Kostya

Well in order to understand this thing, you first have to understand the Taoist concepts of power and weakness. In our philosophy, power and weakness are divided along a pretty obvious and clear axis, there is that which has power, and that which lack it, the weak. The powerful is defined in contrast to the weak, over which it has power, and the weak vice verse. Thus, our definition of power is the capacity to dominate or defeat that which is weaker. Now this is all well and good, but this isn’t at all the way the Taoist sees it. For the Taoist, what we see as a victory of the powerful over the weak is in fact simply the defeat of one contending power by one which is has more power in contending. Simple hard power vs. hard power, Saddam vs. US, Foreman vs. Ali etc. Now, while the Taoist would agree whole heartedly that Ali did indeed defeat Foreman, he would disagree strongly that Ali is powerful in any meaningful sense. Ali’s power was great indeed, and in contending with Foreman, Liston and a good deal of others he was victorious, but as time went on, his power, being finite and contingent waned, and he was defeated by those who had more power in contending than him, and they in turn would suffer the same fate eventually. All defeats in contending are defeats according to the Taoist, but so too are all victories, for by contending a person simply has power over those whose power is less than his, and eventually somebody greater will arrive and he too will be defeated. In contention, defeat is inevitable. Now, the Taoist sees this, and concludes that this kind of power is no kind of power at all, this kind of victory is no kind of victory at all, they are in fact transient and ephemeral, and will lead only to weakness and defeat. Real power, that which leads to victory is the power of non-contention, for only through this can one be sure of evading weakness and defeat. Non-contention however, is not to be seen as weakness in any sense of the word, weakness only arises out of contention, non-contention means that one has transcended the concept of power and weakness, victory and defeat, is above and beyond the possibility of being challenged, or challenging, beyond being defeated or victorious. All these conventional concepts are meaningless. Real victory and power comes from the complete removal of them. Thus, when a sage says he is all powerful, he is correct, for he is talking about a concept of power which is not defined by weaker/stronger relationships, or victory/defeat, he is talking about a state in which he has transcended the possibility of weakness, for all conventional power is really a degree of weakness, and all power waxes and wanes, but his is eternal and immutable in its transcendence. It is this transcendence of conventional power relationships that is the victory, for now the Taoist sage has defeated the inevitable loss which is inherent in contending with the world. You could decapitate a Taoist sage and not win, for he never contended with you, and the loss of his life was not a defeat for him for he never sought to lose it, nor did he seek to defeat you and expose himself to the inevitability of defeat. Far too often, people tend to judge esoteric concepts in Eastern religions based on logical rationalism, this is a mistake, for they seem incoherent and absurd when viewed in terms of our values, but is perfectly acceptable once it is seen in context. You are correct in saying that yes, in terms of out concept of victory the Taoist sage will never have it, and he would wholeheartedly agree with you, because for him, our concept of victory is worthless, transient and leads inevitably to defeat, he doesn’t want it.

Yes, I realize this is ridiculously short and does little justice to the complexities involved, but I’m kind of lazy.