Overanalyzing the first line of the Tao Te Ching

A Tale of Two Taos

We (in the West) often view the Tao through some lens of Eastern mysticism, such as assuming it’s wholly ineffable and incongruous to Western thought.

“The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.”

Okay, but if the Tao is truly ineffable, why does the Daodejing then spend such a considerable time talking about it?

Personally, I don’t like my ineffability with a side of speaking fees.

Tao Infinity and Beyond

Ineffability is a technical philosophical term meaning indescribable in language.

This contradiction’s actually from a mistranslation (or at least a misinterpretation) of the first line of the Daodejing. “道可道，非常道” (Dào kě dào, fēi cháng dào) and it doesn’t quite mean “The Tao that can be told...”

The “道” (Dào) here is both noun and verb. A more accurate, although quite awkward, rendering is more like: “The Tao that can be ‘Tao-ed’ (ie., walked, experienced) is not the constant Tao.” It’s more about experiencing Tao as a path than the lack of being able to verbally express it.

Cool. Okay, what about “常” (cháng)?

This is usually translated as “eternal”… However, it’s more accurate to say it implies a persistent recurrent process of change—like an always-flowing and always-present river.

Cool. Okay, but if you’re “always” changing, then isn’t that itself a statement about “always,” which itself doesn’t make sense in The Tao’s weltanschauung?

Yes.

And this is because of another mistranslation. After all, if change is constant, does that mean procrastination is a spiritual practice? Where’s my Swami Linkedin tag?

The ‘always’ here refers to the constancy of change itself, a principle embodied in ‘ziran’ (自然), meaning ‘self-so,’ ‘spontaneous,’ or ‘naturally thus.’ The way I see it is akin to uncaused causation. A process, not stasis (or a verb instead of a noun).

So, the Daodejing isn’t defining the Tao in a strict essentialist sense. It uses metaphors, paradoxes, and descriptions of its manifestations, to point toward it.

Funny enough, you can view the Taoists somewhat like operationalists because it’s less about what the Tao is substantively, and more about how it expresses itself in the world (or operates).

An analogy would be like describing software without knowing the code.

Change Alone Is the Tao’s Constant

This isn’t wholly alien to Western thought. Last week I spoke to Matt Segall about process philosophy (Whitehead), or even Heraclitus’s “panta rhei” (everything flows). This is a philosophical chess move from static (substance) philosophy to dynamic (process) philosophy. The podcast here’s a bridge to understanding The Tao.

The point is that The Tao isn’t as mystical as some make it out to be. It’s supposed to be a principle of natural order which is accessible through your experience and observation, even if it’s not fully definable.

And this has more in common with certain Western ideas than we typically assume...

At least, these are my present deliberations on the matter.

Subject to change, naturally. Tao approved.

- Curt Jaimungal