True. The linguistic baggage is subtle but I'd add that it can be clarified a bit. Notice the confusions start because, as English translators, we have to "fill out" the noun phrase with 'the' (Legge's choice) and decide on capitalization (to make it parallel with God vs gods). Or we could use 'a' or 'some' especially if we are influenced by Dàoism's second sage, Zhuangzi who sees Many dàos from many perspectives.
If you understand mereology you can cut the gordian knot and use dào with the grammar English speakers use for water (as Laozi illustrated)
And that helps with your sound insight that dào is not a command or obligation nor uniquely a guide for humans. There are dàos, as Zhuangzi reminds us, of worms and dirt. And you and I have many dàos to choose from and many dàos/ways of choosing. That is why Dàoism is more liberating than conventional "command moralities/religions. We are in dào as fish are in water (Zhuangzi again)!
An interesting perspective to consider. One thing I have noticed is that idea of 'becoming' is, as far as I see, a negotiation with human exceptionalism. It's assuming the current is unsatisfactory, so I will 'become' something better in the future. Effortless action requires no becoming. Becoming etymologically implies a deliberate movement towards a purposeful point - as if one has control, will, and choice. There is nothing to complete because nothing is unfinished.
I am a straw dog, and not a straw dog, and be-ing simultaneously. I can no sooner dissolve ego as I can grasp water.
I think you've pushed the arguments a little bit beyond their breaking point here.
For example:
"Victorian sinologist James Legge (理雅各) moved toward “The Way.” While this remains the most popular translation today, it carries subtle Western baggage. A “way” implies a walker. it implies a path laid out for an agent...But the Tao has no goal."
But the oldest meaning in Chinese is also a path. It's also a thing that people walk on. If the implication of path holds in English, then it holds in Chinese as well.
That’s a fair point, Phil. You’re right that the literal root of Dao (道) is indeed a path or road. But the 'periphery' is where the translation falters.
For a Chinese speaker, the philosophical Dao transcends its daily meaning as a 'street' or 'method.' The risk with 'The Way' in English is that it suggests a 'correct' path to be followed, whereas the original text often emphasizes the spontaneity and aimlessness of nature. It’s the difference between a road you walk on and the flow that you are.
Wonderful that you dig into the linguistic differences! I absolutely agree. Knowing Chinese and now learning Japanese, I find that the Japanese language takes it to another level with its distinction between purposeful doing vs what we have no full control over - softening agency, akin to 無為, with the focus on being, the process over absolute outcome.
Japanese language is actually highly precise! They embed structure in the process, relational aspects, rather than the subject/ ownership to preserve harmony 和。I will write something more in depth this year :)
This is a comment I wrote somewhere else recently-
"In Japanese language, there's this distinction between purposeful doing (ために tameni) vs becoming/ where we have no full control over (ように youni). Here, the second expression ように (Youni, e.g. 失敗しないように ‘so I won’t fail’) softens agency, a bit like non-forcing of 無為, focusing on the process over absolute outcome."
Amazing! Thank you very much for that write up. This is the reason why learning an east asian language like chinese, japanese, etc. can be so enlightening. Still another cage but way different boundaries
I read this post at least three times and am still not sure I understand it well. I am currently reading Zhuangzi in English and probably miss a lot. From my last reading, I got the I’m pression that the ideas about non anthropocentric movement seem close to Buddhism. Not sure if I am close.
In fact, when Buddhism first entered China in the 1st century, translators heavily borrowed Taoist terminology to explain complex Indian concepts. They used the Taoist word 'Wu' (无/Nothingness) to help explain the Buddhist concept of Sunyata (空, Emptiness).
I feel there is a subtle but important difference in their perspectives on non-anthropocentrism:
Taoism feels more like an equality between matters. It suggests that the movement of the universe (the Tao) is objective and 'blind,' lacking any human emotion or moral preference. In this view, there is truly no ontological difference between a human and a piece of rock.
Buddhism feels more like an equality between life forms. Its non-human centric view is built on 'Pratītyasamutpāda' (缘起, Dependent Origination) and the cycle of Samsara 轮回, where humans are just one of many sentient forms.
One is about the impartiality of the cosmic flow, and the other is about the interconnectedness of all living beings.
Thanks, very interesting (and so well written too!). Question: how does Daoist philosophy deal with human consciousness and agency? Are they considered illusory? I would probably find that somewhat unsatisfactory (as an “explanation” or “account”) to just assert that they are illusions. It borders on denialism (with respect). I suppose we could take an evolutionary biology perspective and see consciousness as some kind of adaptation to change given the imperative to reproduce.
Daoism, like the famous Butterfly Dream (庄周梦蝶), can seem very skeptical about human consciousness.
However, Daoism is a broad system with many layers. Beyond the skepticism, there is the practical side of 修行 (cultivation). In this context, consciousness isn't just an illusion to be denied; it is seen as having layers: 识神 'acquired' consciousness and 元神 'original' spirit. The goal of practice is to peel back the daily noise to reveal that original spirit.
I’m actually planning to write about this 'dual path' of Daoism in my upcoming articles, stay tuned!
True. The linguistic baggage is subtle but I'd add that it can be clarified a bit. Notice the confusions start because, as English translators, we have to "fill out" the noun phrase with 'the' (Legge's choice) and decide on capitalization (to make it parallel with God vs gods). Or we could use 'a' or 'some' especially if we are influenced by Dàoism's second sage, Zhuangzi who sees Many dàos from many perspectives.
If you understand mereology you can cut the gordian knot and use dào with the grammar English speakers use for water (as Laozi illustrated)
And that helps with your sound insight that dào is not a command or obligation nor uniquely a guide for humans. There are dàos, as Zhuangzi reminds us, of worms and dirt. And you and I have many dàos to choose from and many dàos/ways of choosing. That is why Dàoism is more liberating than conventional "command moralities/religions. We are in dào as fish are in water (Zhuangzi again)!
Thank you so much for weighing in! The water analogy is such a powerful heuristic.
Great overview of the inadequacies of translation and the agenda of the Jesuits in their translations.
An interesting perspective to consider. One thing I have noticed is that idea of 'becoming' is, as far as I see, a negotiation with human exceptionalism. It's assuming the current is unsatisfactory, so I will 'become' something better in the future. Effortless action requires no becoming. Becoming etymologically implies a deliberate movement towards a purposeful point - as if one has control, will, and choice. There is nothing to complete because nothing is unfinished.
I am a straw dog, and not a straw dog, and be-ing simultaneously. I can no sooner dissolve ego as I can grasp water.
I think you've pushed the arguments a little bit beyond their breaking point here.
For example:
"Victorian sinologist James Legge (理雅各) moved toward “The Way.” While this remains the most popular translation today, it carries subtle Western baggage. A “way” implies a walker. it implies a path laid out for an agent...But the Tao has no goal."
But the oldest meaning in Chinese is also a path. It's also a thing that people walk on. If the implication of path holds in English, then it holds in Chinese as well.
That’s a fair point, Phil. You’re right that the literal root of Dao (道) is indeed a path or road. But the 'periphery' is where the translation falters.
For a Chinese speaker, the philosophical Dao transcends its daily meaning as a 'street' or 'method.' The risk with 'The Way' in English is that it suggests a 'correct' path to be followed, whereas the original text often emphasizes the spontaneity and aimlessness of nature. It’s the difference between a road you walk on and the flow that you are.
Wonderful that you dig into the linguistic differences! I absolutely agree. Knowing Chinese and now learning Japanese, I find that the Japanese language takes it to another level with its distinction between purposeful doing vs what we have no full control over - softening agency, akin to 無為, with the focus on being, the process over absolute outcome.
I’d love to hear more about how the Japanese language makes that distinction between purposeful doing and the concept of '無為‘
Japanese language is actually highly precise! They embed structure in the process, relational aspects, rather than the subject/ ownership to preserve harmony 和。I will write something more in depth this year :)
This is a comment I wrote somewhere else recently-
"In Japanese language, there's this distinction between purposeful doing (ために tameni) vs becoming/ where we have no full control over (ように youni). Here, the second expression ように (Youni, e.g. 失敗しないように ‘so I won’t fail’) softens agency, a bit like non-forcing of 無為, focusing on the process over absolute outcome."
Amazing! Thank you very much for that write up. This is the reason why learning an east asian language like chinese, japanese, etc. can be so enlightening. Still another cage but way different boundaries
I read this post at least three times and am still not sure I understand it well. I am currently reading Zhuangzi in English and probably miss a lot. From my last reading, I got the I’m pression that the ideas about non anthropocentric movement seem close to Buddhism. Not sure if I am close.
Hi Gerard, thank you for reading so closely.
In fact, when Buddhism first entered China in the 1st century, translators heavily borrowed Taoist terminology to explain complex Indian concepts. They used the Taoist word 'Wu' (无/Nothingness) to help explain the Buddhist concept of Sunyata (空, Emptiness).
I feel there is a subtle but important difference in their perspectives on non-anthropocentrism:
Taoism feels more like an equality between matters. It suggests that the movement of the universe (the Tao) is objective and 'blind,' lacking any human emotion or moral preference. In this view, there is truly no ontological difference between a human and a piece of rock.
Buddhism feels more like an equality between life forms. Its non-human centric view is built on 'Pratītyasamutpāda' (缘起, Dependent Origination) and the cycle of Samsara 轮回, where humans are just one of many sentient forms.
One is about the impartiality of the cosmic flow, and the other is about the interconnectedness of all living beings.
This was a pleasure to read, I really enjoyed it, thank you!
Well, there went my morning... great writing will do that.
'Humans are not the observer: They are both the observed and the observation itself.' i.e. Schrodinger's cat theory.
Wow, what a piece. Thank you!
Wonderful!. Thank you.
Hi, Charlotte
Rachel
This is wonderful. Thanks for an attempt...attempt being emblematic of the idea. Thanks much.
Thanks, very interesting (and so well written too!). Question: how does Daoist philosophy deal with human consciousness and agency? Are they considered illusory? I would probably find that somewhat unsatisfactory (as an “explanation” or “account”) to just assert that they are illusions. It borders on denialism (with respect). I suppose we could take an evolutionary biology perspective and see consciousness as some kind of adaptation to change given the imperative to reproduce.
Daoism, like the famous Butterfly Dream (庄周梦蝶), can seem very skeptical about human consciousness.
However, Daoism is a broad system with many layers. Beyond the skepticism, there is the practical side of 修行 (cultivation). In this context, consciousness isn't just an illusion to be denied; it is seen as having layers: 识神 'acquired' consciousness and 元神 'original' spirit. The goal of practice is to peel back the daily noise to reveal that original spirit.
I’m actually planning to write about this 'dual path' of Daoism in my upcoming articles, stay tuned!
Does this interpretation make Daoism a form of nihilism?
If humans and things are ultimately straw dogs, does it matter if we do terrible things to each other (and the environment)?
This is great. The Tao transcends China and Chinese itself.