Mark Saltveit

There's no word in Chinese that captures wu wei, either. That's why that Dao can't be Dao'ed, and they had to resort to a mystical paradox like that to signify it. Volumes have been written, both in China and the West, trying to unpack those two characters. As someone -- Bokenkamp? -- wrote, the difficulty in Daoism is not translating the characters. The difficulty is understanding what they mean (in any language).

What happened? I don't know of any scholars who consider The Art of War Daoist, though it appears to date to roughly the same era and may have been loosely influenced by Daoism. Certainly the reluctance to fight feels Daoish. It may be something like the Yijing, part of the same cultural stew but a different flavor.

Good and interesting points, Stigweard. I take your point that the Daozang (which I understand as the corpus of Daoist texts) grew to hundreds eventually, but I would love to know about any evidence you know of that it consisted of more than just "the big two" before the Celestial Masters were founded. From what I've read, for example, no one considered the Yijing to be Daoist until Wang Bi said it was in the 3rd century CE. Ditto the Neiye. And many of the other texts weren't even written until much later. So I'm not sure how you can be confident that Daoism "was never" about the two great texts. I don't know of any evidence that any others were extent between 300 BCE and 142 CE. We can't prove there weren't any that have been lost since, but no one mentioned them in writing from that period that has survived, AFAIK. True, "dao" was a generic term for a way, used by Confucians for their school, too. But it's an interesting coincidence that the first recorded religious Daoists arose only decades after Buddhism -- with its similar priesthood, celibate monks, rituals, etc. -- was first introduced to China. I speculate in my article that Zhang Daolin's vision in 142 CE may have been his realization that this new imported religion had elements that could be profitably applied to his own land's Daoist tradition.

Thank you for the kind words. However, that translation and article (Mirror, mirror) are not mine. I only know a handful of Chinese words, traveler's terms. I did write the piece "Philosophy or Religion," "Comedians as Daoist Missionaries," and pretty much all the rest of the blog (so far) to be honest. The translation and "Mirror, Mirror" are by Prof. Stephen Bokenkamp of the Arizona State University, who (along with Livia Kohn) is one of the leading Western experts on Han and later Daoist practice. His book "Early Daoist Scriptures" is one of the leading books on the subject. I'm very honored to have him as a contributor to my blog. in the comments to Bokenkamp's article, Scott ("Bao Pu") Barnwell makes an interesting point, that when the DDJ was written, mirrors were bronze, and rather rougher than today's mirrors. We're accustomed to silvered glass, which gives essentially a perfect reflection; but a bronze mirror (I imagine) would metaphorically be an always approximate reflection of reality, which changes the metaphor entirely.

Well, 1 and 2 are fine, right? 3 is a fine line between "eliminate syntax" and "translate." Frankly, I find it kind of pretentious when people insist on using foreign terms, e.g. sanskrit and the like, unless there is no good equivalent in the language. In my view, it's also a form of appropriation when people use foreign phrases inaptly, brandishing them like a sword of authenticity. 90% of the time, when a Western writer mentions "wu-wei," they have not made their meaning clear. (Hint: it's also difficult in the original Classical Chinese.) It comes off as if they don't really grasp the complexity of the term, and just throw up their hands like, "You know, wu wei dude!" 4 and 5, I don't know who you're referring to. Even the most inept pop packagings of Daoism in the United States "brand" their work as Daoist. it's all "The Tao of Steve" and "The Tao of Wu" [Tang Clan], to a fault. Even the most ardent advocates of the superiority of philosophical Daoism, if that's who you're referring to, do not dismiss the Daodejing or Zhuangzi. The only person I've ever seen put down the DDJ is Russell Kirkland, that most impassioned critique of Western appropriation of Daoism.

Yes, lots of agreement here. Qigong etc. have a lot more to them than their Daoist components, in my opinion, (comparable to yoga.) They are specific physical/spiritual traditions that have been developed over many centuries, so they have their own independent power. Not easily replaced, and I don't know of any other comparable traditions (tantra? sufism? lacrosse, in its original native form?) The Western conception of the body/mind/spirit interaction is pretty limited; I think any decent scientist would agree. We can demonstrate that acupuncture works, scientifically, but our model can't really explain why. I tend to think this is the exception rather than the rule though, and that our culture is a rich font of spiritual practice, much of which is not even recognized as such (or used as it could be.) I've always wondered about the relation of "The Art of War" to Daoism. Can you speak to that?

Well, I'm no fan of the "Tao of Elvis" or "The Tao of Meow." (I did like the Trappist monk Thomas Merton's version of Zhuangzi, though. In part because he warned against "trying to pull a Christian rabbit from a Taoist hat" in interpreting Zhuang's words.) I have the sense that you are criticizing some particular thing or person, when you talk about "creating a hodge-podge philososphy" and Christian appropriation, but I'm not sure exactly what. that might be. I'm honestly unclear what people mean by appropriation, as opposed to reading, understanding and interpreting a thinker or tradition that they like. Isn't the exchange of ideas across cultures a good thing? Appropriation seems to mean, "the other guy published a book that I wanted to publish." Many Chinese writers are exploring Western ideas (and technologies); is that appropriation too?

Thanks for that, dawei. I'd love to hear more about your experiences in Sichuan, either here or on my website. I traveled a bit there, years ago, and really enjoyed it. No doubt there were significant influences on Daoism before the Warring States period, but it is a strikingly unique school of thought. Similarly, we can find influences on Plato and Socrates, but no one objects to seeing them (or Aristotle, or Jesus or Buddha) as the start of something unique and worth naming. The distinction between Daojia and Daojiao is sometimes dismissed as a Western misunderstanding, but it goes back at least to Wang Bi, and I'm pretty sure all the way to Sima Qian circa 100 BCE. (Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.) It may be irrelevant in China today, but it was important enough to merit a mention in the premiere history of its age, 2200 years ago. And that's part of my point. Modern China is also very distant from Han China and Warring States-era Chu. Not quite as distant as the modern U.S., but nearly; the language and culture have changed a great deal in China during that time.

Dwai wrote: Goethe preceeded the Nazis, just as Laozi and Zhuangzi preceeded the Celestial Masters and other Daoist sects. But I don't think one has to accept the entire tradition and all its "cultural baggage," as you suggest, to like the original thinkers. (Substitute Nietszche for Goethe, or Kaiser Wilhelm for Hitler if you like - the point is the same.) Why aren't we free to pick and choose philosophers we like? Can't a Chinese citizen like Plato without liking Aristotle, or the fascist movement gaining power in Greece today? For that matter, Laozi wasn't Chinese. He lived in the Kingdom of Chu. What right do these Chinese imperialists have to appropriate him, just because they conquered Chu?

It seems to me that there are many approaches to Daoism's insights. Energy work is especially culturally-specific because it's based on a radically different conception of the body, life forces, etc. I wouldn't look for an American qigong so much as other physical forms; ballet? dance? zumba? basketball? soccer? Maybe one still needs to be invented. Maybe yoga is the "American" solution. Or jogging. A less culturally specific path is the approach Chuang Tzu taught with Butcher Ding, the wheelwright, the archer and others; pursuing a job, skill, sport or art so diligently, tirelessly and mindfully that even a humble butcher can teach the emperor about Dao. I call it, using your little dao to find the big dao. For examples, I've written about gardening, standup comedy, playing guitar, writing, sports, and Nate Silver's political data scrying as modern manifestations. I'm not a big believer in separating spirituality from the rest of life, nor do I see much support for that in the DDJ or Zhuangzi. Otherwise, you become like one of those Christians who sin all week and make a big show of going to church on Sunday. (Or someone who claims Daoist principles but snarks and throws ego all about TTB.)

So if you like Goethe, you have to like Nazis, right?

The Discipline of D.E. by Gus Van Sant (director of Good Will Hunting, Milk, and many other films) from the short story by William Burroughs It's both a parody of Daoism and an homage, an American Daoism you might say. http://www.realchange.org/taoish/the-discipline-of-do-easy/

flowing hands wrote: You were previously immortal? And currently aren't?

You had me right up through Roll Tide, and I have to admit even I enjoyed them destroying Notre Dame. Go Ducks!

A while back I mentioned an article I was working on, concerning the controversy over religious vs. philosophical Daoism, Professors Komjathy and Kirkland, etc. Mark Foote and others asked me to share the article when I was done with it. Well, the topic keeps growing as I try to write it, so I'm probably going to put it out in chunks. The first, very broad overview just came out. Here it is: http://www.realchange.org/taoish/philosophy-or-religion/ Mark

Marblehead: Actually, that's not quite my method. To be precise: I thought that might appeal to a soldier.

SereneBlue: In a recent essay, which I quoted in the topic on chapter 10 of the DDJ, Prof. Stephen Bokenkamp says that the early Chinese interpretations of the Daodejing vary much more wildly than current Western interpretations, which are kind of all the same ("so much more univocal—and boring" is his phrase).

Wait, who's an analchist?

To make my position clear here: I am totally down with the concept of an American (or stateless, modern and non-culturally-specific) Daoism. In fact my blog Taoish is pretty much dedicated to exploring that. At the same time, Takaaki seems to have a very specific vision of American Daoism, which I'm not sure is exactly the same. And I'm especially intrigued because he lives in Japan and makes a point of brandishing his knowledge of the Chinese language, so I'm not clear if he considers himself an American Daoist or not.

Marblehead: HERE is how American that is: (from my blog Taoish) American Koans #1: Volunteers

Stigweard: I absolutely agree. The question, though, is this -- should a modern American interested in Daoism copy ancient Chinese manifestations of it (practices) such as qigong, or look to our own culture? IMHO, we run the risks of misunderstanding and of exoticism when we practice rituals and disciplines from another time and place that we do not truly know. Zhuangzi and the DDJ reduce the essence of Daoism to as few words as possible, which has the benefit of making them less culturally specific. (Russell Kirkland actually argues that the DDJ distorted Southern Chinese (Chu) Daoism to make it more palatable to Northern Chinese elites, as a "marketing ploy.") It seems to me that the practices are more culturally specific than those two books, and Americans are better off looking for new manifestations of Dao closer in time, place and culture to our own lives, instead of imitating the way Chinese people have done it.

I am fascinated by Takaaki's vision of "American Taoism" but it is clearly off-topic here. Luckily, some sage just created a topic called "Takaaki's American Taoism," and I'm pretty sure it will be on topic there. http://thetaobums.com/topic/26717-takaakis-american-taoism/

Here are some particulars Takaaki laid out: But what, you ask, is the fundamental source of American Taoism? It turns out to be that uncarved blockhead, Marblehead himself. --------------------------------------------------------------- Marblehead, on 25 Jan 2013 - 11:12, said: Takaaki replies:

I don't see the DDJ as saying there should be no emperor, just that s/he should rule as subtly and unobtrusively as possible. Which implies that s/he does need to rule.

I'm not sure where this discussion ended up, so I'm going to post my film link here. If there's a better place, please let me know! This is for a short film by Gus Van Sant, based on the William Burroughs short story, called "The Discipline of DE" http://www.realchange.org/taoish/the-discipline-of-do-easy/ It describes a Way that is sort of a parody of Daoism, and sort of a sincere American Way of its own.