This will be an exploration of the Chinese term Tao through a breakdown of the traditional Chinese characters.
Tao is a mysterious term, translated and understood in a variety of ways by hundreds of translators and commentators. One, a theosophists named Charles Johnston (see his translation and commentary here), notes that the term Tao is an equivalent of the Greek term Logos, of which many Theosophists are familiar. And indeed, when the term Logos is translated into Chinese, the word used is Tao (see, for instance, John 1:1 of the Christian bible in Greek and Chinese, with the King James English):
“Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος,”
“In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word (Logos) was with God, and the Word (Logos) was God.”
“太 初 有 道 ， 道 與 神 同 在 ， 道 就 是 神”
“In the beginning was the Word (Tao), and the Word (Tao) was with God, and the Word (Tao) was God.”
When it comes to understanding the full meaning of the term Tao, we must look closely at the traditional character of the term itself. The Chinese language is written in a logosyllabic style, while English and other European languages are phonogramatic. This means that a character used for a Chinese word may hold a much greater meaning than the symbol-letters used in western languages. Complex Chinese characters may contain ‘hidden’ concepts in their various parts. So when we approach a term like Tao, it is beneficial to look not only at the way English translators have dealt with the word-meaning, but to go straight to the character itself and analyze its makeup. This is what I propose to do here.
First, let’s take a look at the complete character:
As a composite character this is often translated carrying these and similar meanings: “direction, way, method, road, path, principle, truth, reason, skill, measure, to say, to speak, to talk,” etc.. We can already get a sense of the meaning here if we look deeply into the combination of these English terms, but looking deeper into the character itself will aid us far more.
So, let’s take a look at how the character is written. This can help us see the various components that make up the full character (and we may, if we look closely, see an esoteric meaning to the order of the strokes, once we understand the meanings of each part).
We can immediately see two distinct characters that compose the whole. And we can divide these out easily.
Let’s look at the meanings of these two characters.
The first (辶, chuo) means “walk” or “walking”. You can see the symbolic nature of Chinese characters clearly here—the dash above being a head, then a body with an arm trailing behind (indicating forward movement), and below a path that the person is walking on. Beyond the simple idea of “walking” we ought to see a more subtle concept: that of movement. But not just movement, which could be haphazard, but rather: purposeful movement, or conscious movement, or movement in a certain direction or way, and so on. Take the concept of “walking” and expand it beyond the concept of a form with legs, and one will come closer to the ultimate meaning underlying the character.
The second (首, shǒu) carries the meanings: “head; chief; first (occasion); first (thing); leader,” etc.. But this is another complex character, composed of parts, and we can try to look closer at these. From the top to the bottom we can divide this into three parts, each carrying its own meaning.
Let’s take these in order, from left to right.
First we have 丷, a particle drawn from the character 為 (wéi), “to do” or “to be” (depending on usage).
Second we have 一 (yī) the simplest form of 弌, the number one. It thus carries the meaning of “one, single,” etc.
Third we have 自 (zì), which means “self” or “oneself”.
Stringing these together, we can see an expanded meaning to the term 首 (shǒu) as “to be one self” or “being oneself”. Theosophically speaking we can quickly see the significance of the idea of One Self, which is embedded in the concept of Tao (or Logos).
When we combine this with the meaning of 辶 (chuo), to walk (or to move, in the occult sense of the term, as related to Motion, Change, etc.), then we can really begin to grasp the fundamental meaning of Tao and to see why it is equated with Logos.
Our expanded meaning may come out something like this:
Tao: To move as One Self.
If we follow the order of the brush strokes in the original calligraphy, the meaning would come out as:
Tao: “To be One Self Moving.”
Or, if we wish to go further, we might say:
Tao: The Motion (and thus the Consciousness and Life) of the One Self.
Of specific interest to theosophists, and as a general footnote to this article, let’s take note of something interesting in the Chinese character for “self”:
Notice here that the character is composed of seven lines and/or brush strokes. One standing above the others; three enclosing and three enclosed.
We may also see more, if we look even closer. Notice that there is one stroke standing above and alone, then there are four horizontal strokes (four planes of manifestation?) and two vertical strokes on either side (the poles of spirit and matter, or akin to the pillars of Severity and Mercy in the Kabalistic Tree of Life?).
Chinese characters are very often pictographic, as we see clearly with the character for person (人, Rén)—standing upright with two legs—or as we saw with the character for “walking”. So it’s interesting that the character for “self” resembles nothing of a physical human being, but rather seems to resemble the esoteric symbolism of sevenfold Man.
3 Comments
ModeratorTN
Comments from previous article location:
Comment by Pierre Wouters on June 1, 2013 at 12:51pm
Thanks Jon, very interesting commentary on the meaning of Tao (Dao) and the explanation of the Chinese symbol. I think your sevenfold interpretation seems to hold good. Very remarkable sychronicity between the Biblical text and the Chinese!
Comment by Jeffrey Smart on August 25, 2013 at 6:44am
Excellent!! I really like the explaination. The fact that Tao and Logos are similar concepts may show that philosophical thought spanned cultures and geographical locations. Were these an exchange of ideas by travelers or are these concepts simply (or not so simply) the logical outcome of philosophical thought? Or is HPB correct: there was once a international, worldwide system of philosophical thought that became divided among the seperate cultures later in history? Very interesting.
Comment by Jon Fergus on August 25, 2013 at 8:41pm
It’s very interesting, isn’t it. I think we might be able to say, in one sense, that all three possibilities you give are correct:
1. Certainly there must’ve been exchanges of ideas by travelers (the story of Apollonius of Tyana is a wonderful example of this, as also are a couple of other stories hinted at: a) that Pythagoras traveled to India and is known there under a different name, and b) that Arjuna is one and the same as the Greek Orpheus). Many other stories, usually only subtly hinted at, seem to demonstrate a hidden flow of teachings across many ancient cultures.
2. It would seem to me that since Truth is ONE, and is our very Self, that any being anywhere who moves towards Truth in their investigations would necessarily come to the same ideas as others, even if they may describe them differently.
3. The primeval wisdom tradition seems to have been a reality; and certainly the more that is unearthed and explored in the realms of comparative religion the more evidence piles up in this direction.
I’ve been studying a series of translations (hoping to publish them this fall) that approach a handful of the core spiritual texts of the world and demonstrate the philosophical oneness of the teachings. It’s quite fascinating!
Comment by Pierre Wouters on August 26, 2013 at 10:43am
Yeah, thanks Jeffrey you make a good point and as Jon remarked, one thing does not necessarily exclude the other.
In HPBs own words in the Secret Doctrine, Preface, p. viii:
“But it is perhaps desirable to state unequivocally that the teachings, however fragmentary and incomplete, contained in these volumes, belong neither to the Hindu, the Zoroastrian, the Chaldean, nor the Egyptian religion, neither to Buddhism, Islam, Judaism nor Christianity exclusively. The Secret Doctrine is the essence of all these. Sprung from it in their origins, the various religious schemes are now made to merge back into their original element, out of which every mystery and dogma has grown, developed, and become materialised.”
She again emphasizes this in the Introductory, p. xxxiv:
“To recapitulate. The Secret Doctrine was the universally diffused religion of the ancient and prehistoric world. Proofs of its diffusion, authentic records of its history, a complete chain of documents, showing its character and presence in every land, together with the teaching of all its great adepts, exist to this day in the secret crypts of libraries belonging to the Occult Fraternity.”
And again in Volume II, p. 794 she closes the circle so to speak:
“The Secret Doctrine is the common property of the countless millions of men born under various climates, in times with which History refuses to deal, and to which esoteric teachings assign dates incompatible with the theories of Geology and Anthropology. The birth and evolution of the Sacred Science of the Past are lost in the very night of Time; and that, even, which is historic — i.e., that which is found scattered hither and thither throughout ancient classical literature — is, in almost every case, attributed by modern criticism to lack of observation in the ancient writers, or to superstition born out of the ignorance of antiquity. It is, therefore, impossible to treat this subject as one would the ordinary evolution of an art or science in some well-known historical nation. It is only by bringing before the reader an abundance of proofs all tending to show that in every age, under every condition of civilization and knowledge, the educated classes of every nation made themselves the more or less faithful echoes of one identical system and its fundamental traditions — that he can be made to see that so many streams of the same water must have had a common source from which they started. What was this source? If coming events are said to cast their shadows before, past events cannot fall to leave their impress behind them. It is, then, by those shadows of the hoary Past and their fantastic silhouettes on the external screen of every religion and philosophy, that we can, by checking them as we go along, and comparing them, trace out finally the body that produced them. There must be truth and fact in that which every people of antiquity accepted and made the foundation of its religions and its faith. Moreover, as Haliburton said, “Hear one side, and you will be in the dark; hear both sides, and all will be clear.” The public has hitherto had access to, and heard but one side — or rather the two one-sided views of two diametrically opposed classes of men, whose prima facie propositions or respective premises differ widely, but whose final conclusions are the same — Science and Theology. And now our readers have an opportunity to hear the other — the defendants’ — justification on and learn the nature of our arguments.”
Comment by Shanet Rampersaud on September 13, 2015 at 1:34pm
Thank you for creating and sharing such an informative post! The intentionality in Tao’s pictograph and stroke order are remarkable. I do wonder what meaning of “self” is meant by 辶 or chuo. In context of the culture, I suppose it may likely be representative of the collective conscience.
Odin Townley
Wu Wei (chinese, literally “non-doing”) is an important concept of Taoism and means natural action, or in other words, action that does not involve struggle or excessive effort. Wu wei is the cultivation of a mental state in which our actions are quite effortlessly in alignment with the flow of life. This seems to have the same meaning as non-duality. ?
Pingback: The Vrātya (from the Atharvaveda) | Theosophy Nexus