YMWong

Dear SYD, the terms Daojia (Dao School) and Daojiao (Dao Tradition/Religion) have been used interchangeably throughout chinese history and only more recently it has been claimed, by those outside the tradition, that the two things are different i.e. Daojia a pure, philosophical and/or mystical tradition while Daojiao a later corrupted religious belief. This said, however, it is true that all along chinese history there has been a lot of people who were attracted by one or more *components* of the Daoist Tradition. There is plenty of evidence of Confucians, Literate and common people who were fervent students/pratictioners of Fengshui, Yijing reading, meditation or other daoistic activities. Some of them simply learned *by themselves* through reading of classical literature, exploration of human mind etc. while others practiced specific skills under actual Daoists (Daoshi). These people are, in my opinion, as close as it comes to modern 'western daoists' Needless to say, none of them claimed to be a 'daoist' (daoshi), none used to hold seminars wearing funny hats and costumes or boasted holding lineages of 7000 generations. They simply did as they pleased, cultivated their hobbies and interests some to an actual high level. After all in chinese society, in the past as today, there are thousands of people who *believe in Dao* (xin Dao) and regularly go to the temples, pray the Daoist gods and follow *some* daoist rules. Most of them have no idea about Daoism: you could change the temple sculpture of Laozi with a Buddha and they wouldn't notice the difference. If you ask them why they go to a specific temple they'll reply that's because that specific deity is 'ling' and can bring blessing. Change is in the nature of everything, as you righly say, and Daoism do not escape from this Rule. As a matter of facts Daoism has been changing dramatically during the last 2000 years. But changes can and do come from within the tradition and cannot possibly come from the outside. If I am a chef and I learn from somebody who knows it how to make a pizza with time my *recipe* might naturally change or, at a certain time, I can actually and consciously improve it. But for somebody who has never been in a kitchen and was not taught about pizza - how can he change it ? He is not changing the pizza recipe, he is making up something with his preconceived notions of what a pizza should be and selling it as a pizza. What's more in many cases he is selling it as an original recipe learned from an italian chef, maybe claiming of having lived in Naples for 3 generations, speaking with a fake southern italian accent .... I am sure that ANYBODY can be a good chef, even a gifted one and maybe without training. Anybody can make great dishes and find lots of people that would enjoy them ... but that's a different story. And now all this pizza talk is getting me hungry ... YM

Very good comments to which I fully agree. Daoism, as one can see in Saso's article posted, is fundamentally an Oral Tradition. So, yes, you don't need to "read" the classics but you MUST have somebody explaining them (their core, that is) to you. So an illiterate can learn and become a Daoist, even in chinese sense of the term, and he will be taught to memorize some texts - exactly like anybody else. In Daoism there are 'Three Treasures' and these are: Dao 道、Jing (scriptures) 經、Master 師. The Scriptures simply stands for the Tradition as passed down from previous generations. YM

Yes, I fully agree with your point of view. And, yes, of course there is no 'superior' or 'inferior' tradition. They are all good if they do good to somebody, if to a few, but one must understand they are not necessarily the same thing. I am also not arguing about 'western daoism' to be *a kind of daoism* and that's why I call it so i.e. 'western daoism'. I however have an issue about people doing/selling 'western daoism' but than feeling the - usually commercial - need to link it to Maoshan, to Wudang or any other 'sounding' chinese term. There are in fact many nice groups around that claim no direct affiliation to any chinese daoist center but transmit some good and sound traditions. It's all good, as long as there is honesty YM

Good points raised. But I think that Russel's, as well as a number of other scholars who agree with him, is actually trying to convey the idea that Taoism/Daoism is not, or should not be, "a new word" but in fact the english translation of a specific - thou very wide - tradition that has been around in China for a couple of thousand of years and with roots even further back. That's the actual point of his work, as I see it, in that *westerners* (sorry for the generalization here) tend in fact to see Taoism/Daoism as a new term and in that respect would want to fit their preconceived notions into it. In that respect some, including myself, have been speaking of a "western daoism" vs. a "chinese daoism" - where 'chinese daoism' does not mean 'daoism for chinese only' but instead 'daoism as it is understood in china'. YM

Who is prone to throwing jabs should be able to take jabs, TM. Your opinionated understanding of Russel's article, in reply to a request of "copy and paste of important points", do not only give Russel a bad service but all other readers as well. The fact that you are passing those understandings as "the core of his message" is even worst, in my opinion. But in your mind you "are being attacked" ... YM

You read things where there are none, TM Relax YM

An interesting opinion of this article which clearly shows how you feel about yourself Inside YM

That's a possibility, Chris, thou not necessarily to correct one YM

Hello FET, there is NO chinese or daoist 'old school protocol' that prohibits a grand-grandstudent to visit and talk to his/her grand-grandteacher. It is actually quite the opposite, just like in every *normal* family all over the world it is considered respectful to visit one's elders and receive their words and suggestions. What is disrespectful is to trying to overpass one's teacher and walk up the generation stairs, which you don't seem to be after. I'd suggest that you go and visit Master Lum and I AM SURE you'll hear some very interesting stories about their family "Maoshan" <sic> lineage. Let me know if you need his contact number. YM

Taomeow, just looking at the recent posts about 'Maoshan' master Lam I stumbled upon this message from Chris, who should know more about max then yourself I guess, which do not really agree with what you say above. Any opinion ? YM

Here is what M. Saso has to say on the subject: " [...] Another concept that must be understood before entering into the subject of healing is the definition of a Taoist. The term Taoist, daoshi, pronounced "daoshr" in Chinese, means a man or woman who has been ordained or set aside and specially trained to perform a specific role in society. Anyone can learn about Taoist healing, but only those who have been trained and initiated in the Taoist tradition are truly "Taoists". In order to be a recognized Taoist, one must fulfill three requirements: one must find and be accepted and trained by a licensed Taoism master (man and woman are considered equal in the Taoist tradition); one must learn to meditate on the writings of Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu, and promise to obey the rules and learn to play the music, sing the songs, and dance the steps of Taoist ritual; one must receive a Taoist "register" (lu) or list of spirits to be envisioned, talisman to summon them, and mantra to command them, that is, empty them from the heart and mind before meditating on the Tao. [...] [...] Having defined what a Taoist is from within the Taoist tradition, we must now try to identify what is and what is not Taoist from the many practices found throughout China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and elsewhere in Asia. There are certain kinds of healing rites that are not really Taoist, though their pratictioners may claim to be. [...] [...] A momentous difference lies in the fact that Blackhat Taoists actually "empty out" all the spirits from the temple and their own body, while Redhead summons the spirits into the temple for a feast. [...] [...] In addition to the fact that the Readhat do not empty themselves of spirits during prayer but rather fill the mind and the temple with benign spirits' presence, there is another important difference: the people do not call Redhat priests Taoists or Daoshi but rather fashi or sigong, that is, ritual masters rather than Taoist masters. This notion of filling rather than emptying indicates that the Redhat practices may once have derived from the medium or shaman traditions, not the Taoists. The medium is a trance expert who when possessed by a spirit can talk in tongues and sometimes heal. A shaman is a ritual expert who when in a trance can travel to another spiritual realm to look into the wellbeing of the deceased, heal the living, and bring the prayers of the villagers to the heavenly spirits. Both the medium and the shaman are unconscious of their acts when in trance. The Redhat priests act as interpreters for the medium and sometimes become medium themselves. [...] [...] It is interesting to note that medium, shaman, and priests all practice healing. The medium, the shaman, and the popular fashi Redhat heal by visualization, while the Taoist daoshi heals by kenosis, by emptying the mind and heart of all spirits and their images. [...] [...] From the above discussion it can be seem that at least two kinds of healers, and therefore two different philosophies of well-being (among many others), can be found in Asia. The first kind, which we are describing here, can be called the apophatic or kenotic tradition, which in simple language means emptying the mind of concept and image. The second is the kataphatic or "imaging" tradition, which heals by filling the mind with thoughts of good spirits and well-being. The kataphatic tradition, using medium possession or shaman trance to heal, can be very dramatic and even traumatic. [...]" Best YM

how lucky I am ... YM

"Michael Lambek has elaborated an impressive cultural account of trance among the Mayotte people of Madagascar which builds successively on metaphors of 'text' and 'embodiment'. Lambel points out that spirit possession implies an elementary triangle of communication between a spirit, its host and a third party who must mediate between the first two, an intermediate consciousness that enables two different manifestations located within the same person to speak to each other. Implicit here is the idea that the host does not consciously hear what the spirit says and therefore cannot 'remember' what happens during the period of possession. Extrapolating a little, we can argue that possession intrinsically involves either blockage or contradiction or both and is itself a way of trascending contradiction." Questions of Consciousness Anthony Paul Cohen, Nigel Rapport Routledge, 1995

In Cheng there was a shaman of the gods named Chi Hsien. He could tell whether men would live or die, survive or perish, be fortunate or unfortunate, live a long time or die young, as though he were a god himself. When the people of Cheng saw him, they dropped everything and ran out of his way. Lieh Tzu went to see him and was completely intoxicated. Returning, he said to Hu Tzu, "I used to think, Master, that your Way was perfect. But now I see something even higher!" Hu Tzu said, "I have already showed you all the outward forms, but I haven't yet showed you the substance -- and do you really think you have mastered this Way of mine? There may be a flock of hens but, if there's no rooster, how can they lay fertile eggs? You take what you know of the Way and wave it in the face of the world, expecting to be believed! This is the reason that men can see right through you. Try bringing your shaman along next time and I will show him who I am." The next day Lieh Tzu brought the shaman to see Hu Tzu. When they had left the room, the shaman said, "I'm so sorry your master is dying! There's no life left in him -- he won't last the week. I saw something very strange -- something like wet ashes!" Lieh Tzu went back into the room, weeping and drenching the collar of his robe with tears, and reported this to Hu Tzu. Hu Tzu said, "Just now I appeared to him with the Pattern of Earth -- still and silent, nothing moving, nothing standing up. He probably saw in me the Working of Virtue Closed-Off. Try bringing him around again." So the next say the two came to see Hu Tzu again, and when they had left the room, the shaman said to Lieh Tzu, "It certainly was lucky your master met me! He's going to get better -- he has all the signs of life! I could see the stirring of what had been closed-off!" Lieh Tzu went in and reported this to Hu Tzu. Hu Tzu said, "Just now I appeared to him as Heaven and Earth -- no name or substance to it, but still the workings, coming up from the heels. He probably saw in me the Workings of the Good One. Try bringing him again." The next day the two came to see Hu Tzu again, and when they had left the room, the shaman said to Lieh Tzu, "Your master is never the same! I have no way to physiognomize him! If he will try to steady himself, then I will come and examine him again." Lieh Tzu went in and reported this to Hu Tzu. Hu Tzu said, "Just now I appeared to him as the Great Vastness Where Nothing Wins Out. He probably saw in me the Workings of the Balanced Breaths. Where the swirling waves gather there is an abyss; where the still waters gather there is an abyss; where the running waters gather there is an abyss. The abyss has nine names and I have shown him three. Try bringing him again." The next day the two came to see Hu Tzu again, but before the shaman had even come to a halt before Hu Tzu, his wits left him and he fled. "Run after him!" said Hu Tzu, but though Lieh Tzu ran after him, he could not catch up. Returning, he reported to Hu Tzu, "He's vanished! He's disappeared! I couldn't catch up with him." And Hu Tzu said, "Just now I appeared to him as Not Yet Emerged from My Source. I came at him empty, wriggling and turning, not knowing anything about 'who' or 'what,' now dipping and bending, now flowing in waves -- that's why he ran away." After this, Lieh Tzu concluded that he had never really begun to learn anything. He went home for three years and did not go out. He replaced his wife at the stove, fed the pigs as though he were feeding people, and showed no preferences in the things he did. He got rid of the carving and polishing and returned to plainness, letting his body stand alone like a clod. In the midst of entanglement he remained sealed, and in this oneness he ended his life. Chuang Tzu Burton Watson

I'd suggest going through this text which is very popular in China and represents a bit the common idea on the subject http://www.terebess.hu/english/taishang.html Best YM

Taomeow, you are of course entitled to your opinions. Laozi, Zhuangzi, Pengzu ... all predate Daoism. They are considered the forefathers just like we all certainly had ancestors to pre-history but they did not carry our family names as those did not exist yet. Our forefathers were the first to start eating cooked food and use fire for making their meal but Pizza was invented (so they say) in Naples long, long after that. Saso here is simply making a case about the term "daoshi" and what that entails in chinese history. Moreover, Madame Wei and Sun Bu'er were BOTH ordained as 'daoshi'. I don't know where you get the impression they were not. Spirits, as everything else, are only a projection of our minds. Yet, the Daoist interact with them *as if they were real* .... Take care Taomeow YM

It very much depends on what you mean by "into that". If you mean being a professional and making a living as a Daoist of course I am not. I actually run a quite succesfull business which gives me enough money and time to cultivate my personal interests. And it has been so for the last 30 years or so, if that answers your question. Thanks again YM Yes, Jakara, some people tend to address lay pratictioners as such. Those are so-called 'jushi' is chinese, but 'jushi' in China usually belong and have been officially accepted into a specific lineage. The idea of people following daoist or daoistic practices at best they can without being ordained and not being officially part of a specific sect/line is not new at all. As a matter of fact there is PLENTY of evidence that this has been the case throughout chinese history ! What's new (and western) is the idea that this makes one a "Daoshi". Calling things for what they are do not take away anything nor diminish their value, it is the opposite in fact ! Best YM

Hello Little, I was quoting M. Saso who is not only an excellent scholar but an ordained Daoist and has been studying and practicing the subject for almost 50 years. Daoism is not EXCLUSIVE to China and the chinese of course. The title "Daoist", however, is a western term so I am sure people mean different things by that same word. But if you consider "Daoist" as the translation of Daoshi then what I am pointing to is what is referred to here in its birthplace. If people are after the *Daoism of western imagination* there is no problem of course and I am sure a lot of people would get plenty of good stuff from that. But than they should call it another name, or at least leave alone Maoshan, Kunlun or all the places where the ideas I am talking about are deeply rooted. After all there is more Pizza Hut in the world than original Pizza from Naples. But Pizza Hut never claims its Pizza is the Original Napolitan recipe and - rightly and proudly - call it the America Pizza instead. Then simply stop talking about *Maoshan Daoism* and start discussing about *American Daoism*. I have no objection to that. This might be true, especially in modern society, but what people tend to do, feel or think do not change what things are. If I couldn't take jokes I wouldn't be on this Board <= and can you take one ? Kidding aside, usually what people in the west (and nowadays also here) tend to assume about some great Daoists of the old times is very much filtered by chinese novels, popular narrative and romances. So you have Maoshan sourceres spending all their day chasing jumping ghosts in late Qing dynasty outfit or Tang dynasty errand Daoists always drunk passing the day singing poems in the moonlight. What people don't understand is that to become "free" you must first of all learn full, total and absolute controll. Think about all great artists even in the west, think about Pablo Picasso and try to look at the process of 'freedom' of these great artists: first you learn strict controll, the technique, the style, you paint with the actual rigor of a photographic camera ! Only when you have obtained full controll can you trascend it and reach real freedom. You should not believe me as you should not believe a stranger from the web But many different opinions should concur to create your understanding, some may make more sense some less and tomorrow your views may change also because of that. Nice talking to you, Best YM

I see, but I don't really follow the reasoning so I wanted to put the idea in its perspective. Sorry ! YM

I don't really understand the question, sorry. Who are the historian we are talking about, reference ? TIA YM

Dear TM, I don't know Cohen and I am not used to comment on another comment reported by somebody else who told him that .... so unless a specific quotation from a written source is given there is not much to say. Who ordained Cohen in what lineage, by the way ? I am not questioning what you say, don't worry, only asking as I don't know With my practice I do what I like: I enjoy it YM

TM, I definitely know nothing but I humbly suggest you do more reading of chinese and Daoist history. You'll see that what you think is my *plan to take over the world* is simply what Daoism has been doing, from its beginning, throughout chinese history. What is not Daoist is certainly as good as what IS daoist but it is simply SOMETHING ELSE. YM

LOL Daoism has been 'rejecting' shamanism since its inception 2,000 years ago. Many sects has been 'corrected' during the last few hundred years and entered the orthodox path, many remained outside and continued their shamanic tradition which was NEVER part of Daoism. YM

To disagree with respect is a good thing as that can lead to learning. Magic exists everywhere in every time. The issue I raised is that not everything is "Daoist". Daoism is extremely inclusive and yet a lot of things do not belong to it. Shamans and mediums also exist everywhere, but none are "daoist" in nature simply because their goal of practice differ extremely from the Daoist Path. Let me give you couple of examples, of the various I could give, regarding what has been explained of KL. Orthodox Daoists, like those from the Maoshan Sect, are prohibited to wear anything animal-made during ritual and meditation. So much so that also leather belts and shoes are off-limit in the practice area. Shamans and mediums instead make vaste use of leather and fur during their practice, worldwide not only in China, similarly to how KL suggests (according to what we read here) to seat on animal fur. During many Daoist practices there might be some light tremors/vibrations generated in the body or some spontaneous movements. Daoists are required to lightly control those movements and get still. Lot to say, but not necessary for those who know what daoism is all about YM