This is a passage written by Alan Watts and is the best explanation of what Tao is and isn’t I have read, and is a good take off point to begin a discussion of Tao Te Ching.
Does this explanation help understand the enigmatic statement ,
“The Tao that can be named is not Tao�
yes it does to some extent.
I feel the most amazing things when I skateboard by myself in the middle of the night, but I can’t explain it really or fully to others, nor do I want too.
I think the tao is general truths of the universe and humanity (at least for me)
spiritual feelings have to be felt, they can’t really be explained, unless you want to drain the power from them.
Therefore the tao seems to try to retain all that is “naturally” spiritual in people.
Saying anything more about it, would only cause the lessening of it.
Somethings, just stand as they are, irresptective of symbology and constructs.
Good luck JT.
I defined Dao almost entirely from the first passage from the Daodejing.
While I use it as the introduction to a larger book that promotes the thinking of Yang Zhu, I’ll give the shortest possible conception of it possible.
I’ll start by altering the statement into a question: What thing, such as that if it becomes itself, is not itself forever? The point of this question is to show that it is ultimately an inconsistent request, since all things (objects or concepts) that become themelves will change to other things, and hence not be eternally itself (they are still subject to the process of becoming something, and hence are not eternally themselves). Thus, what we must seek is something that does not become itself and lasts forever.
Now, my arrival is longwinded, but the short answer is the process of becoming, itself. The transition of the status of a thing from one period in the past to a period after that earlier time is becoming as I intend to use it.
Can becoming ever become itself? Obviously not. Becoming is what happens to all things we perceive and know a priori, but nothing ever becomes becoming, as the becoming is collective. The only way becoming ever comes to us is by our observation of the universe, of the many things becoming one thing or another over a period of time. Hence, becoming can only be itself, but has not to become itself.
Does becoming last forever? Clearly so. Becoming occurs within and outside of our direct perception. It seems to be a staple of how we understand things being subject to time.
I concluded from this (and more elaborate conclusions) that Dao can be defined as Becoming, which when written as a noun that is not a gerund, Change, but more specifically, the collective changing of all things.
Mas,
What you say is true, and in the right place with enough time, wordless teaching is obvious. But this is neither the right place, nor will time be allowed, and so what are we to do? It is the paradox that we must use inadequate symbols, but even Lau Tzu faced this, did he not? Like Tao itself, our words are but glimpses, and as long as we can hold that, perhaps discussion of Tao De Ching is possible.
philosophmer,
You have obviously studied enough to get past traditional western constructs. In doing this, you understand the dilemma of discussing with or explaining to those who have not been exposed to the cosmological underpinnings of Tao. Stay with us, we can use all the help we can get. 
Yes. A processual universe, where becoming and returning is the endless cycle. We see patterns and order in the field (Tao) and from those patterns of potential we experience becoming as foci (that which is manifest) The implications of this understanding contradicts much of western thinking, and perhaps this is the proper beginning of discussion.
I am amazed that all that becoming was actually comprenhensible, usually when one medium to large word is repeated over and over my eyes cross and my mind goes to doze.
All matter and energy is in a constant state of flux. One must think that change is the permenant status. Which really begs the questions I have seen here. about unity and is the universe a life form of sorts… Just because we can’t wrap our minds around it, does not mean it is not possible.
Although, If change is constant for all matter and energy, what about antimatter? How about this: A god could be described as matter in its entirety and the gods opposition anti matter in its entirety.
Both changing and progressing but, are they heading towards each other or away? Which way would be cataclysmic for the universe a convergence or complete divergence?
Now since there are sentient species in the universe, what role do the sentient species play? Tao and Dao answer this in a round about way but, what are your thoughts?
Kris,
That which is manifest assumes mutual opposites. Short answer: there is no such thing as ‘matter’ without ‘antimatter’. Remember, the words are only symbols, and not the reality. Perhaps another way of explaining is to say that to the extent I describe (apply a symbol) something (matter), I have also described not-something (antimatter) One cannot exist without the other, they are co-dependent.
It seems like an explanation that is too simple, but it is critical to the understanding that no-thing stands alone, that all ‘becoming’ is connected to all other ‘becomings’. This is the underpinnings of yin - yang
Perhaps this helps explain chapter two of Tao Te Ching when speaking of human conduct:
[i]As soon as everyone in the world knows that the beautiful are
beautiful,
There is already ugliness.
As soon as everyone knows the able,
There is ineptness.
Determinancy and indeterminancy give rise to each other,
Difficult and easy complement each other,
Long and short set each other off,
High and low complete each other,
Refined notes and raw sounds harmonize with each other,
And before and after lend sequence to each other -
This is really how it all works.
It is for this reason that sages keep to service that does not entail
coercion.
And dissimenate teachings that go beyond what can be said.
In all that happens,
The sages develop things but do not initiate them,
They act on behalf of things but do not lay any claim to them,
They see things through to fruition but do not take any credit for them.
It is only because they do not take any credit for them that things do not
take their leave.[/i]
All of chapter two is directly related to the understanding that the manifest universe is the continuous interaction of mutually entailing opposites. This is quite different than the traditional western concept of god-created stand alone “things”.
tentative,
Obviously, you are correct and true.
Just as a side note, one of the things that I noticed with both martial teachers, such as Yip Man, and Taoist teachers, such as Saihung …
Often times their way of teaching was wordless. They would prefer to allow you to watch their address to the process, sometimes weeks or months at a time, and then all of a sudden one day, they ask, “What have you learned?”
Even in the east, where the language doesn’t confuse or veil the story, many fail to follow the process with awareness and understanding … because we are always waiting for the words.
Certainly here, the symbols take precedence … but it should be repeated with enumeration, (my opinion only), that the symbols will fail us all.
Hi Mas,
The words are but crutches that lead us to understanding. If our words can help find understanding then we throw away the crutches. To find understanding here is difficult, but even if some find interest to go further it is good.
Does one ever really transcend the paradox?
Duality of all life is permanent, isn’t it?
I’m struggling.
Paired opposites. Nothing “non-western” about that. I get it that whenever we define something, we are limiting the meaning of the word. Delimiting, defining. But why is there an opposite as a result?
Everything changes. I’m fine with that. I am just having trouble with the usefulness of opposites. Partly because I live in a “Newtonian” universe.
What is “anti-matter?”
Hi faust,
The opposite isn’t a result, it is an essential part of the whole. The western constructs allows only being or nothingness. The Taoist concept sees presence or absence, understanding that opposites arise together. They have to. One can not exist without the other. It is perhaps a subtle shift, but the western concept, allows “things” to exist with discrete boundaries and edges. It either is, or it isn’t. A static object. The eastern understanding is that “things” have no boundaries or edges in that they are in constant flux of ‘becoming’. It is the difference of the western concept of a created static universe and the eastern processual universe.
Have I confused you further?
A thing is always in constant interaction with all other things within its immediate environment and each interaction changes both the “thing” and all of the other things in a constant processual flow. In a sense, there is no being (static), only becoming, (processual). This was the point that philosophemer made.
To muddle this even more: If you should have two beach balls, you also have not-beach balls. The space around and between the two balls are what define (to our senses) two beach balls. Extend this to all of duality and one begins to see that it is illusory. What we see as good and evil are one, and if we see only good, it isn’t the non-existence of evil, it is a temorary non-presence of evil.
In western thinking, we attempt to have one without the other, because our static view posits the “fact” that a thing, thought, or idea stands alone. We attempt to have only good without evil, pleasure without pain, and so on…
I’ve tried to cover way too much ground here, so please catch me between leaps and I’ll try to fill gaps where I’m capable. 
The problem isn’t with Tao - it’s with me. I have abandoned paired opposites for the most part. People see them everywhere where I do not. It wasn’t a conscious effort on my part to do that, but posting on message boards has pointed this out to me. For me, it’s not the origin of the opposites that presents the problem, it’s their existence at all.
But my treatment of paired opposites is not foundational - it is a result, evidently, of my analysis. I cannot tell now if I am locked in western thought or not, because I have no concept of nothingness - I’m not even interested in it. I see only “being” (this is not quite right), and cannot fathom why it should be different.
This is one reason I am so often misunderstood, I think. There is clearly no “being” in any useful way, but only becoming. Because the universe is in flux. I just don’t see why this flux produces, in any way, opposites. Good and evil are opposites, but I have no conception of evil, and so “good” means something entirely different to me. So I have neither, not both.
To me, if I have two beach balls, I have two beach balls.
Not beachballs" means nothing to me. Can it be that I am so close to understanding that I cannot see it? Am I then further away than if I were “further away”?
I can talk nonsense, too, you know, and think it makes sense.
Perhaps you see why I intuitively read you as a “closet Taoist”. Get the translation I mentioned. Read the first 75 pages. I’m betting that you’ll run out and buy a silk robe and a new floor pillow. 
There may be a few new ways of seeing, but I’d guess you have most of it. You’ll just have to develop our inscrutable language and become a vegetarian…
tent - I am beginning to see that. But I also suspect that one can be very close to this and still be very far away, as I alluded to. I still conceive of this way of thinking as an all-or-nothing proposition - that one cannot do justice to it without a full(ish?) commitment. What interests me about this is the psychology of it. I think that a given philosophy - a given philosophical activiyy - a given “philosophising” - produces a rather specific psychological state. And that that is the purpose of philosophising (I realise that I have stated many “purposes” of philosophy, but that is perspectivism for you) - which is one reason that my post on perspectivism - the metaphorical one - was met with some blank stares.
I will endeavor to find this translation on my way back to Maine, this afternoon.
So then… what is Tao after all ?
What’s wrong with categorizing and conceptualising ? That’s who we are, that’s what we do. Why lock ourselves in the corner and refuse communication ?
You’re saying that becoming is a constant of the universe and it cannot fall under a category ? What’s that, like, Hegel ? You’re saying we can’t flesh out a dialectics here ?
You’re saying that reality eludes our categories ? That we operate with empty concepts ? That words are not indelibly linked with the object they designate and we alter what we call reality simply by observing it and filtrating it ? Fine with me, discuss, reason, infer, define, deduce. The circle of logic will lead you to the same washed-up pies in the sky you were trying to deconstruct earlier. But hey, that’s philosophy.
You’re saying I don’t understand “the tao” because I’m educated in Western tradition, prone to spot dichotomy and freeze thoughts ? What’s wrong in being a Westerner ? What’s wrong in dichotomies ? Discuss, that’s what we’re here for.
maybe that is why I love skateboarding so much . . . it is pleasure and pain almost everytime I go out. And to do it alone is the best. Skateboarding is my sacrament 
Mucius - I agree and disagree. I think freezing reality gets you nowhere, or to blatant and harmful error. Or it saves your life. Because if you save your own life, and it is due to error, that’s better than a truth that kills you.
Where I agree with you wholly is that there is nothing wrong with categories - with discernment. It’s what we do. The truth of this is not some especially accurate view of the world, but of ourselves.
I’m just all about me.
I’m not saying that you don’t understand the tao. I don’t think the universe is made up of correct philosophies and wrong ones. The tao just feels right to some, and not to others.
There is nothing wrong with being a westerner. you are what you are. If you are happy with it and the way you treat others, then there is nothing to worry about.
What you need to understand is that many taoists don’t care to talk about it, because they enjoy what they are experiencing and the perspective so much.
Those few who do want to talk about it, are only going to give their take on it.
this is my favorite translation (no tough words, just pure ideas to enjoy) thetao.info/english/english.htm