Tetsunori Koizumi, Director

Just as Hinduism and Buddhism represent two major systems of thought that came out of India, Taoism and Confucianism are two major systems of thought that came out of China. While Buddhism and Confucianism were founded by definite historical figures whose lives are well recorded, Hinduism had no such figure that could be called the founder, and it has taken a long time to become the system of thought called Hinduism that we know today. What about Taoism, then? Was not Lao Tzu its founder?

Actually, not much is known about the historical Lao Tzu, prompting some scholars to doubt that Lao Tzu existed as a historical figure. According to The Book of History, written by the Han historian Sima Qian, Confucius is said to have paid a visit to Lao Tzu when the latter was working as a librarian in the Zhou Empire, but was summarily sent back for being hypocritical when he sought Lao Tzu’s opinion on li, a system of social obligations that plays an essential role in Confucius’ social philosophy. Nevertheless, Confucius is said to have been impressed with Lao Tzu. As the Zhou Empire declined, Lao Tzu decided to live the life of a recluse. When he was ready to leave the city’s gate, the gatekeeper, recognizing him and well aware of his reputation as a wise man, asked Lao Tzu to write down his ideas. The work, which Lao Tzu left with the gatekeeper before disappearing from the Empire, was said to be Tao Te Ching.

Most scholars doubt that the meeting between Confucius and Lao Tzu actually took place. They come to this conclusion because it is clear from the passages in Tao Te Ching that the author was (or the authors were, in case Tao Te Ching was written by many authors) conscious of Confucius’ work and tried to develop a naturalistic philosophy in sharp contrast to Confucius’ interventionist philosophy, especially as regards one’s conduct in social life.

Lao Tzu is best known for his concept of Tao, which he introduces as the term to describe the cosmic principle that prevails in the universe:

“Something mysteriously formed, born before heaven and earth. In the silence and the void, standing alone and in motion. Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things. I do not know its name. Call it Tao.”¹

As can be surmised from these lines, Tao is not the name for some substance but rather refers to the process by which the universe comes into being and evolves. That Tao is the evolutionary principle that prevails in the universe is made more explicit by the following lines:

“The Tao begot one. One begot two. Two begot three. And three begot the ten thousand things. The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang. They achieve harmony by combining these forces.”²

Here, Lao Tzu brings in the idea of yin and yang as the complementary forces behind cosmic evolution. If cosmic evolution is ruled by the yin-yang duality that achieves harmony, it follows that we would be best off letting things evolve according to their natural tendency. Thus, Lao Tzu’s philosophy of wu wei, usually translated as “non-action”, is derived as the natural consequence of his view of the world represented by his idea of Tao:

“The world is ruled by letting things take their course. It cannot be ruled by interfering.”³

By following Tao, by non-action, we can actually accomplish a great deal, just like water does:

“The highest good is like water. Water gives life to the ten thousand things and does not strive. It flows in places men reject and so is like the Tao.”⁴

Non-action as a way of life, needless to say, is a radical idea. But what does non-action really mean? Of course, it does not literally mean non-action in the sense of doing nothing. Indeed, wu wei is Lao Tzu’s prescription for the right action that requires us to take action in harmony with the ongoing cosmic process. This is what Lao Tzu means when he says, “Tao abides in non-action, yet nothing is left undone.”⁵

How does wu wei compare with the Noble Eightfold Path, which is quite specific as to what we need to do to accomplish liberation and enlightenment? To answer this question, we must first find a concept in Buddhism that is comparable with Tao. What comes closest to Tao in Buddhism would be samsara, usually translated as “wandering on”. This is how the Buddha talks about samsara: “Monks, this samsara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.”⁶

Just like Tao, samsara applies to cosmic evolution as well as to human evolution. The universe is seen as going through cycles of formation and destruction, with no absolute beginning and no absolute end. As for the evolution of the universe, it is explained in terms of paticca-samuppada, or “dependent origination”. Every thing in the universe, including our consciousness, comes and goes through the interconnected network of causes and conditions.

To be caught up in samsara means, as the Buddha reminds us, that we are “hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving”. This suggests that samsara is something that we need to overcome if we are to reach Nibbana, which means we need to overcome our ignorance and abandon our craving. Since it requires overcoming our ignorance and abandoning our craving, the Buddha’s recommendation for us is to acquire the right view of how things are in the universe and follow specific courses of action as described in the Noble Eightfold Path. As a matter of fact, when we become aware of the interconnected network of causes and conditions that define our existence, we should be able to follow the right path that would be in harmony with the cosmic process evolving around us. When we reach that level of understanding, we would then be following the path which Lao Tzu would describe as wu wei. Indeed, when we reach that level of understanding, we should be able to cross the river to the other shore while going down the river with the flow.

1. Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching, translated by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English, New York: Vintage Books, 1972, Chapter 25. The original Chinese are as follows:「有物混成、先天地生。寂兮寥兮。独立不改、周行而不殆。可以為天下母。吾不知其名。字之曰道。」
2. Ibid., Chapter 42.「道生一、一生二、二生三、三生万物。万物負陰而抱陽、沖気以為和。」
3. Ibid., Chapter 48. 「無為而無不為。取天下常以無事。及其有事、不足以取天下。」
4. Ibid., Chapter 8. 「上善若水。水善利万物而不争、処衆人之所悪。故幾於道。」
5. Ibid., Chapter 37. 「道常無為而無不為。」
6. Bhikkhu Bodhi, In the Buddha’s Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon, Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2005, p. 218.

Tetsunori Koizumi, Director

We all know that a word refers to and signifies many things. The multiplicity of things associated with a word is the source of rich expressions for poets and writers. But it can also be the source of confusion and uncertainty for the rest of us, especially when the word in question refers not to a concrete entity but to an abstract entity. Such is the case with the word “reality”. While we know what the word “reality” means—“the true situation that exists”, as the Merriam-Webster defines it—we tend to become lost when it comes to knowing what reality is.

The gap between our knowledge of what a word means and that of what it signifies is perhaps the reason why the word “reality” is employed with many adjectives attached to it. Consider, for example, the adjective “objective”. If “the true situation that exists” is indeed true, the use of the adjective “objective” may seem redundant. However, by attaching the adjective “objective”, we are admitting that there can be disagreements among people as to what that true situation is. What about the adjective “virtual” attached to “reality”, which is widely used today to refer to all kinds of images artificially created by computers? Is the reason why the word “virtual reality” has such wide coinage today the reflection of our lack of knowledge about what “real reality” is? Indeed, what is reality really?

Since the emergence of modern science, we have increasingly entrusted to scientists the job of discovering what reality is, depending on their discoveries as the source of our knowledge of the world around us. But how confident are scientists about their discoveries of what reality is? Are they discovering “the true situation that exists” that can be characterized as “objective” or “absolute”? Here is Paul Davies, a British physicist and a writer of many popular books on physics, talking about the reality exposed by modern physics: “I believe that the reality exposed by modern physics is fundamentally alien to the human mind, and defies all power of direct visualization.”¹

Davies is talking about here the alien nature of reality in reference to such cosmological phenomena as “curved space” and “singularity”. But the alien nature of reality also applies to subatomic phenomena investigated by quantum physicists where adjectives such as “hidden” and “veiled” have been used to describe the reality exposed. With the use of these adjectives, physicists are suggesting that “the true situation that exists” at the subatomic level is not readily available to our normal perceptive faculties. But more than that, they are suggesting that “the true situation that exists” may not actually exist until we engage in the act of observation. This is how Heisenberg (1901-1976), one of the pioneering quantum physicists, talks about the paradoxical aspect of what reality is at the subatomic level: “In the experiments about atomic events we have to do with things and facts, with phenomena that are just as real as any phenomena in daily life. But the atoms or the elementary particles themselves are not as real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”²

The quantum mechanical view of “the true situation that exists” as forming the world of potentialities or possibilities until observation is made is in conformity with the Buddhist view of reality, where distinction is made between “conventional” and “ultimate” reality. In the conventional realm, reality is a series of momentary events and phenomena we observe in the world around us. However, none of these events and phenomena is “the true situation that exists”. In order to get to “the true situation that exists”, we need to go beyond the appearances, as the Dalai Lama explains: “You may not be content with the mere appearances, with the conventional status of a phenomenon. What about its actual nature? What is it really? When you start probing beyond the appearances, trying to understand the real nature of the existence of the imputed or the designated entity, this is called ultimate analysis, seeking the nature of ultimate reality. When you start seeking that, you don’t find anything at all. In fact, you find that there is nothing to be found. The very ‘not finding’ of a phenomenon, when you seek it through ultimate analysis, is what is meant by emptiness.”³ Thus, “the true situation that exists”, or reality in the ultimate realm, in the Buddhist view, is “emptiness”, or “non-existence”. This means that every event or phenomenon exists only as a potentiality until causes and conditions are right to make its appearance in the world around us.

The Buddhist view of seeing everything—every event and every phenomenon taking place in the world around us—as existing as a potentiality in the ultimate realm until it is observed in the conventional realm is shared by Taoists in the tradition of Eastern thought. For Lao Tsu, the ultimate realm, which is the world of potentialities, is the Tao: “The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled. Oh, the unfathomable source of ten thousand things!”⁴ The Tao, which is “the true situation that exists”, is empty as in the Buddhist view and is, therefore, beyond the realm of discursive knowledge, for “the Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.”

Discursive knowledge comes about as a result of our conscious act of making observation, meaning that our consciousness is intimately involved in the act of knowing what reality is. With the exception of “materialists” who assert the existence of the material world independent of our act of observation, most scientists today acknowledge that consciousness is involved in the acquisition of knowledge of the world around us. This is so even in the case of classical science, for the scientist in studying a natural phenomenon must make a conscious decision as to what phenomenon is to be observed, what instrument is to be used for observing it, and what language is to be used in describing it. To the extent that a conscious decision is involved, the act of knowing is an act involving both matter and mind. Conscious participation on the part of the scientist becomes of crucial importance in quantum mechanics as the physicist must make a choice as to which aspect of reality he/she is trying to find out, in view of Heisenberg’s uncertain principle.

If the world we inhabit is ruled by uncertainty, obtaining knowledge, in the most general sense, becomes obtaining the sense of congeniality with reality, which results from finding a meaningful pattern of connections among events and phenomena. And in this most general sense, knowledge is about consciousness, not in the sense of a “substance” but rather in the sense of a “principle”, which triggers that sense of congeniality.

It is because consciousness is not a substance but a principle that it is possible for us to gain insight into what is in the ultimate realm of potentialities. To put it another way, potentialities that exist in the ultimate world are “materialized” as realities in the conventional world mediated by consciousness. Thus, quantum particles “collapse” when the physicist makes a conscious choice as to which aspect of quantum reality he/she wants to observe.

The idea of identifying consciousness as a mediating principle in the unfolding of events and phenomena in the world around us is not a novel one. In the Samkhya school of Hinduism founded by Kapila, the universe is seen as following shrishti, or the process of interplay, between praktriti, or potentiality of nature, and purusha, or spirit which animates potentiality.⁵ In the Upanishad version of Hinduism, consciousness is the ground of all realities in the universe as it is at the same time Atman and Brahman. In the case of the Buddha, there is a familiar discussion about Name and Form as the basic realities in the conventional world around us, including our own existence. But the Buddha refuses to acknowledge the presence of some entity, like purusha, behind Name and Form. What is behind Name and Form for him, needless to say, is “emptiness”.

1. Paul Davies and John Gribbin, The Matter Myth, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992, p.110.
2. Heisenberg, as quoted in The Matter Myth, by Paul Davies and John Gribbin, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992, p.27.
3. As quoted in Zajonc, Arthur, The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama, Chapter 8.
4. Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching, translated by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English, New York: Vintage Books, 1972.
5. Sen, K.M., Hinduism, London: Penguin Books, 1991.