The Gospel as Tao: Acceptance as Pu, and Apostles of Now

Under the Influence has long taught that “logos” is the equivalent of the chinese character “mu.” In other words, Logos is paradox, purposefully maintained so as to break our addiction to logic and awaken intuition.

This asks an important question, though. If Logos is paradox—the unresolved tension between speaking and silence—then what is the gospel, and how do we proclaim it?

The post “New Thoughts on Evangelization” has reminded us of the Church’s ground rules: The gospel is lived first, then preached verbally only when someone asks. Some religious communities go even further than that: the little brothers and little sisters of St. Charles de Foucault purposefully take menial jobs, and may not even tell you about Jesus when you ask.

The point, as the post said, is that "life itself preaches.” This has been a belief in the background of Under the Influence for as long as it’s existed. So I’m sort of surprised that the following statements have taken this long to formulate. The day they occurred to me, I wrote them in BIG LETTERS across my mind: THE GOSPEL IS PU. WHEN IT’S PROCLAIMED, IT’S THE TAO. [bxA]

The Tao Te Ching was written by Lao Tzu, who might have been a composite of three people, the most notable of whom might have been a 4th Century record keeper in the Chinese province of Chou. As is supported by the Tao’s focus on good governance, Chou might have been disintegrating politically. The story goes that Lao Tzu wrote the Tao in lieu of paying a tax to cross a bridge at the province’s border.

The combination of Taoist and Buddhist philosophies is what gave the world Zen Buddhism. Zen has a focus on “trying not to try,” which comes directly from the Taoist concept “wei wu wei” or “doing not doing.” The emphasis in wei wu wei is egolessness, not sedentary living. In describing wei wu wei, Taoist scholars often use the analogy of the athelete who’s so proficient that his ego drops away in mid-high jump. Under the Influence, in “Biff, Kapow, Thwap: A Study in Contemplative Attention” spoke of “passive volition.” This “being present to reality without ego" is an absolute correlation to wei wu wei.

Proclamation of the gospel is the Tao. My old mentor Chrysogonus fascinated me by telling me that, when the Gospel was translated into Chinese, “the Way”—the name for early Christianity—was translated as “Tao” and Christians were called “followers of the Tao.” It blew my little twelve year old mind.

What the Gospel proclaims is Pu, is reality, is the body of Christ. When a Christian says “Here I am” he is in harmony with how things are. His perfect acceptance would be acceptance of that thing Taoism calls “Pu.” Pu is the uncarved block. It is “things as they are.” Loss of life, loss of all feelings of communion with the Father, the feeling of his nails in his hands—all these things were ok, ultimately, because they were reality. Incarnations are dualist, so for a minute let’s be dualist and remember that reality is one of the Five Sense Organs of the Body of Christ mentioned in the Under the Influence post a couple weeks ago. It’s one of the ways God perceives us, and we, him. All that a Christian is saying is Pu, it's “how things are,” and how things are” is all a Christian is saying.

A few weeks ago, Under the Influence claimed that the first of four humble truths of Christianity is “All life is abstraction.” Even further back, Under the Influence improvised around Zen categories and outlined what happens in cognition during Contemplation and Obedience: in short, a still mind was said to be remaining at the “first theonoia” or "God thought.” A mind imposing separate labels like “Self” and “God" was at the second, and a mind weaving theories and philosophies was at the third. Under the Influence’s claim was that “Remaining in Jesus” was a matter of stilling the mind till it rests in the first theonoia. Under the Influence further said that the abstraction of the second theonoia was what made God give us “garments of flesh”—first egos, then physical incarnations. The posts took pains to remember that, with all their potential for harm, egos and bodies were a mercy: tools to return to resting in God.

The Gospel, proclaimed, is the Tao. Taking catechetical cues from Buddhism, Under the Influence suggested that “Acceptance” was the 3rd Gospel Seal—the third thing that all Christian teaching must agree with to be Christian. In the background of that post were the voices of realized beings like Maharaja-ji who turned to Ram Dass one day, remarking on the evil in the world, and said “can’t you see it’s all perfect?” Jesus was the ultimate tantric teacher. He could take the energy even of suffering and transmute it into energy of life.

Of course, we should get nitty gritty here for a minute and tackle some ways that seems not to be true. Jesus healed the sick. Wasn’t that changing “the way things are?” Jesus accepted death at the hands of his oppressors. Shouldn’t oppressed people accept their oppression and death as “the way things are?”

Hang on, because blindness is part of a larger game, and (to counter Chicago’s Chance the Rapper) Jesus’ Black Life did, in fact, matter. Jesus healed the “Man Born Blind” because it was part of that man’s purgatorial predicament to be one of those healed by Jesus, to show forth God’s power. (To digress, Ram Dass and others theorize this is one of the places in the new testament that the early Judeo Christian belief in reincarnation is in the background. When Jesus’ disciples ask “who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should have been born blind?” they’re presupposing a previous life in which the man’s purgatorial predicament could have set up “blindness as part of the next round’s purgative dance.”)

When oppressors tell the oppressed they should accept their mistreatment, it’s the second theonoia wielding its warped ego action. Jesus’ death and resurrection was completely and totally possible because he remained egoless. To be nailed on the cross was to remain at the first theonioia: he experienced his suffering willingly as suffering and it became part of his transformation. He experienced thirst as thirst and it became part of his transformation. For oppressed communities, the gospel move is to do what Shaolin Monks do in Kung Fu, what Gandhi-ji did in India: to sidestep the oppressor’s energy, continuing it on its way, and to accept and televise the oppressors denied violence until sheer dint of truth forces him to face it.

For a long time now, regardless of anything linguists would tell you, when Under the Influence said “Logos” it meant “paradox, mu.” Now, when Under the Influence says “Gospel” it means “Pu.” When Under the Influence says “Evangelization” it means “Tao.” I don’t mean to theologically equivocate here, merely to recognize in the words “Logos,” “Gospel,” and “Evangelization” the same functions as Mu (with its paradox), Pu (with its immanent perfection) and Tao (with its "speaking to what is”).

When a Christian says “Here I am” he’s proclaiming that “Here everything else is” he’s recognizing things as they are. It’s the prayer of the man who goes before God, simply as himself, whose only words are those of total acceptance. Most of us think we have to get our ducks in a row before going to God. The student of the Way has the simplest words on his lips. They’re the inner meaning of any prayer spoken from an egoless space: to wit, "This is what I’ve got.” Whatever comes out of our mouths, may it forever be saying just that.