The Disclaimer

 ::: THE DISCLAIMER :::

In order to start a vehicle’s engine, one must engage the ignition. Certainly there are different ways to describe starting a car, however when teaching someone to drive and describing how to start that car, I suspect most people say something along those lines. I’m even more certain that almost nobody explains how to start a car by tasking their pupil to read the issued patent for that vehicle’s particular ignition mechanism.

Thus, in order to achieve deeper levels of understanding, a basic understanding must come first. A basic understanding of 道 as a word of convenience allows one to focus less on the word 道 itself and more on the myriad layers of meaning it implies — or, as Bruce Lee stated in Enter the Dragon: ‘don’t concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory’.

It is with such perspective that I consider the first line of the 道德經 to be a disclaimer.

A basic translation of every word other than 道 in the first line yields: 道 can 道 not constant/eternal/permanent 道.

To provide some texture, let’s view this as: (道 as a noun) can (道 as a verb) not constant/eternal/permanent (道 as a noun). We can then apply some basic English grammar to add a little contour: the 道 that one can 道 is not the constant/eternal/permanent 道.

The English translations of the 道德經 which I’ve read have as the first line some variance of the basic translation we’ve arrived at herein. Generally, the most noticeable variances among these have to do with how 道 is translated, and even so it is common that neither instance of 道 as a noun is translated at all. The translation I first read was published by Derek Lin, and the first line reads: “The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao”.

There is a somewhat famous painting by Rene Magritte titled ‘The Treachery of Images’. The painting is of a pipe, underscored by the words “Ceci n’est pas une pipe” (“this is not a pipe”). Indeed, it is not a pipe — it is a representation of a pipe. In the way that “Ceci n’est pas une pipe” acts as disclaimer for The Treachery of Images, “The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao” (and its varying peers) acts as disclaimer for the 道德經.

We are initially to understand that the 道德經 is merely one perspective of the 道, just as Magritte’s painting is merely one perspective of a pipe. I don’t know whether or not 道 can be considered a religion but if so then it is certainly the first I’ve encountered to introduce itself by saying “this is just like, an opinion, man”.

It is worth reminding ourselves every so often that our individual understandings of reality are framed entirely within our own perspective. This doesn’t mean we fabricate reality, it means we cannot see all of reality at any given moment.

It helps me to remember that the sky is not blue. The sky, as it were, has no color; the blue that we see is the result of light rays from the sun being scattered by Earth’s atmosphere. That blue happens to be scattered most so that we see the sky as blue has more to do with the makeup of Earth’s atmosphere than it does with the makeup of the sun’s light rays; i.e., the sky appears orange/red on Mars even though Mars is receiving the same light rays as Earth. For better or worse, Earth and Mars perceive the sun differently despite the sun being constant.

Thus, one’s interpretation of the 道德經 will always be affected by one’s own atmosphere, so to speak. This is abundantly apparent by the varying nuances in the translations to English from the original Chinese, a great many of which are from people fluent in both languages who had been studying 道 for decades prior to publishing their work.

None of these interpretations or translations are incorrect. All of them are correct, but are influenced by the atmosphere of the interpreter. We know this because the sky appears blue on Earth and red on Mars, despite their light source being the same.

To put it another way, the light that we see is not all of the light, but merely a fraction of it.

To put it another way still, 道 can 道 not eternal 道.