I am not a follower of Tao or Zen - in fact, if I were, then by the stringent ideas of these creeds, I would not even be writing this article: according to one, you should be achieving the understanding that my article tries to pass on through your own meditative efforts, while according to the other, the forces of the cosmo would naturally make it happen without me doing anything to force it. You could look at analogous cases like a capitalist spending money on propagating the virtues of free enterprise - he should be using his capital to seek the highest return. The Warring States philosopher Yang Zhu was more consistent: he promoted Selfishness as the guiding principle of life, on the hard to refute premise that if everyone does the best for himself, then society as a whole is improved. He left behind no books - if he wrote books and taught students, he would be helping others, hence violating his own principle of selfishness.

The great proponent of Tao was of course Laozi, an archivist at the Zhou royal court during the Later Spring-Autumn period, somewhere during 600 to 500BC. We have virtually no biographical information about him, just brief mentions in several ancient texts. Zhuangzi mentioned him most frequently, but as a sage-hermit figure appearing in fragmentary fables, which tell us nothing about him as a physical person; Hanfeizi discussed Laozi in rather "academic ways", thus also not being very helpful for biographic purposes. Mentions in several Confucian texts are somewhat more concrete, showing him as Kongzi's mentor. However, the idea that he was only a mythical or composite figure, and the book Daodejing was written by a later author, was put to rest definitively when a copy of the book was excavated in a Warring States tomb during the 1970s, showing that the book could not have been written later than early Warring States and most probably existed much earlier, though it received some minor editing to end up in the current standard form. The discovery also confirms that Laozi was smoe kind of government official, since the availability of writing material was highly restricted during the Spring-Autumn period and books from that age and earlier were all official documents of one kind or another.

Given the author's status, Daodejing was not a book about mysticism, religion or even philosophy, but about politics; (It is also useful to point out that 德 "de" originally meant something like "grace" in "X, by the grace of God, King of Y", i.e., divine mandate.) however, its political views derive from certain ancient mystical ideas, which I show in the following diagram of various ancient Chinese artifacts

folowed by something more Western

the commonality between east and west is the serpent that swallows its own tail, or in the words of Keats the poet: in my end is the beginning.

In the West, the Uroboros serpent was at least 3600 years old, its first known appearance being in an Egyptian pyramid. The similar Chinese artefacts show it to be much older: the pottery and some jade objects  in the diagram date from around 3000BC, and since jade carving is a difficult craft and takes time to perfect, the circular dragon would have first been made using clay or wood for some generations, and settled into traditional designs, before implementation in jade was attempted and then perfected. But how does it relate to Tao? The design says: start and end, life and death, more and less, thing and nothing, yin and yang, ... are the same, and the idea was much older than Laozi. His contribution was to systematically apply it to social issues: how to run a government, how to view life - if we try too hard to achieve more, we could end up with less; stress should be avoided, because it strains the social fabric and our own capabilities; the best society is that of the innocent, primitive population, while one of clever, sophisticated people would end up full of conflict and dishonesty.

This simple life view has resonated with the human psyche for hundreds of generations. The Legalists, who implemented government systems diametrically opposite to the vision of Laozi, nevertheless considered themselves to be his followers - they too wanted officials and subjects to be simple minded persons who follow the laws without question. While the European Nihilist revolutioneries did not appear to have been familiar with Laozi, the more modern anti government, anti capitalist hippies and anarchists are very much into him. For behind the pragmatic philosophy of government (actually not far from the confucian idea of moderation in terms of concrete actions) lies an even more psychologically satisfying idea of cosmology: where did the world come from? From nothing, since thing and nothing are the same. Unlike alternative views of the origin of universe, there is no issue of "if you say universe was created from X by Y, where did X/Y come from?" Before the universe came into being, there was nothing, from which came thing without the need for anything/anyone else.

This mystical view actually also arose from something pragmatic, the art of govening: since resources are finite, if one gets more, others get less - more and less are related. If the government enriches itself through high taxation, the people would be left poor; if the ruler favours one person/group, other persons/groups would feel inferior... More and less are opposites, and opposites are expressions of yin and yang; if more and less are the same, so are any other pairs of opposites, including thing and nothing.

It is necessary to point out that there is a logical "leap of faith" (in fact, logical fallacy if you prefer to be hostile), which I illustrate with an easier to understand example: before my son was born, I was not a father; afterwards, I was; so, son creates father. This is of course similar to Laozi's statement "the more laws you make, the more criminals you create", but "son creates father" more obviously confuses "status" with "substance" - I existed before my son's birth, which gave me the status of a father. Similarly, "more" and "less" are measures of "things", not the "things" themselves; the measures are related, but there is no creation of "things" in "more is less".

Philosophy is not science; there is no question of "proving" the above view to be "correct", only whether you find it satisfying to hold it and use it to view life. Many people, east an west, found the sweeping views presented in Daodejing about life, society, government, universe... highly satisfying - reading the book does not exactly provide "answers" to questions that might have bothered you for a long time; the questions merely become unnecessary.

Whereas Laozi was subtle yet mostly pragmatic, the Taoist religion was "physical", based on shamanistic practices that are even older than Egyptian pyramids and jade dragons, but hijacking Laozi's cosmology for entirely earthly purposes: "nothing" is the base of everything; it is the mysterious cosmo power that keeps the universe going, and one can acquire control over this force by incantations, symbol drawings, etc. Innocuous drawings and mathematical relations were given mystical interpretations: the Taiji diagram was originally the picture of two entangled snakes, a fertility symbol, and the the black dot in white and white dot in black jus tsnake eyes; bagua was nothing more the binary representations of 8 cardinal numbers, allowing things and phenomena to be classified in somewhat more details than just yin and yang; the "nice palace" figure is just simple 3 x 3 table of nine digits 1-9 with each row/column/diagonal adding up to the same value 15.

because the Shangs used turtle shells for divination, and the back of turtles bear a line pattern somewhat like the 3 x3 table, folklores of the divine turtle emerging from the Yellow River to present a heavenly diagram of the Nine Palace to Yellow Emperor, Yao, Yu or some other mandated ruler, conveniently get incorporated into Taoist literature.

The other great figure of the Tao school, Zhuangzi, also hijacked Laozi; as a sage with high enough reputation to be kept on the Song state pension roll (which explains the story of his going to a tax official to ask for money - when the official tried to put the payment off to some future date, Zhuangzi immediately lost his temper, showing the kind of "someboy" he was) he did not have to worry about making a living, and was free to propagate his carefree school of thought. Pleasant as this philosophy might be as an outlook on life, few ordinary mortals are in the position to fulfil it. The abstract and subtle nature of Laozi thinking makes it easy to ready what you want into it and exploit it for your own purpose, but precisely because of it, he acquired a decent following in the west as well as east, in contrast to Kongzi who received little more than distant lip service.

Buddha was a contemporary of Laozi, and his principle of not having desire as the means of lessening pain has the same kind of nihilist bent. Like Laozi, he would have used previouly developed cultural concepts of his people: he started as a Hindh ascetic, and the very essence of ascetism would be denial of desire. If we consider the Stoic school that arose in Greece about a thousand years later, it is clear that ascetic ideas had a presence in the west from quite ancient times. Circumstantial support may be seen in the widespread use of the Buddhist symbol of swastika

It maybe seen that like the taiji symbol, the swastika was a diagram of entangled serpents, another shamanitic fertility symbol that would have long predated even the Aryans and Dorians. In China, ancientTibetans and Qiangs shared it, and presumably they brought it from central asia in their eastward migration, while other Indo Europeans brought it into Europe, along with primitive ideas of Stoicism.

Also like Laozi, his position as a royal prince made it easier for him to extend what was originally a personal philosophy to a social context, thus generating organized movements and religions, each with its particular views about how to attain enlightenment in following to Bhddha. However, Zen buddhism is a Chinese construct, taking its methodology from the "pure conversation" practice of the Southern Dynasties after barbarians invaded northern china and evicted the Jin dynasty. The format of pure conversation is like a seminar, during which two or three practioners exchanged views on abstract topics (which might arise from everyday questions however), with the audience awarding applause to the more witty and profound conversationists.

While the basic tenet of Zen buddhism is that each person seeks his own enlightenment through individual meditation, there is no written record of what passes through people's minds as they meditated; what we do have is a series of master-disciple conversations that purported led to the pupil's enlightenment. An example:

the great monk Hongren was looking for a successor, and his head discipline submitted the poem "body like the bodi tree, mind like the mirror frame; I cleanse them day after day, so that no dust can gather"; however, a junior pupil Huineng wrote "body is no tree, mirror has no frame, nothing is there actually, so where can dust gather"; he was regarded to have a true understanding of Zen, and was appointed.

another:

an old monk and a young one are about to wade across a river when they saw a young maiden on the bank not knowing what to do; the old monk offered to carry her across; on the opposite bank they went their separate ways, but the young monk was bothered and could not hold himself back "master, wasnt it wrong for you to have such close contact with a girl?" the old monk replied "ah..I have already put her down, but you have not"

The next story is less comforting

One Finger Zen: a great Zen master used to answer every question by raising one finger; one day his discipline tried to imitate him, by answering questions that way; when the master saw this, he chopped off the disciple's finger; as the disciple ran away bleeding, he looked back at the master, who raised one finger, and at that moment he was enlightened.

My reaction upon reading the story: it is a small step from chopping off finger to chopping off head. This is  master-disciple relationship supposed to be like? In other words, the Zen literature is permeated with a sense of authoritarianism that I find hard to accept.

A second reservation concerns the prevalence of the sudden epiphany: quite aside from my not knowing what exactly each epiphany meant, or even whether it was genuine, fraud, or honest mistake, this desire for epiphany has vulgarized into what I call "head stroke enlightenment": when any celebrated monk goes out and meets some followers, the latter would ask to have their foreheads touched, which is somehow supposed to lead to enlightenment. Now a head stroke passes no religious or philosophical lessons, and should, logically, have no effect on one's understanding. If however a follower seriously believes that a brief physical contact produces epiphany, then one wonders about what epiphany means altogether.

In case you are starting to think that I am anti Zen, actually I, being an atheist, am equally sceptical about other religions. However, Tao and Zen happen to be two systems of Chinese thought that enjoy some followings in the west, they are worthy of discussion here. They are both integral parts of Chinese history and culture. Whether they can be more than that to an individual person, that person need to decide for himself/herself.

-------------------- added on 24/8/10

An interesting photo turned up from the Ukrainian pavilion in the Shanghai Expo

The display shows the taiji diagram, but from pottery used in Tripolye-Cucuteni Culture 5000 years ago near the Black Sea, extending from western Ukrains into Romania; the age is approximately the same as the first appearance of the double fish diagram in Chinese pottery

谈谈老子

新加坡国立大学 阮宗光

  
易经中记述，"无极生太极， 太极生两仪， 两仪生四象， 四象生八卦" 考古队在甘肃西坪找到陶瓶上有尾交首人面鱼,西亚有uroboros自吞尾蛇，已见有无（头尾）相生循环不息之意，可见这些思想早于老子；他的贡献是把这些思想系统地用在政治上：政府拿了太多资源，人民就会贫困；某些人地位提高，其他人相对或绝对地会降低，所以多同少，有同无，是相连相生的

有无相生，所以有可由无产生，所以世界自动产生，无所谓来源，始终；无既然是一切的基础，我们做人做事应以无为做原则；刻意求功，会因加得减；民心朴实，容易世界太平
  
老子是什么时代的人？道德经中某些思想，像是战国后期乱世才有的，但自从银雀战国墓出土更早的木简后，很明显看到道德经在战国早期或更早已经成书，但后人有改动。所以史记说老子是春秋人，与孔子同时略早，是可信的；庄子等书内不但多次谈到老子，而且用了不少道德经的文字，也可以做旁证；战国的太史儋，极可能是老子后人，把他的思想纪录整理成书，因而有老子即太史儋的说法   
 
老子的思想有利用价值，所以会给人提高到大宗师，神仙的地位，但因此也会给人改得面目全非；政府有很多事情管不了的时候，就喜欢说说老子；各朝代兴起的各种道教，用的其实是更古老的巫术加些后来的大众传播技术，偏喜欢用老子的玄思维名义；庄子思想其实跟老子社会政治目标大有不同，偏要拉他做出世同路人；韩非子也来解解老，因为统治者需要一种深不可测的态度，让手下不敢离开法律而以讨好上司为目标

有出于无在当时是非常先进的抽象思想，西亚犹太人差不多同时产生同类的抽象概念用在宗教上：别族拜树石金牛，犹太族却说神无形无名但无所不在无所不能，同老子有异曲同工之妙；因为吞尾蛇在西亚流传甚广，汉人同犹太人的抽象思维应是同源的。  基督教的失乐园思想，即人吃了知识树的果子后必须离开天堂，即是老子人之初混混沌沌美好社会想法。
  
为什么说上帝无名？耶和华源自iaoue，是祭司祈祷的呼声；文字发明先有子音当时还未有母音，iaoue无法写，所以神无名(和，华两声中h子音是由长声呼叫中吸一口气而来；古犹太人有文字后用YHWH写上帝名，后来才有Yahweh和Jahoveh的写法）

老子是不是孔子的老师？孔子要编历史，跑去中央政府档案部看文件，向管理人请教，是完全合理的, 但有关故事不一定正确'比如《史记·孔子世家》：“南宫敬叔言鲁君曰：请与孔子适周。鲁君与之一乘车，两马，一竖子，俱适周问礼，盖见老子。” 这段引起不少争议，因礼记说孔子见老子遇日食，但日食那年南宫敬叔13岁年纪太小不能远行，又正在守父丧等理由。其实这出于误会：《说苑》同《孔子家语·致思》有：

“孔子曰：季孙之赐我粟千钟，而交益亲，自南宫敬叔之乘我车也，而道加行。”

南宫敬叔跟孔子学礼，献车给老师乘坐，并非特地为了去周；后人把两件事混起来了

肝胆侠义看金庸，粋奇机变学古龙
新建文学有心览，旧传古史无师通
庄周枯鱼喻税吏，孔丘列国访明公
书堆五车多尘埃，明镜台边枉思空
1   早上，老子走进他的办公厅，站在两旁的学生，随从弯腰向他鞠躬，走到他的席那里（椅子是唐朝才有的，以前都是跪坐在席上，今日日本人还是），他的书记正把今天他要注的一本书铺在小几上，一边小声说"您的学生孔丘一会儿来问候"
"我的高徒，名将之子"
"不过听说。。"
"我知道；他出世时父亲已快70岁；早一年他有带妻子去尼山求子"
"据说是个很淫乱的场合"
"周人是不大会在这种地方求子的，不过宋人习俗不同"
他们停止谈话，因为孔子带了两个随从进来了，孔子对老子深深一揶，跟随两人下跪磕头，孔子好像也要下跪，但老子答礼的姿态表示同他平等，不当他是属下 "请坐"
"厄。。也许我应该。。"
"哪里哪里；以前您是学生，今日自成一家，或许已经青出于蓝；凡事无常"
"但是'事凡常无"
"哈哈，您已经看了我的新书"
"正是；王臣幸鲁赠送了一册给我公；确实博大精深"
"就算是总结了我一生的思考观察留给后人，因为即将退休，很高兴我还在时您来；以为您会早些来的"
"原来是想早些来拜侯，不过有节哀之事"
"愿老夫人安息；好像她是几年前过世的？"
"三年多了；不过我们殷人是遵守三年守丧的规则"
"对对；孔氏还是保持殷人习俗；现在宋国还守着商的祖庙；我们李氏居陈，也遵守舜祖的规训"
啊大国殷商，赶牛出身，很早学会了养马，冶铜，架着战车由北方来，战无不胜，安阳城的宏大宫殿坟墓都是商人建的，有各种青铜重器，玉雕；伟大啊；但有一日他们失去了天命，商王妹夫的儿子，因为他父亲功高震主，被商王处死，起兵复仇，轻轻易易打败了大十倍的商军；凡事无常呀
周人得胜后自己也有点莫名其妙，好在周王的弟弟周公有治国之才，制作了一套方案；先把商族臣民集中在伊水洛水之间叫他们建了一座新城洛阳，再分配土地给他们耕种，城内驻了重兵，放了由商那里缴获的九鼎，把几位亲属分封在周围齐，鲁，卫，郑各地，再把商王的哥哥封在宋地守着商的祖庙，大家都有面子，能平平安安过过日子
周公又制作了一套周礼让士官诸侯遵守，包括周王在内；必须按时朝见，巡行，表现上下尊卑，每国都要全国人一起祭祖，表现团结一致，周王诸侯都要按时举行籍田礼表示尊重农业，射礼尊军人，乡饮尊老，明堂尊文士等等；各国诸侯士官都把子弟送来都城文史馆学习周礼，回去以尊礼的方式治国；商人只要求各族按时进贡珍宝美女，别的不管，周人真的有全国的政府
但结果这一套也垮了，周王诸侯都做不到尽礼，尤其是继位之礼；年轻的妃子挖空心思要让自己的儿子继位取代已定的太子，兄弟争斗；就是因为幽王废太子，太子 得到外公申候和犬戎兴兵支持，结果周廷失去了西方的土地，今天周王能够命令的只是洛阳城而已
2  "现在除了孝服，是否快出来任官位？"
"阳货有这样建议；我还在考虑"
"他就是季氏的家臣？"
"不错；季孙把所有的事务都委托了他处理；因为季孙是鲁国司徒，他也就专了鲁国之政"
"一个家臣专国政，很高詹呀；他很看得起您吧？"
"家母去世时，他很客气亲自来吊丧；就是那天他顺便告诉我季孙宴请全国的士，虽然我是不能参加的；三年守丧完毕后，他马上派人馈赠了一只烤猪"
"那可是件大礼啊；宗庙祭拜用品;按礼您需要去见他道谢才对啊"
"我有上门拜见不过正好是他出外的时候，所以还是遵礼的"
"倒是够中庸"
"不过回家路上正好遇到他的车队所以还是见到了"
"那他怎样说呢？"
"怀其宝而迷其邦，好从事而亟失时，日月逝矣，岁不我与"
"很仰望您呢；但是您还在考虑？是不是希望情况更恰当再出山？"
孔子听到这样问，有点紧张；侧目望了一望自己的随从，想想这些话会不会有一天传去阳货耳中；阳货僭越夺权这种行为，恐怕得意不了多久，但这不能说出来。颜回是个孩子，书呆子气；子路性情冲动些，忠心应该不是问题；至于老子那边的人。。。
"我既然受了公家千钟的俸禄，自然有责任任职，不过我的教学，可以算是足够的任务吧？"
"我有看到您编写的讲义，做得很好；把诗书易史精要写在三千条竹简上，让每人能全部记得。可惜我们文史馆学生不多，不值得花那么多工夫；多些学生，帮忙汇编的人手也多点"
"总之我如果任职，一定会遵照周礼"
"很乐意听到您这样说；虽然很多人觉得这太老派太迂腐了"
"不过这是必要的"
"书是先人的话，不是先人的神，不是先人的行；我们看圣贤言，还要感其神守其行"
"就是要循其道；但何为道？"
3。 老子给孔子一个没有牙齿的笑脸，又伸出舌头
"老师是说，硬的掉了，软的还在？"
"很好；您看看这条玉龙"
"自吞其尾，就是说，终既是始，天道循环不息？"
"更深一层；天地从何而来？"
"未有天地一片混沌；"
"可见天地从无而来"
"噢，我现在明白老师'事凡常无'的意义了，因为有生于无，无即是有"
"道在此中；太多会变成太少；大智若愚；无欲者刚"
"老师觉得我有欲为官错了？"
"这倒不见得；我们在有之世，做有之人；不过我们以有作有，也思无循无"
"。。。"
"治国犹如煮鲜鱼，翻动多了就会烂"
"。。。" 
"民心察察则国事乱乱；无知者无忧；去汝之欲，益汝之神"