tell us he was a God. In fact, when I read it, I was not sure it was truth. I knew that he was a great teacher and very revered. However, several websites have stated that in Chinese mythology he became a deity (and also became known as Lao Jun). One website, when refering to Lao Jun, said:

"The name of Lao-zi (author of the Dao-de jing and contemporary of Confucius, 6th century BCE) in his deified form. Together with Yuan-shi tian-zong he is one of the highest deities of religious Taoism.

The deification began in the 2nd century BCE when he already was a legendary figure, reported to have lived to an unusually high age. He became one of the most important deities during the Late Han Dynasty. Some followers of the Tao considered him to be an emaciation of the primordial chaos. Other followers have gone as far as to question his divinity altogether.

His name means "Master Lao" and is also known as Tai-shang lao-jun ("Supreme Master Lao")."
Article created on 26 March 1997; last modified on 27 December 1998.
© MCMXCV - MMV Encyclopedia Mythica. All rights reserved.
web site address-http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/asia/chinese/articles.html

I found several other sites stating this; I thought I might have found credible information regarding Lao Tse as a God. That is why I asked. If you could verify if there is a difference, or if it is only mythology that created Lao Tse as a God, then I'd like to know. Thanks again for your time.

-Joseph Wright




-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
I am currently taking a philosophy course, and I had a couple of questions about Taoism. If you could help me out, I'd really appreciate it! Thanks! I was wondering:

Do all Taoists have a strict moral code, or instead does each basically decide what is best for him or herself?

How did Lao Tse go from being just a meek philosopher to a God?

Is Taoism basically passivism?
Answer -
Hello Joseph,
  Here goes:

Do all Taoists have a strict moral code, or instead does each basically decide what is best for him or herself?

  There are aspects of Taoism that might be considered a moral code in that it tries to given the individual a guide for understanding there place in Nature but it is not a dogma and has no central authority to inflict such ideas.  Taoisms main concern is for the individual to realize who they are in respect to all nature and to harmonize with their environment.  It's not what you decide is right but what you realize is right in harmony with nature.
        Tao is often understood as the way nature works or the natural order of things but its meaning is really deeper than that.  I would say that the central theme of Taoism is the ‘interpenetration' of things.  Many might say harmony with nature but this would be a superficial understanding. Many talk about following the tao (way) which is the natural order of things but that is an anthropomorphic concept.  By this I mean that it is a construct of human thought trying to say what is natures' way and what is not natures' way.  How can humans speak for all of nature? Taoism has many articulations but if you look into the heart of Lao Tzu and Chuang tzu  what you find is the emphasis on interpenetration.  What this means is that things are co-originating, intertwined and mutually defining.  This is the meaning of the yinyang/Tai Chi  symbol which I am sure you have seen.  The black and white swirls in the circle with the dots of opposite colors in them.  What this icon symbolizes is that opposites actually define one another.  That the foundation for darkness is light and vice versa.  Thus in the dark field you have a white dot and in the white field you have a black dot.  Each is the foundation for the other and cannot be separated from the other.  All being is defined by non-being.  Life is life precisely because you can die and without life there is no death.  Mutually defining and existing.  This is the heart of Taoism.
 So all nature is an expression of the Tao and Tao is the expression of all nature.  In the West we have a split that is God/Man/Nature, all separate but in the East it is Man=Nature=Man, not split so this is why nature is integral to Taoism.


How did Lao Tse go from being just a meek philosopher to a God?

That's a new one to me!  Lao Tse is not now or was he ever considered a God.  I don't know where you learned this but it's entirely wrong.  He was a man who came to a certain understanding of himself/humans and their relationship to nature and tried to teach that to others.  I hope your class teacher didn't tell you this, that would be very disturbing.

Is Taoism basically passivism?

Passivism or non-action is greatly misunderstood in Taoism as some kind of complancecy.  Taoism is by no means passive  but active and dynamic.  People confuse wu-wei, no doing, with not doing anything and it doesn't mean that at all. Think about the most famous temple in China, Shaolin, did they sit around in non-action?  No, they developed the greatest fighting styles in the world.  Non-action, wu-wei, really is non- doing.  This does not mean doing nothing.  The real way to state this is ‘wei-wu-wei' which is ‘ do without doing'.  What this means is to do something so completely and totally that there is no self -consciousness to it.  Like learning piano, when you are aware of what you are doing you make mistakes but when you master the technique you do it without doing it, you overcome piano and player.  This is what wu wei really means.  So it is not passivism at all but pure action without the ego involved.  How else could the kungfu masters have achieved such great abilities?

 Take care,
        Joe

Answer
Joseph,
  The problem is; what really is Taoism?  Is it what Lao tze and Chuang tzu  wrote about or is it the various articulations that arose later?  Here is the crux of the problem and it arises in most religions and philosophies.  If you look at the life of Yeshua, the Christ ( his name was not Jesus) as opposed to Jesus Christ as taught by some fundamentalist you see two different things.  The same with the historical Buddha, who, never portrayed himself as a deity in any fashion but today is revered as one.  It's very problematic and I think a bit unrealistic to allow a later interpretation of a philosophy dictate what that philosophy originally intended.  In the “Inner Chapters” and “The Tao Te Ching” there is no mention of gods or the deification of man but Taoism has gods everywhere these days.  I think when the common person tries to understand a profound thinker they adapt them to their belief system so it is not threatening.  I spent many years in the martial arts and around Taoist masters who ‘fought demons' and did all kinds of alchemy and magic yet never showed any understanding of Lao Tse.  If you parallel this to the historical Buddha where he taught the 4 Noble Truths and the EightFold Path without any kind of religion or theism yet today there is a pantheon of Buddhist figures revered as gods. The good thing is that in Buddhism there has been a lineage of those who kept to the original task of self-awakening most notably seen in the Zen sect.  In Taoism you don't see this as much and it is mostly practiced as a folk religion.  If you think what has happened to Christianity, how it's been twisted over the centureis became state sponsored and then contrast that to the life and teachings of the historical Jesus you'd find two entirely different systems.  I think Taoism is much the same and think that most of what the founders taught is gone today and has been for centuries.  There are those with deep insight who can still discover the heart of Taoism because it is there in the texts and not lost in the practice.
  So, again, the problem is the definition of Taoism.  I would go with what the founders, mythical or not, intended in the writings and not how they became interpreted later.
 Take care,
        Joe