Taoism

[Missing]

What are your thoughts on Taoism and wu wei?

[Guest]

I don't believe in it. I feel like it's a belief that there's more to what's going on than what is literally actually going on. It's kind of like "the law of attraction" - there's no magic in reality, but the placebo affect and our ability to experience different states of consciousness make it convincing that magic really exists. 

 

"magic" is just our ability to be aware, really. trying to make a law over how this works is silly - I can only directly experience what is happening right now, so can't really make good observations governing all of what is being experienced by everyone.

[Guest]

@_River_ The magic in the law of attraction is that you draw things to you energetically, positive or negative. Whatever you feel the most strongly about is what you manifest more of, but something will only happen if you believe it will happen and not just if you think it.

[Guest]

Wu-wei sounds like what you accomplish when meditating. It's beneficial to take a break from the non-stop work our minds are doing, otherwise you're never really relaxed. People might think they're relaxed listening to some peaceful music or taking a bubble bath or whatever but none of that compares to the peace of mind that can come from meditation.

[Guest]

I don't know that much about Taoism, it's actually kind of hard to figure out what it is from Google searches. All I've really known about it is that it's a philosophy, and that it teaches that there is a force of some sort that keeps the universe balanced. I'm unsure if and how karma plays into that, though.

[rebis]

I think of wu wei as being approximately similar in concept to Flow or "being in the zone". I don't think that wu wei is literally inaction, but rather the action that "flows" naturally if you (your ego) is removed from the equation.

 

Taoism makes sense to me. Or more accurately and transparently, I suppose I should say that I believe in Taoism philosophically at least, and that this does inform my sense of spirituality. My view of Taoism is not that I need to understand the grand cosmic complexities of the universe of anything like that, or really even that I necessarily need to understand anything.  However, I do not believe that everything that happens around me, everything that has happened, is just completely random and chaotic; there is a Way everything works together, and the idea that there may be harmony with that Way is really all that Taoism is, for me.

 

Yeah sure, our brains look for patterns. That acknowledged, still seems unavoidably obvious that none of us popped into existence out of thin air. Our planet didn't, our sun didn't, primordial life and all the evolution and history that came before us -- well, led to the systems of government, economics, social and class status, families, etc, that we were all born into. And these systems persist. From our ever increasing population to climate change, our reasoning should tell us that we are each and all a part of a continuously evolving, fantastically complex system...

 

Taoism, to me, is more or less just accepting the reality of all that, and making your effort to move with the flow in a way that is natural and not harmful.

[Fraggle Underdark]

Yes when I looked into Taoism, one of the downsides is that there's just so little source material. The main book is a short collection of poetic verse, pretty much. So it's partly open to a lot of interpretations, and it seemed like the main point was to get across a sense of what it means to go with the flow in that way. Rather than outright fight your situation/surroundings, to adjust them in little ways and ride the waves to places you like more.

[a little annihilation]

I think that it, like any religion that isn't hurting anyone, is a valid religion but since it is highly spiritual one I would never practice it myself.

[Alaska Native Manitou]

A couple of people mentioned not knowing much about Taoism, so I decided to research it:

Spoiler

Westerners often think that the ☯ is a common symbol of unity in Asia, but it's the specific emblem of Taoism, like what the cross means to Christians. It is a major force in Chinese Universism, southeast Asian Caodaism, & Korean beliefs - it's also an influence in the Falun Gong movement. Where it has spread, it is never the sole faith; in fact it always shares an uncomfortable coexistence with the opposing philosophy of Confucionism. The founder of the religion is known as Lao-tse, which means "The Old Master." There are thought to be 9,147,000 Taoists today; it may be hard to tell for sure when the modern Chinese government surpresses religion.

 

The KunLun mountains are believed by Taoists to be paradise itself. Indeed, these Taoists would retreat into the mountains to attain enlightenment and to leave the material world behind. The Taoist deities are called Sien which literally means "Mountain People."

 

Since Tao is the highest principal from which all emerges, which rules in everything, & which determines the entire course of the world process, man in his activities must adjust himself to this cosmic moral law. Man's conduct, the human Tao, must integrate itself with the heavenly Tao. Man must imitate the good characteristics of Tao. Like Tao, he should be possessed of natural goodness, & of modest behavior; he should be generous & imperturbable. He accomplishes this by correctly regulating his conduct as regards the Five Relationships. These five relationships are among the oldest possessions of Chinese philosophy. They are: father and son, older and younger brother, Prince and subject, husband and wife, friend and friend. In these five situations of duty, man must not only conduct himself according to the Tao in a moral way, but he must also regulate his outer behavior accordingly, since the Chinese have always held the view that even the forms of politeness must be presented in a perfect way. Nine double-virtues are listed in Shu-djing, which man ought to practice. He should be: 1) friendly and dignified; 2) mild and firm; 3) correct and polite; 4) respect order, and be respectful; 5) learned and clever; 6) straightforward and gentle; 7) considerate and moderate; 8. strong & dependable; 9) courageous and righteous.

 

Taoism finds its theoretical thesis in speculation about the origin of the world, leading to a profound "philosophy of nature" and to recommendations that people should lead a peaceful, desireless existence which would permit them to meditate the basic reason for all things. 

 

Lao-tse believed in the study of the writings of antiquity, the accumulation of knowledge, the following of a strict moral code and the energetic interference in the course of events was not the correct course for the sage to take; rather, free of all desire he should sink into the depths of the primal ground of all being, and spontaneously and unconsciously do the right thing, without ever having to exert deliberate and strenuous efforts. The virtues, later prescribed and recommended by the Confucians, were considered only as secondary importance. According to the German Sinologist, A. Forke, this was so because "they first rise in the consciousness according to the principles of the self-generating contradictions, and only after the vices have become apparent.  As long as the naive state exists, in which Tao rules, all virtues are practiced unconsciously, since they appear as something entirely natural, as affects of the Tao, over which one need not exert oneself." Therefore "the doing" of the sage is a "non-doing" as it consists of a spontaneous effect that is at one with nature. In contrast to Confucius, Lao-tse's political ideal is not "a well-organized state of officials." Rather, it is a small kingdom in which men lead a simple, contented, patriarchal life--a kingdom in which no weapons are needed, and where no contact is made with other countries because such contact can only result in discontent and lead to war.

 

The teaching of the Master was further elaborated upon by Lieh Tzu (Latin, Licius), in the fifth century BC. He introduced the idea of the relativity of experiences in the world, and of arriving at the direct grasp of Tao with the help of meditation exercises. Chuang-tse (fourth century BC) is famous for his poetic parables. Kuan-tse, who is considered a contemporary of Lao-tse, but who most likely lived in the 11th century a.d. espoused a pantheistic idealism. "The world of multiplicity is a creation of the subject."

 

In later Taoism there emerged an ever growing tendency to break loose from the limits of the finite through asceticism, and among other things, through breathing exercises. Virtue was supposed to endow one with long life. To serve this purpose various elixirs of life were also fabricated. The holy man, for example, could reach an "isle of the blessed." Beginning with the third century BC many Chinese emperors organized expeditions to search for this island.

 

Under the influence of Buddhism, and from Tao's desire to be able to compete with it, many ideas of Buddhism were incorporated into Taoism. Thus, it finally became an independent religion with definite cultic forms and a system of monasteries. These took the place of the older hermitages. It also developed definite views of the hereafter, such as heaven and hell, and it also created a special world of gods. At the head stood the "Trinity of the Three Pure Ones," namely Pan-gu (the Heavenly King of the Primal Beginning"), Yü-Huang (the Jade Emperor") and Lao-tse. It was believed that Pangu had already freely floated about the as yet unformed cosmos at a time when there was still chaos, because Yang and Yin had not as yet separated. When these two forces did separate, Pan-gu generated "the Holy Mother of all Creation," the goddess of earth. From this rose the harmonious interplay of yang and yin, and the world order. The divine couple then called 13 heavenly kingdoms into being, from whom stemmed the 11 earthly emperors. Each of these emperors ruled for 36,000 years and created the Tao of mankind. They became the ancestors the first Chinese rulers. Yu-Hüang, the Jade Emperor, is the present-day world ruler and was a consequently identified with Shang-Ti by the people. According to a widely held view he was only worshipped since the 10th or 11th century, after two different emperors had seen him in a vision. He was imagined enthroned in heaven, and like an earthly ruler, he was surrounded by a huge court. The Mandarins who were members of his court, administered the ministries of thunder, of wind, of fire, of water, of literature, and of medicine. They also ruled over the expulsion of spirits.

 

Aside from an infinitely large number of deities, the Taoistic pantheon also includes many saints who attained an imperishable body by eating miracle pills. Among the latter there is a highly esteemed group of "Eight Immortals," about whom remarkable legends are told, and who have become a part of the folklore. The Universitality of Taoism is shown by the fact that Confucius has been accepted into its world of deities.

Since the second century AD, a Taoist Church has been in existence. The position of "High Priest" (The Master of Heaven) is inherited by the Chang Tao-ling family. The high priest is often wrongly called the Taoist Pope. Actually, he is the earthly region of the Jade Emperor, and he makes his abode in the "Dragon and Tiger Mountains." His main function is to drive away spirits. However, he also practices magic, and he awards diplomas to magicians & to exorcists. When a "Master of Heaven" dies, all the male members of his clan assemble in his palace. Their names are written on leaden tablets and immersed in a water cask. The person whose tablet floats in the water above all others is considered as the incarnation of the soul of Chiang Tao-ling.

 

While the married magicians, who recognize the master of heaven as their superior, indulged in fortune telling, and in the selling of amulets, etc., the celibate monks are not subject to him. They are divided into three ranks. They live in monasteries, where through studies and meditation they try to carry out the instructions of Lao-tse and of his pupils.

 

I read the Tao Te Ching long ago, but don't really remember it well. As a Native Person ideas of being in harmony with the world & trusting one's internal morality sound good to me.

Edited January 3, 2023 by 2SpiritCherokee Princess

[Olallieberry]

On 12/29/2022 at 7:45 PM, løvely said:

I think that it, like any religion that isn't hurting anyone, is a valid religion but since it is highly spiritual one I would never practice it myself.

It's also not always a religion. The religion most people call Daoism today (or Taoism - oldfashioned spelling) is only about a thousand years old. For thousands of years before that, there was something else which didn't have a pantheon of deities and the other trappings.

 

Personally, I practice Daoism in a way which is spiritual but not religious, but sure, I can see that not everyone's into that either.

 

On 12/29/2022 at 3:39 PM, mackenzie.holiday said:

What are your thoughts on Taoism and wu wei?

Wuwei is not a religion either, and it's not even really a philosophy. I mean, it is, but it's utterly practical - if difficult. It's non-religious in the sense that it has nothing whatsoever to do with worship or devotion in any way.

 

A teacher of mine said something I'll paraphrase as "one practices until all the reasons not to fall away." That's wuwei - it's not the practice, it's the practicing-without-practicing. Of whatever the specific practice is. One can wuwei as a Christian or an atheist or someone who never spends any time whatsoever thinking about spirituality or religion.

 

It's like this - you don't have to think about acting naturally to act naturally.

[Olallieberry]

On 12/29/2022 at 4:08 PM, _River_ said:

I don't believe in it. I feel like it's a belief that there's more to what's going on than what is literally actually going on.

There are levels at which this is true, but the core levels aren't a belief in anything other than a description of what is literally actually going on.

 

Belief comes in when someone tries to pass on this experience to others, and they suggest ways to practice which are said to bring on the experience.

 

Just to scratch the surface of what is "not a belief", take yin and yang for example. There's no way someone could "not believe in" yin and yang, unless one doesn't believe in opposites - or in definitions.

 

To scratch a little more deeply, one could say "indeed, there are no opposites, everything is ONE" but in Daoism the people who say that don't deny yin and yang. They're talking about a different thing with a different definition. Similarly the people to whom yin and yang is a useful bit of language don't deny "unity" as a concept.

 

The existence of definitions can't really be denied. I'm not saying people can't deny the meaning of someone else's definition, but they can't coherently deny that the other person holds the definition. If they did, they wouldn't try to convince them of a different definition, right?

 

I don't know, I guess they could, but they'd be in denial.

 

Words...

Hey, here's a question. Do you believe in anything which can't be described in words? That's not a challenge, I'm just curious.

[Olallieberry]

On 12/29/2022 at 5:56 PM, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

when I looked into Taoism, one of the downsides is that there's just so little source material.

Heh, this is a feature, not a bug.

[Fraggle Underdark]

Soo... either it's helpful to try and explain an idea to people, in which case the limited source material of Taoism is not a feature, or it's not helpful to try and explain an idea to people, in which case you're making a mistake right now

[Olallieberry]

11 hours ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

Soo... either it's helpful to try and explain an idea to people, in which case the limited source material of Taoism is not a feature, or it's not helpful to try and explain an idea to people, in which case you're making a mistake right now

Indeed, it's actually not helpful to try to explain Daoism to people.

 

Ironic, because it's not easy to explain Buddhism to people either, but the volume of their source material is totally bonkers.

 

[Fraggle Underdark]

1 minute ago, Ollie415 said:

Indeed, it's actually not helpful to try to explain Daoism to people.

You've done a little bit in this thread, and also spoke of things your teacher explained to you, which I infer was on the topic of Daoism.

 

Is it a fundamental mistake to have any teachers of Daoism?

Or are there helpful things to say about Daoism but they have to be done in person?

As for text alone, the explanations in this thread, and that you relayed from a teacher, must either be either unhelpful or not. If they are not unhelpful, and have a nonzero chance of being helpful (which of course they must, nothing can be guaranteed to be 100% neutral), then it would have been an improvement to have these things written down from the start. If they are unhelpful (the only other option) then you should not have shared them.

[Olallieberry]

My teachers tell me what to do, they don't really try too hard to tell me what it means. It's up to me to find out for myself.

 

More source material would just be confusing to be honest. I'm a simple man, I need simple instructions.

 

If I thought you were legitimately interested in the practice, I might make a different level of effort to pass on what's been passed on to me. As a topic of chatter, less is more.

 

I guess I've proven that to myself by putting my foot in it here

[Fraggle Underdark]

18 minutes ago, Ollie415 said:

Ironic, because it's not easy to explain Buddhism to people either, but the volume of their source material is totally bonkers.

You noticed you changed topics right, with this edit? Earlier you were talking about whether it was helpful to try and explain Daoism, and now you are talking about whether it is easy to explain Buddhism.

 

3 minutes ago, Ollie415 said:

My teachers tell me what to do, they don't really try too hard to tell me what it means.

That is something that could be in source material.

 

I should explain what my issue is, as you seem nice. "That's a feature not a bug" is something I see used as a lazy non-argument, when on its own. (I'm not saying this was your intent.) It implies, but does nothing to make a case for, the speaker knowing more about the underlying dynamics than the listener. It's a lot of sound and noise implying expertise but providing zero actual evidence for it. And in the absence of any actual arguments that can be disagreed with, the only direct response if one disagrees is: "no, it isn't." But that's seen as aggressive, because "it's a feature not a bug" has the surface appearance of being an actual argument.

 

In short, I was mindful when I said it's unfortunate that Daoism does not have more source material, things like more examples that would help to demonstrate, even obliquely, what the authors meant. If you want to make a public case against that, please provide arguments rather than platitudes.

[Olallieberry]

1 hour ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

You noticed you changed topics right, with this edit? Earlier you were talking about whether it was helpful to try and explain Daoism, and now you are talking about whether it is easy to explain Buddhism.

No, not a change of subject. The thread of the thought went like this:

 

"Helpful" means, "making something easier," right? So if having lots of scripture were helpful, then Buddhist enlightenment should be fifty thousand times easier than Daoist enlightenment.

 

It's not.

 

Buddhism and Daoism have extremely similar aims and recognize each other as different paths to the same truth about humanity and the universe. One has little source material, and the other has so many they're practically uncountable.

 

An interesting aside here, the story goes Daoism wouldn't even have Daode Jing if it weren't for an imperial city guard who accosted Laozi on his way out of the capital city upon his retirement from imperial service. Before he was allowed to leave and disappear into the mountains and the mists of time, this guard, who was a student of Daoism, insisted Laozi should write down some teachings.

 

Laozi didn't invent Daoism. What he wound up writing was what he knew, and said right in the first chapter, would be completely inscrutable to anyone who wasn't, like him, already an enlightened (Buddha-like) person.

 

So even the primary source material wasn't intended to communicate anything to lay people. The joke was on that guard.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming to be enlightened or grok Daode Jing's meaning. But "feature not bug" to me meant that Daoism is a practice, not a library exercise.

 

Now's probably a good time to leak the "secret" (it's not really a secret) that there are actually hundreds of Daoist scriptures, scores of which have been translated into and commentaried upon in English. It's not hard at all to find as much source literature as anyone could ever want on the subject of Daoism, though again it's nothing like the size of the Buddhist canon and associated analysis.

 

 

[Olallieberry]

1 hour ago, Ollie415 said:

My teachers tell me what to do, they don't really try too hard to tell me what it means.

 

1 hour ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

That is something that could be in source material.

It is.

 

It's not really in Daode Jing, but it's in plenty of other sources.

 

Daode Jing alludes to these practices but it doesn't come close to being instructions.

 

Plus you left out this part:

1 hour ago, Ollie415 said:

It's up to me to find out for myself.

That's all anyone can do. No book or teacher can stand in for the experience of practice.

 

1 hour ago, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

"That's a feature not a bug" is something I see used as a lazy non-argument

Hey, we're on the same page!

[Fraggle Underdark]

8 hours ago, Ollie415 said:

"Helpful" means, "making something easier," right? So if having lots of scripture were helpful, then Buddhist enlightenment should be fifty thousand times easier than Daoist enlightenment.

Only if you mean that source texts are helpful on a linear or greater scale. We hadn't talked at all about such a claim. Only that having more explanation is somewhat helpful. And yes, as a secular Buddhist of 20 years, I have found that extra material somewhat helpful.

 

8 hours ago, Ollie415 said:

Buddhism and Daoism have extremely similar aims and recognize each other as different paths to the same truth about humanity and the universe.

As a secular Buddhist I absolutely do not consider them the same thing nor as having a similar aim. Buddhism's primary aims were the avoidance of suffering and breaking free from reincarnation (as a secular Buddhist I care only about the first). Daoism is much more about morality and worldly results.

 

The view among historians is that Laozi (translating to something like "Wise Teacher" for those who don't know) wasn't a real person and is just the name attributed to the work that was put together by a variety of anonymous writers over a great deal of time. I assume you know that but putting that out there for others at least.

 

8 hours ago, Ollie415 said:

Now's probably a good time to leak the "secret" (it's not really a secret) that there are actually hundreds of Daoist scriptures, scores of which have been translated into and commentaried upon in English. It's not hard at all to find as much source literature as anyone could ever want on the subject of Daoism, though again it's nothing like the size of the Buddhist canon and associated analysis.

I'm thinking of two different things you might refer to. One is that Daode Jing (sometimes called Tao te Ching) is just one collection of writing of that style, and there are other somewhat similar collections of writing. Two is that a variety of Daoist thinkers have added analyses and explanation in the time since. If there are other things you're referring to I'd be genuinely curious to hear and happy to learn.

 

As for the two options I listed, neither is what I was referring to. I meant specifically extra text that helps to reveal the intended meaning of the Daode Jing. Vaguely similar texts are not helpful for that (as they were not written by the same authors or even followers of the same "school", as they were not that close). Analyses written centuries later are also not that helpful, especially given how ambiguous the Daode Jing is, as one really has to be critical in assessing how much the later writer understood the point themselves, which is particularly hard when you're trying to learn it yourself.

 

8 hours ago, Ollie415 said:

That's all anyone can do. No book or teacher can stand in for the experience of practice.

Sigh. Another aphorism about something we weren't discussing.

 

My statement is extremely simple and straightforward. And to be blunt, it's correct. That explaining the Dao is sometimes helpful. Again to be blunt, you are in a bind in disputing that. Seriously. You could take either position (that it is or isn't) but that either leads to the conclusion that there should be no teachers and you have erred in trying to explain it, or that I was correct in my simple, unobtrusive, unimportant, inoffensive statement that it would have been helpful if more source material had been collected to reveal the intended meaning, even by oblique example.

 

This discussion is a long-winded nothingburger about a simple and unimportant statement you chose to dismissively critique and then adamantly refused to walk back that critique. None of this matters or was a serious discussion, though I tried to have it be one.

 

To be clear, none of this is a personal attack, and you seem like a nice person. I've just been very disappointed by the lack of seriousness in this discussion, and expect that to continue unless you approach this discussion with a very different internal posture. (Which is hard in general, for anyone, and I do not expect it.)

[rebis]

On 1/10/2023 at 12:12 PM, - 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖑𝖊𝕽𝖔𝖈𝕶 - said:

Soo... either it's helpful to try and explain an idea to people, in which case the limited source material of Taoism is not a feature, or it's not helpful to try and explain an idea to people, in which case you're making a mistake right now

Quote

 

Chapter One

 

Tao (The Way) that can be spoken of is not the Constant Tao’

The name that can be named is not a Constant Name.

Nameless, is the origin of Heaven and Earth;

The named is the Mother of all things.

 

Thus, the constant void enables one to observe the true essence.

The constant being enables one to see the outward manifestations.

These two come paired from the same origin.

But when the essence is manifested,

It has a different name.

This same origin is called “The Profound Mystery.”

 

As profound the mystery as It can be,

It is the Gate to the essence of all life.

 

 

If it weren't helpful to talk about the Tao, the Old Man wouldn't have stopped to freestyle the Tao Te Ching in the first place.

 

But when the heart of the lesson begins by saying that the Way we can speak of is ephemeral, it does rather discourage endless talking, right? 

 

There's also:

Quote

Chapter Fifty-six

 

The wise does not speak.

He who speaks is not wise

 

The verse goes on of course, but the point is that all of these words are meant to be True. But if he who speaks is not wise, does that not apply to the Old Master, too? Was he not wise? If he was, why did he speak?

 

I kind of hear you on the lack of source material for Taoism, but as someone who will never be able to come close to reading the original words in the original language, I feel like my understanding is helped by my having read as many translations as I possibly can.  Verses can come out quite differently, depending on the translation -- so which is True?

 

Well, the Way that can be spoken of is not the constant...

[Olallieberry]

3 hours ago, rebis said:

If it weren't helpful to talk about the Tao, the Old Man wouldn't have stopped to freestyle the Tao Te Ching in the first place.

There are different ways this story is told. We usually hear that Laozi was stopped and pressed, rather than having elected to stop. Depending on the source, he either dictated or personally wrote down the Jing either to be cool, or else just get the guy who stopped him off his back and be on his way, or else in order to be allowed to pass without getting a (potentially mortally) harmful punishment as a result of ignoring the demand to share his wisdom.

 

What all the versions of the story I've seen seem to have in common are the following two points:

1, Laozi was an extremely privileged, powerful and educated government official before he left it all behind for an austere retirement to the mountains. The Imperial archivist. According to one contemporary teacher, by definition the most literate person in China at the time.

2, the person who stopped him was a former student and an Imperial guard. So, another highly privileged person, like General rank compared to the garden-variety capitol city guards, so, reading between the lines, someone who still (unlike the retired and absconding Laozi) was in a position of such great authority that he could make such a demand and such a (maybe unspoken) threat.

 

This former-student and top-ranking security official may have in fact been already enlightened (a fellow sage) by the time Laozi delivered the Jing, or may not have. He may have recognized it as a classic due to personally understanding its mysteries, or, he may have simply received it and represented it to others as a classic because a known sage wrote it.

 

To the unenlightened, the Jing was as inscrutable in its original Old Chinese language in its original era as it is today, in English and in any variety of contemporary Chinese.

 

So, with all this in mind, this freestyle act can easily be seen as having been helpful to Laozi, regardless of what it did or didn't do for any intended or unintended audience.

[rebis]

2 hours ago, Ollie415 said:

There are different ways this story is told. We usually hear that Laozi was stopped and pressed, rather than having elected to stop. Depending on the source, he either dictated or personally wrote down the Jing either to be cool, or else just get the guy who stopped him off his back and be on his way, or else in order to be allowed to pass without getting a (potentially mortally) harmful punishment as a result of ignoring the demand to share his wisdom.

 

What all the versions of the story I've seen seem to have in common are the following two points:

1, Laozi was an extremely privileged, powerful and educated government official before he left it all behind for an austere retirement to the mountains. The Imperial archivist. According to one contemporary teacher, by definition the most literate person in China at the time.

2, the person who stopped him was a former student and an Imperial guard. So, another highly privileged person, like General rank compared to the garden-variety capitol city guards, so, reading between the lines, someone who still (unlike the retired and absconding Laozi) was in a position of such great authority that he could make such a demand and such a (maybe unspoken) threat.

 

This former-student and top-ranking security official may have in fact been already enlightened (a fellow sage) by the time Laozi delivered the Jing, or may not have. He may have recognized it as a classic due to personally understanding its mysteries, or, he may have simply received it and represented it to others as a classic because a known sage wrote it.

 

To the unenlightened, the Jing was as inscrutable in its original Old Chinese language in its original era as it is today, in English and in any variety of contemporary Chinese.

 

So, with all this in mind, this freestyle act can easily be seen as having been helpful to Laozi, regardless of what it did or didn't do for any intended or unintended audience.

I think the very first verse introduces the concept of paradox, underlining its importance, and that verse 56 certainly is not the only place it is repeated.

 

From a certain perspective, a Paradox cannot be True. I think the Tao suggests that Truth and Paradox are pretty intimately acquainted.

[,.,]

Just gunna leave this here...