SELECTED COMMENTS BY 'TRUTH HOUND'                                  (For TRUTH HOUND'S comments in full, click here)

It was not easy for a modern Westernized mind like mine, and especially a Christian mind, to enter at all easily into the subtle meanings conveyed by the arcane and aphoristic language in which you chose to express them. Suffice it to say, at the outset that your style was a felicitous balance of poetry and philosophy and employed a form that well suited its content. So, bravo for getting the Taoist interpretation of life just right with such economy of words!

THE NATURE OF TAO

.....But does Heaven succour the Earth? I would say, much more so in Christianity than in Taoism. The rationale behind the Taoist insistence on living in accordance with manmade conditions for decent living stems from a pragmatic outlook: the Way of Earth, 'well-worn', 'approachable' and 'good enough'. It also requires from individuals a 'seeking to become wholesome' by using their intellects and intuition (the Way of Heaven) to look for what is most in tune with nature and their own natures. The Taoist way to avoid regrets seems to be to tone down expectations to the 'good enough' basis required for a contented and stress-free life......

But Christianity's view differs from this. It states that the only basis for a full and satsfying life is in recognition of, and obedience to, the will of God, the Abrahamic God, called YHWH or God our Father. It states that it is the Bible that holds the answer to how contentment can be found: it is in the redemption of the world by a heavenly emissary, Jesus Christ, who, by his words and example, can bring the dictates of our human reason (the Way of Earth) in line with the dictates of divine reason (the Way of Heaven), founded on eternal truth......

While my view is that no one can live wholesomely without Christianity and without the true God, yours is that we must accept the Taoist's word for it that we can live wholesomely in our own strength without faith in a, or the, Redeemer. Whereas Paul said, 'For although they (the Greeks) knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened' (Romans 1:21), suggesting that one can quench the human spirit by living without God, Tao says that we can keep ourselves spiritual without God (unless that God is Nature) by using meditational practices to learn about oneself and the universe. I cannot agree with these New Age alternatives. Knowledge and wisdom come from God alone, and He preceded Lao Tse.

CONTRARIWISE

On the metaphysical level, this may be true. Everything in the universe has a direct opposite that it cannot exist without. For example, light is the absence of darkness. Also, we may know the light by the dark. The Taoist key to simple living and contentment is accepting that life is full of contraries and tensions. We must 'take the rough with the smooth' and not expect to be able to control everything and everyone. 'Appreciating light comes with knowing the dark', though simply and beautifully stated, is a truth we all too often forget.

Also it is conceivable that over-optimism is detrimental to a person as being likely to lead to despair. If a person attributes freedom to things and people dependent or contingent by nature (such as the way night follows day) and thinks that he can control or change them, he will get his fingers badly burned. 'Shakers and movers' of the earth may expect to be buried by their earth-moving activity. Those who obsessively find fault with nature and people will themselves be rebuffed and disturbed. But if a person takes for himself what is only his to take, and views what belongs to others, their opinions and choices, as their own concern, then no one will reciprocate by trying to compel, restrict or find fault with him in turn, and he will not make enemies. This is similar to Christ's commandment, 'Do not judge, or you too will be judged.' For in the same way as you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you' (Matt. 7:1,2). This demonstrated to me that you are elucidating here a living, workable ethic, which has much to be said for it.  

Those with 'much ado' in words and deeds will not master the things or the people they hope to master. But those of modesty, fidelity and discretion, who think serenely ('stillness gives birth to action') without wishing to impose on, or control, others or nature, who tranquilly 'choose the right (diplomatic or physical) tool for the task', will suffer neither harm, nor disappointment in what they undertake. Good advice.. . and there's more!

'The sage is skilful in anticipating and dissipating difficulties before they arise—eliminating unnecessary effort, disturbance and suffering.' This seems conventionally reasonable to me. The degree of discomfort and suffering in one's life depends on the quality of one's thoughts and on the care one takes to entertain no thoughts inconsistent with a pragmatic and reasonable nature, able to view life in the round ('when darkness falls, a candle can show the way', etc.). I think that the motto, 'Hope for the best, but expect the worst', approximates to this insight. Good insights for day to day living.

This can be applied to interpersonal relationships. But I think that it can have no deep bearing on spiritual realities. The crucifixion of Jesus, the promised Messiah of the Jews, is a historical fact that was still future for Lao Tse. The meaning that Christians have since found in it depends on an interpretation of the Way of Heaven and the Way of Earth being in a profound conflict with each other and Jesus's bearing the brunt of that conflict at Calvary. This sage, Jesus, far from 'dissipating difficulties' before they arose, went forth to meet them, and proved his sageness in doing so. Long before his death, Jesus's life was already conveying the idea of an offering of himself to God; and such offerings as were made in Judaism were made with the intention of bringing about the reconciliation of sinners to God......

This wisdom, unlike the way of Tao, is definable. What wisdom is it? God's wisdom, and it is arrived at not by meditation but by reading the Bible, Christ's words and receiving the Son of Man. This Son of Man did 'guide opposites towards harmony in place of discord' in a Taoist way, and Jesus certainly chose the right tool for the task (the message of God's pardon in return for repentance and faith in His Son). But his approach to a contentious situation of hostile religious leaders was apt in an unexpected way: it was to invite martyrdom. He even preached it to his disciples: 'Take up your cross an follow me' (Matt. 10:38). But this view would be a scandal to a Taoist or even to a broad-minded person who leads a decent life. Taking up one's cross sounds like extremism, and contrary to the quietism that the goals of Tao embody. Here I come back to what I consider to be the assumption, implicit in your slogan, Two ways - one Tao'. This is what the apostle Paul writes: 'The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God' (Romans 8:7). Man, in regard to God's will, is constitutionally 'contrariwise'. There are two ways in Christianity, as in Taoism, but they are the way of godliness and the way of sinfulness, and they cannot be reconciled. One abandons the broad way to follow the narrow way, and both are clearly defined. Both are revealed to us; we don't have to work it out......

IMBALANCING ACT

'High tumbles to low'. I think that this means that influential people, due to low moral practices, unreasonable demands placed on subordinates, mishandling of conflict or indifference to their dissatisfaction, will sink in their esteem. 'Low grows to high' is, I think, a normal by-product of people deciding or trying to work together ('the stone of wickedness keeps the edge of goodness keen') either to minimize conflict, or to make it yield benefits ('stinking manure feeds sweet-scented flowers').

When Tao is hindered (when people refuse to talk to each other, when they make themselves unavailable, set up barriers, when there is jealousy, distrust, fear or dislike, or when morale is low because expected rewards for diligence are being denied), you have all the symptoms of conflict. When Tao flows smoothly (when people are friendly and approachable, do not set up barriers, when communication is good and rewards generous), morale will be high and name-calling and recrimination low and sweet-scented flowers bloom.

The best way to prevent conflict is to permit not liberal 'safe spaces' but 'dangerous spaces' – by encouraging healthy differences. 'Dangerous' does not mean spaces where overseers can let fly with criticisms and personal attacks or encouraging cliques to form. Preventing conflict involves more than agreeing to differ; it requires individuals to 'pull together', to be helpful and supportive to one another and to encourage the making of practical suggestions to make Tao flow more smoothly. This how to set the Tao on high and rule from below. You may not be the first to stress the importance of working together as a relationship, a family, a team or society, but you are the first to suggest that conflict avoidance deductively follows from following the great law of nature.

This is about how to work in a team and to cooperate and be a good leader.

HIDE AND SEEK

I read here (https://personaltao.com/taoism/becoming-taoist/ ), 'To define Tao is to lose Tao. Likewise, to attempt to define your own life, means to lose all the possible options within your life.'

Non-Taoists will define everything ; but a philosophy of life that is undefinable? It's a heady concept. It reminded me of Keats' negative capability:

'Writing to his brothers in 1817, Keats introduced the concept of negative capability as he discussed Shakespeare’s creativity. “At once it struck me, what quality went to form a Man of Achievement, especially in literature, and which Shakespeare possessed so enormously,” he wrote. “I mean Negative Capability, that is when man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.”. . .Holding too closely to one’s own view of the world is creatively counterproductive. (https://qz.com/938847/john-keats-theory-of-negative-capability-can-help-you-cultivate-a-creative-mindset/ ).

So is life according to Tao comparable to writing your own life story, in which the writer is a developing character in his or her own novel, born without essential knowledge of his or her own identity or soul? The only reason, that I can think of, why fighting over a definition of Tao may be counterproductive is that one can only discover it by living one's life to the full in terms relative one's own nature. No one can define that goal for us. If the Taoist aim is to live a more complete life by living it more simply and kindly ('where the Tao sinks deep, refreshing roots', 'like fallen rain on thrsty soil'), surely we must be able to state that objective so that its attainment, or the chances of its attainment, can be verified? But we cannot ('trying to make sense of Tao leads to bafflement'). Can it even be stated in measurable terms? 'Tao seems hidden, but stands clearly in plain sight'. If the overall objective is the simple life in harmony with nature and it is elusive, perhaps that objective can be broken down into sub-objectives, so that lesser goals can be achieved on the way to attaining the overall objective. Then the objective, however elusive it may be (because of the essential undefinability of Tao), is not evasive. But the subject must himself define those sub-objectives.

Personally I find this somewhat bewildering. Christianity is more straightforward, in comparison. Knowledge and wisdom come from God alone (Proverbs 2:5-10; 1 Corinthians 1:20-31) and from the Bible in particular, which is God's Word (2 Timothy 3:16-17). God's Word is, for me, 'fallen rain on thirsty soil'. It is never 'deceptive, tricky and twisted, but completely straighforward'. If it seems twisted, it is because we make it so (1 Corinthians 2:10-15).

SECRET AGENT

'Tao deserves reverence, but has no use for worship.' By living in harmony with society, nature and oneself one can reduce conflict in one's relations with other people, the natural world ('hence it can shine out from people' who are not even into Taoism) and the components of one's psyche ('the vacuum that seeks to be filled'). The result is that life's vitality in not squandered is pointless conflict. The Tao deserves reverence because it describes ultimate reality, just like the Christian God, and just as 'knowing Tao is ineffably more precious than to know about Tao', the same applies to Christ - knowing him is more precious than knowing about him.

But the greatest difference between Taoism and Christianity, I believe, and the one that effectively prevents any ecumenical rapprochement between Chistians and Taoists is the fact that, while the Tao is an impersonal force or cosmic principle (as in Stoicism), the Christian God is a personal being. To 'bow low' to a force or to energy seems to me to be a misnomer, and, from a Christian point of view, it is a form of idolatry, rendering homage to the created thing (Nature) rather than the Creator......

HIDDEN DEPTHS

'Dynamic balance, favouring bold action, but avoiding rashness; taking initiatives, while staying grounded.' This parallels what is done in any organization or worthwhile project, carefully defining and setting objectives, deciding on performance indicators, etc, so that one can review one's progress. As one does so, one, as it were sails, but remembers to take an anchor.

.....It's a dance of unselfconsciousness, going with the flow, living in the moment... although it is spontaneous action that does not preclude planning and self-preparation. The degree of attainment of this objective (i.e. the harmonization of the law of heaven and earth in the dance of life) has to be a matter of opinion as to how moral and spiritual values are to be taken into account. In other words, one cannot remain unselfconscious for long. Value judgments must come into play.  

My misgivings about this were stated under Secret Agent in the form of a fundamental contradiction between Christian and Taoism. In Christianity, there are objective moral values, grounded in the transcendent, holy God of the Bible ('Heaven'). This God makes moral distinctions ('God is light; in him there is no darkness at all',1 John 1:5). It is to Him that we are morally accountable, and it is He who will one day judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:31; Rom. 1:18-2:6). Since He is 'a God of faithfulness and is without injustice' (Deut. 32:4), one can only dance with Him by following the same music score and dancing the same dance.

Since Taoism proclaims an impersonal principle that judges no one, it is not clear to me how the Taoist's unselfconscious choreography, in which he aspires to move stresslessly with the music of life, fits in with that of Heaven, when there is no partner there that answers to our concept of a personal God who will judge the world in righteousness. Dancing partners are people not phenomena......

UNDER-ACHIEVER

'Political theorists influenced by Laozi have advocated humility in leadership and a restrained approach to statecraft, either for ethical and pacifist reasons, or for tactical ends. In a different context, various anti-authoritarian movements have embraced the Laozi teachings on the power of the weak.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laozi

I support limited and honest government and hate oppression in all its guises, and so I cannot object to your sentiments here. Indeed, I welcome them.

This lists the negative aspects of taking things to excess well. I find that the four couplets that begin this section are the most satisfying of any of the sections.

I did discover, however, in your assertion, 

'In social or political groups, imbalance can lead to bigotry, an inability to realise when long-held ideals have become irrelevant or impractical to implement', 

a potential source of disharmony between the interests of idealists and those of the ruling elites. In the West these powerful elites comprise, not only the government in power, with its legislative and judiciary influence, but also multinational corporations, liberal media and educational interests, whose embrace of economic and cultural globalism threatens the three principles on which prosperity and well-being reside: economic, cultural and border security. Who decides when 'long-held ideals have become irrelevant or impractical to implement'? Is it not those vested, globalist interests that have a disproportionate ability to prevent those ideals from being realized for the majority? 

A Taoist philosophy of life that tends towards quietism for a significant minority of the population could be used by powerful elites as a means of socal control, since the more people who can be persuaded to accept a looming scenario in which their long-held ideals become 'irrelevant' and 'impracticable', the less trouble they are likely to be. 

If our leaders are self-indulgent, power-hungry, lying, corrupt liberal elitists and do not fit the Taoist ideal of the under-achiever, they will simply accuse die-hards in that case of bigotry, just as today's champaign socialists, lefty liberals and Soros's' stooges do. Although it is unlikely that Taoism would be promoted for political purposes, the fact that it glosses over the dangers of disharmony between the interests of the rulers and the ruled cannot be ignored. What if a society is being subverted by cultural Marxists? Should we kow-Tau to the new order being imposed on us? This is how Marxist subversion worked in the Netherlands: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SV7CLhxdXA

SELFLESSNESS

Your use of the word, 'office politics', suggests that this is about being a good manager of people.

'Send power down' is about how best to organize other people's work, by delegating, 'recognizing and harnessing talents' ('sending power down') and encouraging one's staff to use their initiative ('following the led').

'Looking up' must mean being sure of own's own responsibilities, first and foremost, and wielding the influence one needs, and getting the support one needs from those in power ('feet planted firmly'), to counteract the influence of certain powerful people whose wishes run counter to one's own ('the interplay of personalities' that distorts one's objectives). 

One must 'look keenly' at those tactics people in one's organization use when exercizing power for dubious purposes: flattery, circulating gossip, bribery, distorting information, forming cliques, creating a 'them' and 'us' climate of distrust and dissatisfaction. All these dubious uses of power come under the rubric of 'self-interested motivations, fostering intrigue, duplicity and 'the petty gripes of office politics'.

All this is very true. Where Tau comes in ('let Tau speak—and pride be dumb'), I think, is with the manager's humbling realization, in seeking enough power and consensus to vanquish all opposition for the general good, that other people's goals will be at least as justifiable as their own.

EQUANIMITY

Strife and opposition are both necessary and good. Life has its ups and downs, opposites in a state of tension: good times alternating with bad times, the rough with the smooth, where neither will competely obliterate the other. One should seek to understand the universal tension of opposites and use that knowledge to bring one's life into balance. Be anxious about nothing. Be content with the way things are. Go where life takes you.