Taking Laozi’s Dao as the Energy God: Dialogue with Laozi’s Dao in the Frameworks of Philosophy and Religion

Abstract

This article seeks to introduce a novel perspective on understanding Laozi’s Dao as the “Energy God” by engaging with existing philosophical and religious frameworks. Conceptualizing Laozi’s Dao within a philosophical framework fails to capture the fluidity, simplicity, liveliness, and directness inherent in the Daodejing. Conversely, the personification and deification of Laozi within the religious framework do not sufficiently address the formlessness and namelessness of the Dao. Retaining its original characteristics, Laozi’s Dao transcends both philosophical conceptualization and religious deification. Inspired by the term “Energy God”, two fundamental attributes of Laozi’s Dao emerge. First, Laozi’s Dao reflects a specific value judgment that consistently regards the lowly and the simple as virtuous, while perceiving the high and complex as detrimental. Second, as the Energy God, Laozi’s Dao possesses a profound power that animates and propels all things, yet resists being reduced to a mere tool. In its role as the Energy God, the Dao eludes conceptualization and objectification; it is fundamentally omnipresent throughout the universe.

1. Introduction

Among the numerous studies on the Daodejing 道德經, most can be categorized within two fundamental research paradigms: the philosophical Daoist framework and the religious Daoist framework.1 Russel Kirkland once noted that “twentieth-century scholarship developed two divergent frameworks: (1) that of ‘mainstream’ scholars, trained to understand Daoism in terms of the deeply distorted Victorian/Confucian construct; and (2) that of scholars who accepted the importance of Daozang 道藏 (the Daoist Canon)” (Kohn 2000, p. xv). The first framework, drawing on texts such as the Laozi 老子, Zhuangzi 莊子, and Liezi 列子, interprets their philosophical ideas, while the second framework, in dealing with Laozi’s Dao, emphasizes other works in the Daoist Canon. It is important to note that the philosophical framework was initially shaped by Victorian/Confucian values, but it has since expanded significantly to encompass not only Confucian philosophy and traditional Western philosophy but also modern and postmodern philosophical thought. Throughout this evolution, the dissemination and transformation of the Western concept of “philosophy” have played crucial roles (Tan and Bao 2024). Simultaneously, the religious framework has evolved beyond merely acknowledging the significance of the Daoist Canon; it now extensively integrates findings and contributions from various disciplines, including anthropology, archeology, folklore, and sociology. Therefore, the philosophical and religious frameworks discussed in this article are more extensive than those envisioned by Kirkland.

Certainly, numerous scholars have endeavored to synthesize or transcend these two frameworks, proposing a variety of alternative perspectives.2 Nevertheless, the intellectual historical significance of their contributions can only be fully appreciated when juxtaposed with these two established frameworks. For the same reason, this article attempts to propose a new way of understanding Laozi’s Dao as the “Energy God” through dialoguing with these two frameworks.

Roy Amore clarifies that the “Energy God” should not be understood as a deity in the theistic sense, as he restricts “theism” to “any attribution of some human-like agency to a deity” (Amore 2023). Through a comprehensive analysis of world religions, Amore identifies numerous alternatives to theism that have emerged throughout human history. He notes that while these alternative conceptions of God are ancient and have persisted over time, they “have been largely overlooked and appear as minority views among most of the world’s religions or spiritualities” (Amore 2023). According to Amore, the “Energy God” represents one such alternative to theism. The article endeavors to comprehend Laozi’s Dao through the lens of the “Energy God”, aiming to offer a semireligious interpretation of Laozi’s Dao that transcends the limitations of existing philosophical and religious frameworks.

The rationale for invoking the perspective of the “Energy God” lies in the limitations of both existing frameworks in comprehending Laozi’s Dao. Daoist religion, as a significant faith with considerable social influence, possesses its own collection of texts known as the Daoist Canon. However, the personification and deification of Laozi’s Dao within religious theory and practice fail to adequately capture the formless and nameless qualities inherent in Laozi’s Dao.3 Additionally, there are shortcomings in framing Laozi’s Dao within a philosophical context, as terms such as ontology and metaphysics do not align with the fluidity and liveliness characteristic of Laozi’s Dao.

The main body of this article is structured into three sections. The first two sections primarily examine the reasons why neither the philosophical Daoist framework nor the religious Daoist framework adequately encompasses Laozi’s Dao. The philosophical concepts and modes of thinking—such as philosophical conceptualization, reflection, and skepticism—fail to capture the liveliness, simplicity, and directness of Laozi’s Dao.4 Simultaneously, Daoist religion often overlooks (or neglects) the formlessness and namelessness of Laozi’s Dao, opting instead to personify and deify both Laozi and his Dao. The third section articulates the perspective of understanding Laozi’s Dao as the Energy God, demonstrating that this viewpoint offers a distinct advantage in addressing the liveliness, simplicity, and directness of Laozi’s Dao when compared to the aforementioned two frameworks. Additionally, guided by the term “Energy God”, this article explores the value implications of Laozi’s Dao, emphasizing the importance of lowness and simplicity, while also highlighting the non-instrumental nature of the Dao.

2. The Inadequacy of the Philosophical Framework in Interpreting Laozi’s Dao

Throughout much of history, the renowned text of the Laozi was primarily represented by the annotated versions of Wang Bi 王弼 (227–249) and Heshang Gong 河上公 (whose birth and death remain unknown). Notably, it was Wang Bi’s interpretation that significantly influenced the development of Daoist philosophy. Subsequent compilations of the Daodejing, such as Zhuzi Jicheng 諸子集成 (Collection of Various Schools of Thought) and Siku Quanshu 四庫全書 (The Complete Library in Four Branches of Literature), predominantly selected and preserved Wang Bi’s annotations (S. Cheng 2018; Yong and Ji 1983, p. 1078). Confucian scholars predominantly relied on Wang Bi’s annotated version, whereas religious Daoism and folk culture placed greater emphasis on the commentary of Heshang Gong. The Guodian 郭店 bamboo slips edition of the Laozi5 and the Mawangdui silk texts of the Laozi6, unearthed in the latter half of the twentieth century, were entirely unknown to the Confucian literati and Victorian intellectuals who played a significant role in the development of Daoist philosophy.

We begin by analyzing the limitations of the philosophical interpretation of Laozi’s Dao as articulated in Wang Bi’s commentary. This examination is essential, given that the philosophical interpretation of Laozi’s Dao was originally grounded in Wang Bi’s insights.

Tang Yongtong 湯用彤 (1893–1964) posits that Wang Bi’s commentary represents a shift in thought, transitioning from a cosmological or cosmogenetic perspective prevalent during the Han Dynasty to an ontological and metaphysical framework in later periods (Tang 1983, pp. 233, 264–65). This assessment by Tang has served as a foundational intellectual and historical reference for contemporary scholars engaged in philosophical interpretations of the Daodejing. Regardless of whether the Han Dynasty’s interpretation of the Daodejing is characterized as cosmological or cosmogenetic, the assertion that Wang Bi’s commentary on the Laozi is ontological and metaphysical raises several pertinent issues.

Wang Bi’s annotation to “The ten thousand living things come bursting forth and by this I see their return” 萬物並作, 吾以觀復 (Daodejing, Chapter 16)7 states: “Being8 arises out of emptiness. Movement arises out of stillness” 凡有起於虛，動起於靜 (B. Wang 1980, p. 36).9 His commentary on “The ten thousand living things of the world are born from being. Being is born from non-being” 天下萬物生於有，有生於無 (Daodejing, Chapter 40)10 articulates: “All things of the world take being as their life, [but] that which begins being takes non-being as the root.”11 天下之物，皆以有為生。有之所始，以無為本 (B. Wang 1980, p. 110). These two examples illustrate that Wang Bi considers wu 無 (non-being), xu 虛 (emptiness), and jing 靜 (stillness) to be the most fundamental terms.

It should be stressed that in Wang Bi’s view, non-being, emptiness, and stillness are all synonymous with the Dao. Iso Kern once stated explicitly: “According to Wang Bi, the cause (root: ben) of natural beings and the cause of cultural achievements (especially political-ethical culture) should be the formless and nameless, the Dao, the nothingness, the emptiness, the stillness” (Kern 1990, p. 85).12 In summary, Wang Bi’s viewpoint is that all things of the world take their lives in the realm of being; being has its life in non-being and takes non-being as the root. Non-being is the ben 本 (root); the rest is the mo 末 (branch).

Contemporary scholars, following the path established by Wang Bi and influenced by Western philosophy, have undertaken further philosophical interpretations of the Daodejing. For example, Fung Yu-Lan (1895–1990) employed the logical relationship between universals and individuals to elucidate the connection between the unnamable (the root) and the namable (the branch) (Fung 1976, pp. 94–95). According to Fung Yu-Lan’s interpretation, being can be seen as the universal of all individual things in the world, but non-being is more fundamental than being. However, non-being does not belong to universals because universals are namable, although they also go beyond individual forms. Universals possess conceptual stipulations that can be demonstrated through their extension. In contrast, non-being is entirely formless, lacking any extension, and is therefore unnamable. Fung Yu-Lan utilized the concepts of universals and logic to elucidate key Daoist ideas. Although he did not explicitly conceptualize “non-being”, the methodologies he employed are inherently conceptual and logical.

In comparison to the original text of the Daodejing, Wang Bi’s commentary appears to employ the character sheng 生with greater caution. Within his annotations, Wang Bi articulates that “All things of the world take being as their life” 天下之物，皆以有為生 (B. Wang 1980, p. 110). He further asserts that “Being arises out of emptiness” 有起於虛 (B. Wang 1980, p. 36), and “that which begins being takes non-being as the root” 有之所始，以無為本 (B. Wang 1980, p. 110). Notably, the phrase “being is born from non-being” 有生於無is absent from Wang Bi’s commentary, suggesting that he deliberately avoids addressing the cosmogenetic implication of “born from non-being.”

The phrase “Being arises out of non-being” is not synonymous with “being is born from non-being” and allows for conceptual interpretations. Following Fung Yu-Lan’s line of reasoning, one may interpret “non-being” in the statement “being arises out of non-being” as signifying “first in a logical sense” (Fung 1976, p. 96); that is, non-being serves as a conceptual “prior” rather than representing an actual, cosmological origin.

Nevertheless, according to Fung Yu-Lan, Wang Bi’s exegesis remains lacking in philosophical conceptualization, and his commentary still retains some elements of cosmology. From the standpoint of modern physics, Laozi’s cosmology is inevitably imbued with mysticism. Wang Bi does exhibit a pronounced cosmogenetic perspective. For instance, his annotation to Chapter 34, “The ten thousand living things depend on it for their birth, but it does not speak” 萬物恃之而生而不辭,13 is rendered as “all things are born from the Dao”14 萬物皆由道而生 (B. Wang 1980, p. 86). In the opinion of typical Daoist philosophers, it is essential to provide a more comprehensive ontological explanation and a more conceptual approach to Laozi’s Dao in order to mitigate the mysticism inherent in the cosmological interpretation of the Daodejing.

Furthermore, Wang Bi’s interpretation of ben (root) and xing er shang 形而上 (beyond the form) significantly diverges from the concepts of “ontology” and “metaphysics” as understood in the tradition of the Aristotelian philosophy. Based on the Aristotelian tradition, metaphysics is primarily devoted to the study of the eternal being behind sensible things. Western metaphysics has long manifested itself as an ontology because it takes being as the ground behind fluxing things and makes the study of such being its primary focus (Aristotle 1998, p. 156; Ritter and Gründer 1980, p. 1188).

As previously discussed, Wang Bi perceives the root as non-being, nothingness, or emptiness, rather than as being. In other words, he posits non-being as the foundational principle. In this regard, Wang Bi’s interpretation does not align with ontology; rather, it constitutes a theoretical framework that prioritizes non-being as its core principle. Heidegger has critiqued Western philosophy for reducing being (Sein) to beings (Seiendes) (Heidegger 1967, p. 4). Consequently, Heidegger’s notion of being, which resists objectification or conceptualization and is thus intimately connected to nothing (Nichts), may bear a closer resemblance to Wang Bi’s notion of non-being/nothing. However, it is crucial to note that Heidegger’s being is phenomenological in nature, whereas Wang Bi’s non-being/nothing is more metaphysical, with metaphysics here understood as a theoretical foundation for concrete entities.

If metaphysics is conceptualized as the quest for an eternal being or idea that transcends the physical realm, then Wang Bi’s perspective reveals a notable absence of metaphysical inquiry. From this standpoint, the concepts of xing er shang and metaphysics are fundamentally disparate. In the Chinese classical texts, xing er shang first appears in the Zhouyi 周易 (Book of Changes). Although Wang Bi produced an annotated and commented version of the Book of Changes, he refrained from commenting on this expression during its initial occurrence in the chapter “Xici Shang 系辭上.” However, he later elaborated on the phrase in the chapter “Xici Xia 系辭下” by referencing the well-known statement “the Dao is what is beyond the form” 形而上者況之道 (B. Wang 1980, p. 563).15 It indicates that Wang Bi concurs with the notion that the Dao is “beyond the form”, signifying that the Dao is formless. Wang Bi’s emphasis on non-being/nothing and emptiness stands in stark contrast to the Western preoccupation with eternal being or ideas from the outset. Furthermore, Wang Bi endeavors to establish a foundation for the ethics and politics of Confucianism through the lens of non-being. His annotations predominantly focus on ethical and political dimensions. Thus, it can be concluded that Wang Bi does not espouse a purely metaphysical ontology.16

It is important to note that, according to the school concept (Schulbegriff) of philosophy, philosophy is defined as a system of rational knowledge grounded in concepts (Ritter and Gründer 1989, pp. 714–715). Under this premise, the Daodejing cannot be classified as a philosophical work. This perspective echoes Derrida’s assertion that “China had no philosophy, only thought” (Wang 2002). If concept-based logical reasoning and analysis are deemed essential to philosophy, as posited by analytical philosophy, then it follows that Laozi’s thought similarly lacks these philosophical methodologies.

Subsequently, New Daoist philosophy17 seeks to comprehend Laozi’s Dao or the Daodejing through a more expansive lens of philosophy. These New Daoist philosophers not only transcend the annotations and interpretations of the Daodejing provided by Confucianism but also move beyond the ontological and metaphysical interpretations of Laozi’s Dao. They have identified numerous distinctive characteristics of Laozi’s Dao that diverge from previous understandings: it is neither metaphysical nor aligned with xing er shang; it is neither cosmological nor ontological. The original Dao of Laozi may have been more focused on worldly affairs, emphasizing bodily cultivation and longevity (Michael 2022, p. 45), as well as ethical and political issues. However, the ethical and political concerns of Daoism differ fundamentally from those of Confucianism, as they embody a distinctly nature-oriented conception of ethics and politics, thereby possessing a meta-ethical dimension (Lai 2006, pp. 83–105; Deng 2021).

However, the endeavors undertaken by these New Daoist philosophers, each pursuing distinct approaches of inquiry, have demonstrated the inherent challenges in providing a comprehensive and satisfactory interpretation of Laozi’s Dao within the confines of traditional philosophical frameworks. As Brook Ziporyn astutely observed, “Daoism really doesn’t fit neatly into any preexisting philosophical or cultural category” (Ziporyn 2003, p. 3).

3. The Inadequacy of the Religious Framework in Grasping Laozi’s Dao

We now examine the study of Laozi’s Dao within the context of religious framework, as well as the primary limitations of this framework in elucidating Laozi’s Dao. Daoist religion is considered an indigenous religion in China. It is generally believed to have originated from the wudoumi dao 五斗米道 (the Way of the Five Pecks of Rice)18 founded by Zhang Daoling 張道陵 (34–156) in the Eastern Han Dynasty (25–220) (Ren 1990, pp. 31–41). The Way of the Five Pecks of Rice is also known as Tianshi dao 天師道 (the Way of the Celestial Masters). It regards Laozi as its founder and respectfully refers to him as Taishang Laojun 太上老君 (the Grand Supreme Elderly Lord). The Daodejing is revered as its most important scripture. Zhang Daoling, known as Zhang Tianshi 張天師 (the Celestial Master Zhang), claimed himself to be a disciple of the Grand Supreme Elderly Lord and that he was ordered to preach in the human world. As can be seen, the Way of the Five Pecks of Rice has deified Laozi and merged his thoughts with the ancient ethic and folk religions (Ren 1990, p. 7; Hartz 2009, p. 69)

The Way of the Celestial Masters possesses a commentary on the Daodejing, namely, Laozi Xiang’er Zhu 老子想爾註 (Xiang’er Commentary to the Laozi),19 which is widely believed by scholars to have been authored by Zhang Daoling’s grandson Zhang Lu 張魯. In Xiang’er Commentary to the Laozi, Zhang Lu calls the Dao “the One”. “Nothingness”, “nature (ziran)”, and “namelessness” all refer to the same thing as “the One.” Zhang Lu claims, “Nothingness, nature, namelessness, no matter how different these names may be, their referents are all the same” 或言虛無，或言自然，或言無名，皆同一耳 (Jao 1956, p. 13).20 In addition, Zhang Lu’s commentary highlights “qi 氣.”21 He writes, “The scattered form of the One is qi; the gathered form of it is Taishang Laojun, and he constantly governs Kunlun Mountain” 一散形為氣，聚形為太上老君，常治昆侖 (Jao 1956, p. 13). It can be seen that in this book, the Dao is both personified and deified.

The Xiang’er Commentary to the Laozi associates Laozi’s Dao with precepts, marking a significant step in the indoctrination of Laozi’s teachings. Similarly to the Vinaya in Buddhism, practitioners are required to adhere to these precepts. Observing the precepts entails upholding and safeguarding the Dao, which is synonymous with maintaining the One. Zhang Lu states, “Today, I preach and admonish, teaching people to abide by the precepts without violating them. This is to uphold the One” 今佈道誡，教人守誡不違，即為守一矣 (Jao 1956, p. 13).

Furthermore, the Xiang’er Commentary to the Laozi contains numerous promotions and promises of immortality. When Zhang Lu interprets the passage, “The reason why heaven is long and earth is lasting is that they do not live for themselves. This is why they are able to be long and lasting” 天地所以能長且久者，以其不自生，故能長生 (Daodejing, chapter 7),22 he remarks: “If one is able to follow the Dao, then one can live for oneself and achieve longevity” 能法道, 故能自生而長久也 (Jao 1956, p. 10). In his commentary on the line, “Is it not because he has no self-interest that he is able to realize his self-interest?” 非以其無私邪, 故能成其私 (Daodejing, chapter 7),23 he states: “People do not understand the Dao of longevity. They follow their physical bodies rather than the Dao. Therefore, if a Daoist attains immortality and longevity, he does not follow his body, which distinguishes him from the ordinary path, allowing him to preserve his body and become immortal” 不知長生之道。身皆屍行耳，非道所行，悉屍行也。道人所以得仙壽者，不行屍行，與俗別異，故能成其屍，令為仙士也 (Jao 1956, p. 11).

In this context, a comparison with Wang Bi’s commentary reveals notable distinctions. Wang Bi interprets the passage “The reason why heaven is long and earth is lasting is that they do not live for themselves. This is why they are able to be long and lasting” (Daodejing, chapter 7), as follows: “Should they live for their own interests, they would struggle with things. As they do not live for their own interests, the things return to themselves”24 自生則與物争,不自生則物歸也 (B. Wang 1980, p. 19). Furthermore, his commentary on the phrase “the Sage marginalizes his body but his body is first, and disregards his body yet his body lasts. Is it not because he has no self-interest that he is able to realize his self-interest?” 是以聖人後其身而身先，外其身而身存。非以其無私邪, 故能成其私 (Daodejing, chapter 7)25 is articulated as: “ Those who have no self-interest do nothing for their own bodies. Their bodies will excel and their bodies will last. So, it is said that they can realize their self-interest”26 無私者，無為於身也。身先身存，故曰，能成其私也 (B. Wang 1980, p. 19). Notably, Wang Bi does not address the notions of immortality or longevity in his commentary. It is particularly significant that the term “immortal” is entirely absent from Wang Bi’s entire exposition.

The Xiang’er Commentary to the Laozi is included in the Daoist Canon. Its content order is deeply influenced by the textual form of the Laozi annotated by Heshang Gong. While the status of Laozi and his Dao has evolved within Daoism,27 the connection between Laozi’s Dao and the notion of attaining immortality has been increasingly reinforced. The Qingjingjing 清靜經, a text within the Daoist Canon, states: “If the ablest student comprehends the Dao, he will be promoted to the position of Heavenly Official; if a mediocre student practices the Dao, he will become one of the immortals in the Southern Palace; if the dullest student obtains the Dao, he will live a long life, march through the three realms, and ascend to the Golden Gate” 上士悟之，升為天官；中士修之，南宮列仙；下士得之，在世長年，遊行三界，升入金門 (Du 2004, pp. 10–11). It is important to note that achieving immortality does not necessarily imply ascending to the heavenly realm. For instance, Ge Hong 葛洪 (283–363) categorized immortals into three types: tianxian 天仙 (celestial immortals), dixian 地仙 (earthbound immortals), and shijiexian 尸解仙 (corpse-transcending immortals) (Ge 1980, p. 18).28

It is evident that irrespective of various interpretations and practices, the aspiration to attain immortality remains the paramount concern within the framework of religious Daoism. This pursuit not only reflects the fundamental beliefs of the Daoist religion but also underscores the significance of transcending the mortal realm in the quest for eternal existence. The emphasis on immortality serves as a central tenet that shapes the rituals, teachings, and overall worldview of Daoist practitioners.

The preceding quotation and analysis indicate that the religious framework is not particularly compatible with Laozi’s Dao. Central to Laozi’s Dao are the notions of ziran 自然, which denotes nature or self-so-ness, and wuwei 無為, which signifies inaction (no intervention). When the pursuit of immortality is elevated to the primary objective of the Dao, it diverges from the principles of self-so-ness, and practitioners of Daoism cease to embody the state of nonaction.29 In the Xishengjing 西升經 (Western Ascension Sutra), it is asserted that “my destiny is determined by me, not by heaven or earth” 我命在我，不屬天地 (Chen 2004, p. 281). This statement underscores the belief in individual agency and self-determination, suggesting that one’s fate is not subject to external cosmic forces. Furthermore, the practices of danding 丹鼎 and the use of talismans, which can be characterized as non-natural or even counter to natural principles, hold significant importance within the framework of religious Daoism. Fung Yu-Lan once criticized: “Daoism as a philosophy teaches the doctrine of following nature, while Daoism as a religion teaches the doctrine of working against nature” (Fung 1976, p. 3).

4. Energy God: A Semireligious Interpretation of Laozi’s Dao

Roy Amore highlights that alternatives to theism are often overlooked in the study of religion and theology. In light of this, Amore emphasizes that there are “other views of God, such as where God is understood as the deep energy of the universe, or a cosmic spirit in all things, or in some other way” (Amore 2023). This perspective encourages us to explore Laozi’s Dao in a semireligious context that transcends the conventional boundaries of Daoist philosophy and religion. It is worth mentioning here that Dao and energy indeed suggest a certain connection. Livia Kohn has interpreted qi 氣 as subtle energy, describing it as the concrete aspect of the Dao (Kohn 2016, p. 21). Furthermore, according to Livia Kohn, qi is not merely ordinary air; it can also include sound, light, electromagnetism, and even the subatomic things of quantum physics (Kohn 2016, pp. 23–31).

As previously analyzed, both frameworks encounter significant challenges. Zhang Lu’s inclination to personify and deify Laozi’s Dao distinctly diverges from the Dao’s inherent formlessness and namelessness. This deviation is perpetuated by the subsequent development of Daoist religion. In contrast, New Daoist philosophy, with its adaptable interpretation of philosophical concepts, can effectively illuminate various aspects of Laozi’s Dao. However, since the essence of philosophy inherently involves logical reasoning and necessitates reflection and skepticism, New Daoist philosophy struggles to adequately defend the religious characteristics (such as faith and practice) and the vitality of Laozi’s Dao. Hans-Georg Moeller and Paul J. D’Ambrosio broaden the understanding of philosophy in a manner that transcends conventional and rational boundaries, thereby advocating for the establishment of a New Daoist philosophy (Moeller and D’Ambrosio 2017, p. 185). Similarly, we can transcend the personification of deities and the constraints of institutionalized religion to expand their comprehension of religion, thereby creating new avenues for interpreting Laozi’s Dao in a semireligious context. Here, semireligious denotes an alternative approach that surpasses philosophical reliance on concepts and logic while circumventing the institutional limitations of Daoist religion. This perspective fosters dialog with established frameworks in both philosophical and religious Daoism.

The term of the Energy God proposed by Amore offers a new path for understanding Laozi’s Dao. Amore introduces the term “Energy God” in his discussion of the Indian term Nirguna Brahman, stating: “This Nirguna Brahman is not confined to our human concepts such as Father, Creator, Lord, Almighty, Truth, Goodness or even Eternal. The Nirguna Brahman is the ultimate god, beyond direct knowledge. [...] Shankara’s Nirguna Brahman is the essence, or energy, of the universe. It is what I call the Energy God” (Amore 2023). Many of Amore’s observations regarding Shankara’s Nirguna Brahman are inspiring and can be innovatively applied to clarify Laozi’s Dao. For instance, regardless of the variations and commentaries on the Daodejing, Laozi’s Dao is regarded as transcending propositional knowledge. It is not a form of conceptual knowledge, and rational reasoning cannot fully grasp it. In this respect, it fundamentally differs from Plato’s ideas. Wang Bi also advises individuals to “forget the words after getting the image” 得象而忘言 and “forget the image after getting the meaning” 得意而忘象 (B. Wang 1980, p. 609). This suggests that in the pursuit of the Dao, one must ultimately relinquish words, images, and even meanings, as the Dao cannot be confined to a specific interpretation. Similarly, Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism emphasizes the importance of experiential understanding and practice over mere conceptual knowledge.30 While Western philosophy prioritizes logic and concepts, when engaging with Laozi’s Dao, one should first approach these elements with caution.

Nevertheless, the primary aim of this article is not to employ Shankara’s notion of Nirguna Brahman as a means to elucidate Laozi’s Dao; rather, it seeks to utilize the guiding term “Energy God” to illuminate specific characteristics inherent in Laozi’s Dao. The term “God” within the phrase “Energy God” serves as a reminder to uphold a religious consciousness, indicating that the analysis presented here transcends both the purely philosophical and the institutionalized religious interpretations.

In many ways, the Daodejing does not function as a traditional philosophical text. Despite the existence of various annotated versions, the Daodejing contains elements of instruction and guidance for the rulers, as illustrated by the statement, “Were princes and kings able to preserve it, the ten thousand living things would spontaneously transform” 侯王若能守之, 萬物將自化 (Daodejing, chapter 37).31 Additionally, it asserts that “Princes and kings attained the One and became the standards for the empire” 侯王得一, 以為天下貞 (Daodejing, chapter 39).32

Furthermore, Laozi’s Dao is not understood as a mere concept or idea; it functions within the realm of reality. In this regard, Laozi’s Dao is “concrete”, rather than abstract or theoretical. In other words, the Dao does not represent the ultimate concept. A pragmatic adherence to the Dao, as opposed to a purely conceptual comprehension, aligns more closely with the traditional Chinese paradigm of thought. Consequently, the philosophical approach represented by Fung Yu-Lan may have diverged from the essence of Laozi’s Dao from the outset.

Energy is omnipresent, and designating it as God reflects a deep respect and acknowledgment of its all-encompassing nature. Contemporary physics posits that all matter contains energy. Even a vacuum is not truly empty; it is filled with various fields and quantum fluctuations, where particles are perpetually created and annihilated (Hawking 1989, p. 112). Furthermore, not all matter and energy in the universe can be quantified, as it also includes substantial amounts of dark matter and dark energy. According to quantum physics, the energy-filled universe is fundamentally interconnected, yet the precise interactions within the universe transcend the limits of human observation (Capra 1975, p. 137). Our current understanding of energy is still limited; therefore, we might adopt a phrase similar to that of the Daodejing and state: I do not know its name; I provisionally refer to it as energy.

Certainly, Laozi’s understanding of the Dao fundamentally differs from the specific characterization of energy in contemporary physics. In this context, our goal is not to use modern physics to provide a comprehensive scientific explanation of Laozi’s Dao. Instead, we aim to draw on specific insights and conclusions from modern science to help illuminate Laozi’s Dao.33 However, we do not restrict our understanding of the Dao to the boundaries set by contemporary science. Livia Kohn effectively employs this approach in her work titled Science and the Dao (Kohn 2016). It is important to note that there does exist a similarity between Laozi’s Dao and the concept of energy flow. In this context, we define “energy flow” as the dynamic and self-so movement of energy, encompassing various potential forms of energy, both visible and invisible. Drawing inspiration from the term “Energy God”, we will elucidate two fundamental characteristics of Laozi’s Dao.

Firstly, Laozi’s understanding of the Dao encompasses a unique value judgment that consistently perceives the lowly and the simple as virtuous, while viewing the high and complex as detrimental.34 According to contemporary particle physics, a particle achieves maximum stability when it is in its lowest energy state (Feynman et al. 1963, pp. 2–7). Notably, in the Daodejing, Laozi extols the virtues of water for its tendency to flow to lower elevations. This behavior starkly contrasts with that of humans, who often strive for higher positions. Laozi states, “The highest excellence is like water. Water excels at benefiting the ten thousand living things while not competing against them” 上善若水, 水善利萬物而不爭 (Daodejing, chapter 8).35 Similarly, Laozi praises the valley, referring to it as gushen谷神 (valley god) (Daodejing chapter 6). He advises, “To know glory yet preserve disgrace is to be the valley of the world. Being the valley of the world, his constant de is sufficient and he returns to simplicity” 知其榮, 守其辱, 為天下谷. 為天下谷, 常德乃足, 復歸於樸 (Daodejing, chapter 28).36 Laozi promotes simplicity, asserting that the simpler things are, the more resilient they become and that the simplest entities cannot be subdued. He remarks, “The Dao is constantly without name. In its simplicity it is small, yet the world does not dare to put it into its service” 道常無名, 樸雖小, 天下莫能臣也 (Daodejing, chapter 32).37

In this context, Laozi appears to propose a principle that contemporary individuals frequently neglect—the simpler the structure of an object, the greater its stability and durability. Conversely, as the complexity of the structure increases, its fragility also escalates, rendering it less likely to withstand the test of time and more susceptible to destruction. In summary, simplicity is inherently more advantageous.

Numerous contemporary scientific findings can be interpreted as corroborating Laozi’s perspective. For instance, atoms with more intricate structures exhibit a greater propensity for decay, advanced organisms are more vulnerable to unforeseen diseases, and complex societies tend to be significantly more fragile (Yang 1994, p. 19; D. Wang 2015, pp. 27–28; Tainter 1988, p. 55). As a result, Laozi encourages individuals to return to a “natural civilized state”38 and to adopt a lifestyle characterized by simplicity in all dimensions. He vividly illustrates an ideal state of relations: “Neighboring states will look upon each other and hear each other’s chickens and dogs. The people will die of old age without interacting with each other” 鄰國相望, 雞犬之聲相聞, 民至老死不相往來 (Daodejing, chapter 80).39

Building upon this line of thinking, Laozi’s critique of knowledge can be more effectively justified, as the complexity and precision of a knowledge system render it increasingly artificial. To uphold the accuracy and internal consistency of such a system, it necessitates continual refinement, conceptual revisions, and axiomatization. Ultimately, this knowledge system becomes detached from reality, existing solely as a logically coherent construct within its own framework. Einstein once said: “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality” (Einstein 2010, p. 371).

However, individuals who adhere to this knowledge system often employ it to misinterpret the realities of the world and, in some cases, to impose forceful transformations upon it, thereby causing harm to both nature and society. In light of this context, Laozi’s assertion, “Eliminate sagehood and reject intelligence, then the people will benefit one hundred times over” 絕聖棄智, 民利百倍 (Daodejing, chapter 19),40 becomes readily comprehensible. Furthermore, the phrase “He constantly brings the people to be without knowledge and without desires” 常使民無知無欲 (Daodejing, chapter 3)41 should not be interpreted merely as a strategy employed by rulers to deceive the populace.

In the context of the Dao as the Energy God, its existence is not predicated on intricate and precise knowledge; rather, such complexity and precision are often the most distant from the Dao. Laozi’s Dao is not validated through meticulously designed experiments, as the Dao does not conform to any established concept or idea. The existence of the Dao frequently reveals itself through its opposition to preexisting knowledge and human volition. Consequently, individuals should refrain from attempting to dominate and control nature through precise knowledge; instead, they should relinquish knowledge and will in order to align themselves with the self-so-ness of the Dao. Laozi asserts, “For this reason the Sage carries out the non-intentional project, and moves in wordless teachings. The ten thousand living things come to life, but he doesn’t speak” 是以聖人處無為之事, 行不言之教, 萬物作焉而不辭 (Daodejing, chapter 2).42 The optimal condition for humanity is to remain unaware of the self-so flow of the Dao. Only in this manner can individuals genuinely act in accordance with the Dao, which Laozi refers to as wuwei (inaction). As noted in Wang Bi’s commentary, “All things are born from the Dao. But, although they are born, they do not know where they come from. Therefore, when all things in the world are constantly without desire, they have their own place”43 萬物皆由道而生，既生而不知所由，故天下常無欲之時，萬物各得其所 (B. Wang 1980, p. 86).

Secondly, as the Energy God, Laozi’s Dao possesses inherent power; in other words, it serves as the fundamental source that instigates movement and animates all things. However, this power cannot be reduced to a mere instrument for manipulation.

We have observed that Laozi’s Dao embodies qualities of humility and simplicity, and it is precisely these attributes that have fostered its stability and enduring nature. Furthermore, this humble and simple Dao possesses significant power; it operates continuously and ubiquitously, regardless of time or place. Laozi states, “The Dao is constantly non-intentional yet nothing is left undone” 道常無為, 而無不為 (Daodejing, chapter 37).44 He also notes, “The Dao is constantly without name. In its simplicity, it is small, yet the world does not dare to put it into its service” 道常無名, 樸雖小, 天下莫能臣也 (Daodejing, chapter 32).45 The influence of the Dao permeates the entire universe, and nothing can surpass its power.

The term “energy” is derived from the Greek phrase “en ergon”, which translates to “to do work.” In accordance with principles of physics, it is understood that the act of performing work corresponds to a change in kinetic energy. Consequently, all transformations are fundamentally rooted in variations in energy. In the absence of energy flow within the universe, all existence would cease. Notably, while energy is omnipresent, it is not uniformly distributed throughout the universe, necessitating the existence of energy flow. In other words, the discrepancies in energy distribution across the universe serve as the fundamental basis for all motion and forces.

In light of this, individuals must align themselves with the self-so flow of energy within the universe rather than oppose it. Disregarding this energy flow can result in significant consequences. In this context, Laozi’s Dao, understood as the Energy God, cannot be treated as a mere instrument; individuals cannot leverage it to fulfill personal ambitions unless such ambitions are in harmony with the energy flow. In other words, Laozi’s Dao cannot be arbitrarily controlled or utilized as a tool. Laozi also employs the character “yong” 用 in the Daodejing. In Wang Bi’s commentary, he frequently uses “yong.” However, upon closer examination, their “yong” is not an instrumental utilization of the Dao but rather an adaptation to the Dao.

Individuals must not only acclimate themselves to known energy flows, such as the cyclical patterns of spring, summer, autumn, and winter, but they must also cultivate the ability to adapt to potential energy flows that may emerge in the future. Laozi says, “[The Sage] acts on [threats] before they manifest, and manages [threats] before they cause chaos” 為之於未有, 治之於未亂 (Daodejing, chapter 64).46 An individual possesses true power only when they align with the energy flow, and they exhibit wisdom only when they can anticipate future energy dynamics. In this regard, Laozi’s Dao should not be perceived as a sovereign entity governed by notions of good and evil or absolute authority. Rather, Laozi’s Dao remains indifferent to human aspirations and struggles, and it does not conform to human moral standards or immoral conduct. “The Dao is modeled on what is so of itself” 道法自然 (Daodejing, chapter 25).47 “Heaven and Earth are not benevolent. They regard the thousand living things as straw dogs” 天地不仁, 以萬物為芻狗 (Daodejing, chapter 5).48

5. Conclusions

Laozi’s Dao, distinguished by its intrinsic liveliness, simplicity, and directness, has consistently eluded both philosophical conceptualization and religious deification. In this regard, interpreting Laozi’s Dao as the Energy God offers a compelling perspective. The Energy God transcends mere conceptualization or a specific manifestation of physical energy; it is truly omnipresent throughout the universe. Given its all-encompassing nature, it is fitting to describe the Energy God as formless and nameless. It should be emphasized that, from the perspective of the Energy God, the Daodejing distinctly exhibits a non-philosophical character. It is replete with non-conceptual expressions that offer practical guidance for living, urging individuals to engage in its practice. In this context, we assert that the Daodejing lacks constructive ideals. The frameworks of cosmology, cosmogenesis, ontology, metaphysics, as well as ethics, and political philosophy, are insufficient to encapsulate Laozi’s Dao. Furthermore, the Daodejing is abundant with metaphors pertaining to bodily organs and reproduction, which at times advocate the advantages of aligning with the Dao. This further reveals its non-philosophical intentions.

Finally, it is important to clarify that the existence of preexisting philosophical interpretations of the Daodejing does not render them devoid of significance. Nor does it imply that scholars are precluded from exploring the text through alternative philosophical lenses. In this context, our attempt represents a preliminary exploration of Laozi’s Dao, approached from a semireligious standpoint through the lens of the Energy God. This interpretation, while innovative, does not assert the superiority of the Energy God framework over the previously established philosophical paradigms. Rather, it seeks to contribute to the ongoing discourse surrounding the Daodejing by offering a distinct perspective that emphasizes the living and energetic dimensions of Laozi’s Dao. Such an approach invites further scholarly engagement and dialog, encouraging a multifaceted understanding of the text that encompasses both its philosophical and religious implications.

In contemporary society, there is a tendency for individuals to view certain scientific conclusions as absolute truths, often leading to the perception that scientific methodologies and religious faith are fundamentally at odds. This mindset may hinder our cognitive readiness to recognize energy as a divine entity. Given the detrimental effects of human obstinacy on our living environment, should we not prioritize a respectful acknowledgment of the self-so flow of energy within the universe?

Understanding Laozi’s Dao as the Energy God could revitalize certain beliefs and practices in a semireligious way, even in the context of modern scientific understanding. This interpretation not only bridges the gap between spirituality and science but also encourages a harmonious relationship with the natural world, fostering a deeper appreciation for the interconnectedness of all existence.