It is said that Buddha held up a flower which transmitted the teaching that uses no words. Zen Buddhism is the chief icon of this - the Buddha's 'flower teaching'. However, it is obvious that this 'simple and silent' side of Zen arose from the Taoist influence on Buddhism after it arrived in China. The synthesis of Buddhism and Taoism that resulted in Zen likely stems from their common view that desire is the root cause of 'our problem'. Buddha's view, 'let your sole desire be the performance of your duty' meshes beautifully with the Taoist view, 'the sage desires not to desire'.

'Now' is a big deal in Zen. Lately, I have been using 'now' in contrast to 'future' and 'past' a lot. I reckon we spend too much awareness (consciousness) time in the later at the expense of the former. Words and names carry us away, you know. But, let me not go over board here - an easy by-path to take. It is easy to make something a panacea,... Hallelujah!

So, let's bring the 'tao' back to 'now'. The advantage of the Taoist point of view lies in how it offers us a way to pull our perspective back from a certain 'panacea' to a more balanced point of view. In the case of 'now', all we must do is remember that 'now' and 'future' produce, complement, off-set, harmonize, follow, each other. One only has meaning in the context of the other.

To put it another way, we need to feel hunger before we can feel satiated. In the same way, work offsets rest, war offsets peace, pain offsets pleasure, life offsets death. So also, 'future' offsets 'now', 'desire' offsets 'contentment'. Offset, harmonize, complement, and so on, point to the whole, the One, the 'big' picture, both sides of the coin.

Aligning ourselves too strongly with one side just makes life feel 'out of sorts' and unbalanced. Of course, 'unbalance' produces, complements, off-sets, harmonizes, follows,... 'balance'. Aaargh, #$%@#... What are we to do? What are we to do? What - are - we - to - do?

Using words to unravel this maze is futile in the end. Therefore the sage keeps to the deed that consists in taking no action and practices the teaching that uses no words. For me, all this really says is that the 'teaching' that works lies deeper than thought and logic - down at the root, in the 'heart' of emotion where true knowing rests.

Emotion? Knowing? So we don't get stuck on these words, allow me to muddle them a little in this paraphrase: Darkly visible, [emotion] only seems as if it were there. I know not whose son it is. It images the forefather of [knowing].