On Following, Obeying, and Riding...and the problems thereof
In any belief system that is characterized by a preference for something universal, absolute, eternal, and binding of all things, always the word "follow" can be heard or seen.
ok...side note: since I'm a Catholic, officially, I'll only be taking the view of Catholicism, since that's the only religion I can honestly claim to be familiar with...although I consider myself familiar with Daoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism...
In Christianity, we say "follow the Will of God." More than that, we must "obey God" and His Church.
In Daoism, we say "Following the Dao." To follow the Dao is to have no ego, the "I" does not exist, and therefore in following the Dao I do not act...it all happens by itself, and it is good.
But...is it really "Following the Dao"?
What does it mean to follow?
And does following the Dao mean obeying the Dao and its priests as well?
Well, to follow, one must have something to follow...and of course, some distance from which, otherwise it would not be following...if I were already beside my friend, how could I follow? The only way is for him to move, thus gaining distance that I must then cover if I am to follow.
However, if I am to eternally follow, then it means that I am eternally at a distance and never in communion with it...how is following God then possible if God is omnipresent?
And if one is following the Dao, how can he be separate from it?
What is to obey? To obey, one must have a will of one's own as well as a will of another to obey...and whatever the definition, obedience is the will of the "I" conforming to the will of the other.
If so, then it is possible to not follow God, and therefore to contradict God's Will...but then this model poses problems between freedom, obedience, and salvation...
In the same light, it is therefore not possible to obey the Dao, for the Dao is not a will, and to "follow" the Dao, one has no will either...
So, to follow is to forever chase something that is fleeting, and obedience is the "I" conforming to the other.
What is to ride? To ride is to be taken by something to somewhere...and it is therefore possible to ride only by letting go...
So...the commonality of following, obeying, and riding is to be concurrent with that which is other and out of control of "I". However, what separates the first two from the last is this...following and obeying are both tensive while the third is relaxive. That is, for one to follow is to cling, for one to obey is to be held, and for one to ride is for one to let go...
On a side note, being told to "let go, give away your possessions" is an imposition, therefore a cue to obey, and not to let go.
So therefore, while I am not conerned with Christianity's problems, I do see now that to follow the Dao is not the way, or rather not the way to say "follow the Dao." To truly "follow the Dao", one must ride the Dao, allow one's self to be taken by the flow of the Way...for to follow is to cling, and to cling is to die...for to obey is to wrap one's self with another will, and thus clinging and dying...but riding is letting go, not necessarily meaning to leave behind or to pursue or to stay...it is to travel the journey one is presently taking, to be here now instead of to be in the "here and now", to live.
What of Christianity? Let us just say that we must ride the Will of God instead of obeying it...that way everyone is happy and there is no problem, and thus performs the will of God without feeling either restriction or guilt, and one is happily in the service of God and the Good News is truly spread (in contrast to one who has an agenda of "converting sinners.")
ok...side note: since I'm a Catholic, officially, I'll only be taking the view of Catholicism, since that's the only religion I can honestly claim to be familiar with...although I consider myself familiar with Daoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism...
In Christianity, we say "follow the Will of God." More than that, we must "obey God" and His Church.
In Daoism, we say "Following the Dao." To follow the Dao is to have no ego, the "I" does not exist, and therefore in following the Dao I do not act...it all happens by itself, and it is good.
But...is it really "Following the Dao"?
What does it mean to follow?
And does following the Dao mean obeying the Dao and its priests as well?
Well, to follow, one must have something to follow...and of course, some distance from which, otherwise it would not be following...if I were already beside my friend, how could I follow? The only way is for him to move, thus gaining distance that I must then cover if I am to follow.
However, if I am to eternally follow, then it means that I am eternally at a distance and never in communion with it...how is following God then possible if God is omnipresent?
And if one is following the Dao, how can he be separate from it?
What is to obey? To obey, one must have a will of one's own as well as a will of another to obey...and whatever the definition, obedience is the will of the "I" conforming to the will of the other.
If so, then it is possible to not follow God, and therefore to contradict God's Will...but then this model poses problems between freedom, obedience, and salvation...
In the same light, it is therefore not possible to obey the Dao, for the Dao is not a will, and to "follow" the Dao, one has no will either...
So, to follow is to forever chase something that is fleeting, and obedience is the "I" conforming to the other.
What is to ride? To ride is to be taken by something to somewhere...and it is therefore possible to ride only by letting go...
So...the commonality of following, obeying, and riding is to be concurrent with that which is other and out of control of "I". However, what separates the first two from the last is this...following and obeying are both tensive while the third is relaxive. That is, for one to follow is to cling, for one to obey is to be held, and for one to ride is for one to let go...
On a side note, being told to "let go, give away your possessions" is an imposition, therefore a cue to obey, and not to let go.
So therefore, while I am not conerned with Christianity's problems, I do see now that to follow the Dao is not the way, or rather not the way to say "follow the Dao." To truly "follow the Dao", one must ride the Dao, allow one's self to be taken by the flow of the Way...for to follow is to cling, and to cling is to die...for to obey is to wrap one's self with another will, and thus clinging and dying...but riding is letting go, not necessarily meaning to leave behind or to pursue or to stay...it is to travel the journey one is presently taking, to be here now instead of to be in the "here and now", to live.
What of Christianity? Let us just say that we must ride the Will of God instead of obeying it...that way everyone is happy and there is no problem, and thus performs the will of God without feeling either restriction or guilt, and one is happily in the service of God and the Good News is truly spread (in contrast to one who has an agenda of "converting sinners.")