Christian theology was my first love but my studies have focused on Daoism more than Christianity for a number of years now. I feel like I’m finally figuring some things out, but who knows?—like other scriptural texts, the Daodejing and the Zhuangzi are susceptible of multiple, divergent interpretations.
The Daodejing was ostensibly written by Laozi. I say “ostensibly” because the book is more likely a collection of aphorisms compiled over decades or centuries. But for ease of reference, everyone still tends to refer to Laozi — “Laozi says …,” that sort of thing.
Laozi sometimes sounds like the Jesus of the Gospels. For example:
On the fickleness of wealth:
Amass a store of gold and jade, and no one can protect it. (DDJ 9)
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. (Mt. 6:19)
On humility:
Not putting on a display, they shine forth. / Not justifying themselves, they are distinguished. / Not boasting, they receive recognition. / Not bragging they never falter. (DDJ 22)
For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted. … For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest. (Mt. 23:12; Lk. 9:48)
On showing favour to the undeserving:
I am good to people who are good. I am also good to people who are not good. Because Virtue (de) is goodness. (DDJ 49)
I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Mt. 5:44-45)
On eschewing violence:
Weapons are instruments of fear; they are not a wise man's tools. He uses them only when he has no choice. Peace and quiet are dear to his heart, and victory no cause for rejoicing. (DDJ 31)
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. (Mt. 5:9)
A violent man will die a violent death! (DDJ 42)
All who draw the sword will die by the sword. (Mt. 26:52)
Laozi’s criticisms of the Confucians remind me of Jesus’ criticisms of the Pharisees, although I would be careful not to push the parallels too far. Laozi’s objections to Confucianism was its prescriptive rules for social behaviour—an attempt to legislate morality and social harmony. Neither Laozi nor Jesus repudiated the fundamental distinction between right and wrong. But both objected to vain attempts by self-appointed spiritual leaders to define and enforce moral boundaries.
There are also important differences between Jesus and Laozi. Paramount among them is that Jesus’ worldview was theistic: his every thought was imbued with his confidence in the benevolence and mercy of God. The Daodejing, on the other hand, arguably sets out a completely naturalistic worldview.
I say “arguably” because a minority of interpreters equate the Dao with God. Early translators from the West substitituted “God” or “the logos” where the Daodejing refers to the Dao. Frankly, this obscures Laozi’s meaning. Confucians and Daoists alike spoke of God—or, far more often, of “heaven”—only in nominal terms. They used conventional language from time to time but failed to invest it with any real significance.
Many interpreters who reject the facile equation of the Dao with God nonetheless maintain that the Dao is a transcendent or metaphysical entity. That is, they assert that the Dao exists beyond or outside of the world of nature. The term “transcendent” means something that is beyond (transcendent to) ordinary empirical reality. The term “metaphysics” uses the Greek prefix “meta,” meaning “alongside.” The idea is that the Dao exists alongside—not within—the physical realm of nature/the cosmos.
(To be clear, the Daodejing includes certain passages that are at minimum open to that interpretation even if, in my view, they don’t actually require it.)
Personally, I think the best interpretation of Daoism understands the Dao as “immanent,” rather than transcendent. That is, the Dao exists here, part of the cosmos just as we are. Or perhaps it is more appropriate to think of Dao as a way of characterizing the cosmos in its entirety. The idea here is that Dao designates a process of continual churn, the continuous arising and dissolution of the “ten thousand things” that comprise the cosmos. Steve Coutinho puts it like this:
Literally, “wanwu” means “the ten thousand things.” It refers to the cosmos not in terms of its integration but in terms of its multiplicity. … The term “wanwu” also has connotations of bustling activity, the emerging and dissolving of the full panoply of ordinary and extraordinary phenomena that make up the world.*
The ten thousand things emerge from Dao and in due course revert to Dao. But the Dao is not separate from the cosmos but part of it just as we are.
Laozi and Zhuangzi point to that natural, dynamic process as an explanation of how the entire system works, and thus as a model that we would do well to follow. Thus people conventionally speak of “following” the Dao. This is similar to the tendency of Christians to speak of following Jesus—except the Dao is a natural or impersonal process whereas Jesus is a human (or human/divine) person.
Jesus and Laozi: the same only different (as a childhood friend of mine was fond of saying). They inculcate similar values, but whereas Jesus’ worldview is theistic, Laozi’s is naturalistic.
(Image adapted from “Super Best Friends,” a SouthPark episode notoriously banned for including a depiction of Mohammed.)
*Steve Coutinho, An Introduction to Daoist Philosophies, p. 60.