Mark Saltveit

Very interesting discussion, thanks all. Stig, the quotes you cite appear to reflect one particular scholarly opinion, that of the school represented by the Daoist Center, Komjathy and Kirkland. (Do they have a name? Culturalists, I suggest?) I'm not sure that this is a consensus view by any stretch; it seems designed to make the point that Philosophical Daoism is a fiction. (In his Misconceptions article, Komjathy is so insistent on this point that he won't even type the words Philosophical Daoism without strikethrough, to make sure no one thinks he approves.) He may be 100% correct but I'd want to read some potentially contrasting opinions before assuming that. I suppose it depends whether you capitalize the phrase Philosophical Daoism. Is he saying that no one in China has ever taken the DDJ and Zhuang Zi to heart without being part of a formal orthodox Daoist sect? Or simply that Philosophical Daoism is a trend of thought at best but not a formal Religion, of the type studied in his discipline (Religious Studies)? Something closer to Existentialism, say -- all very fine and good but it ain't no durned Religion!!!

Well, my act isn't about Dao per se, it more informs my approach to this discipline. Comedy is part of my practice, you might say. I perform for mostly regular, small town Western US people, you have to connect. Tzu jan references aren't going to fly, The only joke I do about it is mention Daoism, then say "I'm really into it. I've actually become a Daoist missionary - which means I stay home and mind my own goddamned business." Mark

> Dalai Lama Tibetans I've met (in Tibet) all had great senses of humor. Hard to know how much is religion, since I didn't meet any non-religious Tibetans. Could be national or cultural too. Speaking as a Daoist standup comedian, I got baffled responses from Buddhist magazines -- Shambala Sun and Tricycle to be precise -- when I submitted a piece of short humor ("American Zen Sayings"). In fact, if anyone has suggestions for a place to get it published, I would appreciate it. It's funnier than most of the stuff you get if you google "Buddhist Humor," certainly. Thanks! I think it's safe to say the the DDJ and especially Zhuang Zi are the funniest books of religious philosophy around. (Possibly excepting Osho, who I have not read, but has a rep. I visited Rashneeshpuram back in the day though and it was definitely not fun or funny. I do prize the picture of my teenage self at the corner of Tao and Nirvana streets, though.)

Comedy's a whole other topic, but check out Arj Barker (who was on Flight of the Conchords) if you can. Hicks is great but pretty straightforward and logical; I like something a bit more slant and sly.

I don't seek bands that discuss spirituality, as I think music is itself a very deep spiritual practice. I find Dao in Townes Van Zant, Will Oldham (aka Bonnie Prince Billy, Palace, etc.), Nirvana, Hendrix, etc.: talented people who work their ass off and challenge themselves artistically. Does anyone listen to Wu Tang Clan? I'd love some recommendations. RZA is the only commercially successful musician I know who professes to be Daoist (his sifu is said to have trained in the actual Shaolin Monastery, which makes him legit as a lineage student even to professors Komjathy and Saso.)

I'm not sure Komjathy is that extreme -- he defines himself as in the middle, compared to Dr. Michael Saso and Michel Strickman, who apparently don't consider anyone Daoist unless they've been intitiated into an orthodox, traditional sect. (Perhaps not coincidentally, Saso is one of the first Westerners to have been initiated into an orthodox Daoist sect, according to Komjathy.) Perhaps this is a question of wording -- it seems to me that in the West, we would describe people who have had that sort of initiation as priests or monks, but it would seem absurd to say that anyone who is not ordained is not a real Christian. Chinese Daoism doesn't seem to have an equivalent of "regular churchgoer" -- either you are initiated, or you just read the books and are influenced by them in daily life, along with some traditional Chinese practices such as qigong that aren't strictly speaking Daoist. I would call the latter group Daoists, and the Daoists I met when I lived in China fit that category. I think these are the people who have been called part of "philosophical Daoism," though that term is apparently disfavored by Sinologists today (at least those in Komjathy's camp.)

And twiddling them. Also hitchiking, but I digress.

I'm curious at the hate directed at Ms. Le Guin's book, particularly because I have yet to see any substantive disagreement (e.g. naming a passage that she is held to have rendered poorly.) I'm wondering if she is not somehow serving as a symbol that infuriates certain people, since her primary fame is as a science fiction writer (which may somehow echo attacks against L. Ron Hubbard). This is what the article I'm working on is about (full disclosure) because it raises so many interesting questions. Is academic training the only valid source of expertise on Daoism? It's particularly ironic because Daoism itself (as presented in the DDJ and Zhuang Zi) seems so skeptical of learned authorities. What about the role of personal belief, contemplation and practice? I have yet to see any substantial criticism of Thomas Merton's Chuang Tzu (his spelling), though his credentials are the same as Le Guin's.

Perhaps it's the Daoist theorists (and Buddhist practitioners) who cause all the fuss? The sentence above makes it sound like Buddhists are the philosophers, and Daoists carry out these theories "on the ground," so to speak.

Good idea. Hmmm (pondering). I judge myself to be wise, good looking and rather charming! This is fun. Who next?

Stigweard, you reference Komjathy a lot. Do you know him? Have you studied with him? I would actually like to get in touch with him for an article I'm working on.

True enough. There is less consensus about many of these other works though; the Daozang is 800 years younger than those two at best, and our received version a thousand years younger still. I'm not sure the Neiye is fully accepted by all as canonical Daoism, as opposed to a key precursor; much less the entire Guanzi, etc. (but I'm no expert.) Those two aren't the end all and be all, but they are the universally accepted foundational documents. There are literally thousands of documents that could be studied, but there's a certain sense of diminishing returns after a while. Interestingly, Chad Hansen emphasises the Chuang Tzu as more important to Daoism than the Dao de Jing (as I read him), and other works (eg of the Naming School) as perhaps closer to it than the DDJ.

I don't speak for devoid of course, but the ambiguous phrase is "lay supporters." It sounds like he means unordained followers who accept only the authority of the ordained priests of the sects in question. If so, he is excluding millions of Chinese who treasure the Daoist classics but don't consider themselves part of a particular sect. It's hard for me to work out his exact meaning though, because in the article I just cited, he adopts Livia Kohn's trifold classification of Daoists into literati Daoists, ritual Daoists and self-cultivation Daoists; but the first and last of these seem to include people who are not initiated into, or lay followers of, given sects. So I may be missing a nuance of his argument here.

It's wonderful to respect indigenous culture and the continuing living traditions of Daoism -- they have a lot to teach us (if they are willing to do so.) However, no one that I know feels any reticence to pursue Buddhism, Christianity or Hinduism on their own initiative, without worrying about what academics or the indigenous orthodox think. I'm not sure why Taoism should be considered any differently. Like any inquiry, it's appropriate to learn as much context as possible, be humble about one's cultural and temporal distance, etc. But as secretive as certain Daoist sects are, the TTC is the second-most translated book in the history of the world, so it's not exactly a big honkin secret. I just can't understand why Chuang Tzu isn't better known.

Did I make that assumption? I don't remember doing so. (I said that Chad Hansen is Daoist, unlike some Western academics. I can see how you might think I meant Komjathy, but I did not. As you might have gathered, if I want to say something, I don't hem and haw about it a lot. :-) ) Actually my concern, based on this web article that you posted, is more about a sense of superiority and exclusivity, which his initiation may well have made worse. As for the I Ching (Yijing), I know that it long predates Daoism. My point is that he throws it in his "Common Misconceptions of Daoism" article as another example of Western ignorance about Daoism; and in reality it's a piece of ancient Chinese ignorance, only recently corrected both in China and in the West. That said, I found his article distinguishing sympathizers from adherents, and he distinguishes them in a way that is actually a bit more nuanced that I had thought, so I stand corrected. Here is the article: Komjathy "Tracing the Contours of Daoism in North America" He writes that "Euro-American Daoist adherents are those Americans of European heritage who identify themselves as Daoists or those for whom other reliable evidence exists that suggests they think of themselves in this way. Those who are attracted to Daoism but do not embrace it fully or exclusively may be referred to as sympathizers." He then goes on, however, to emphasize what he calls "close relations (ordained priests, lineage successors)" who he contrasts with those he calls "Pooh Bear Taoists." So there's (what I perceive to be) some of that superior attitude creeping in again.

Don't forget Morrissey (celibate).

One example of Komjathy's brittleness (or sort of, I know more than you naah naah naah attitude): He puts down people who consider the I Ching to be Daoist as ignorant and cites it as an example of Western misunderstanding of true Chinese Taoism. Except, as Chad Hansen notes, the I Ching was first called Daoist by Wang Bi in the 3rd Century AD, about the same time he was compiling the version of the Dao de Jing that pretty much every one has used since (until the recent discoveries).

Half the time, the banner looks like "The Tao Burns" to my weak eyes, and I think "You might be doing it wrong." I'm guessing this site wasn't started in England though, huh? Cause then it would basically mean "The Tao Arses." Or maybe that's the idea.

I wonder why you are insistent on the term "sympathizers," even for Chinese people who grew up with Taoism in its native culture? Wouldn't it be just as accurate to call those people Taoists, and initiates into the Quanzhen rites (for example) Taoist monks?

Here is a somewhat different academic take, with a longer view of the changes in what is considered "Daoist" or even "Daoism." Very interesting stuff. By Chad Hansen of the University of Hong Kong, who has a strong interest in Chuang Tzu as a philosopher of language. Also, unlike many of the academics of Daoism, he is himself a practicing Daoist. Taoism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Agreed. The focus on precise names makes me think of "Three in the Morning." Sure. go ahead, call me what you want. How about if I call myself "Taoish" ? Does that work for everybody?

I don't know who these "authentic" teachers are, and they sound full of crap, but I'm not sure about your statement that Taoist adherents (presumably, Quanzhen initiates in China) themselves get to decide who is really Taoist. For one thing, there is not a single, coherent Chinese religion/cultural tradition of Taoism. Do these adherents even accept members of other Taoist sects in China? Again, compare Christianity. There are many fundamentalists who say that Mother Theresa, for all her good works, was not a real Christian and burns now in Hell because she did not accept Jesus Christ as her personal savior. There are many who say Thomas Merton fell under the spell of the Devil (or pagan religion) because of his study of Chuang Tzu. The people who say this are certainly completely valid, initiated members of sects by the standards of any professor of religion. But I still think it's BS. And if Komjathy or Kirkland endorsed those declarations and called Mother Theresa and Thomas Merton "Christian sympathizers" but not real Christian adepts, I would have a real problem with that too. Wouldn't you?

More or less true, and appropriately so. I don't disqualify anyone from making definitions; but academic fields are themselves disciplines, with their own perspectives, assumptions and judgments that should be taken into account. The study of religion, by definition, excludes non-religious, philosophical approaches to Taoism. A professor of philosophy should have a different perspective. If they don't, they're not doing their job correctly. Also with analysis itself; it's a powerful intellectual tool, I went to college myself and use it all the time to great effect. I'm using it here, to analyze academia on its own terms. In some cases, it's valid to apply it to Taoism; as I said, it's perfectly appropriate for Komjathy to say Westerners aren't real Quanzhen Taoists (his expertise). That's a tangible manifestation, one of the 10,000 things. But not a "Daoist"? There's a certain irony in a 21st century Western professor claiming control of an ancient word and announcing what the rules are for its true meaning, especially when doing so in the name of fighting Western appropriation of Chinese traditions. Maybe Komjathy and Russell Kirkland are correct; they certainly raise many fascinating questions about East - West cultural interactions, the nature of religion and academia's ability to understand it, etc. It seems to me that if you are going to make strong declarations about who is a real Daoist or not, you need to take great care in defining what that word means, and you must do so fully informed by the Daoist perspective, on its own terms, as well as the academic perspective. Daoism has a lot to say about names, and manifestations vs. sources, and ossified traditions that lose vitality; and I don't see these addressed in the essays that you've posted here. (Then again, these appear to be factsheets posted on a website, not scholarly papers which might well be more carefully phrased.)

I find it ironic how concerned people here are with names and labels such as "Taoist." When you define a Taoist, you create non-Taoists of course. But really who cares what names we call each other? Each of us has a belief and practice that is in some way unique -- and will remain so regardless of how we call it, or whether we group it with others of varying similarity. You can say with certainty that someone is not a Quanzhen Taoist, or member of any other particular sect, if not initiated. But not a Taoist? Would you say that a nondenominational follower of Christ who reads the Bible daily is not a Christian, because they are not a baptized member of a Church? For academics, of course, this is what they do for a living -- define, classify, group and analyze. And the people cited (Kirkland, Komjathy) are professors of religion, not philosophy -- so by definition, they do not consider non-religious Taoists as "real." A professor of philosophy might make the opposite judgment.

Pretty common, I think. Elvis Costello has a song called "Distorted Angel" about feeling guilt over an incident of playing doctor with some girl, and realizing his guardian angel was watching, and later thinking "what a voyeuristic perv that angel is". "Distorted Angel Pure illuminated sweetness Frightening small children is just about your only weakness I thought that you would tell me what I'm living for But I can't see you anymore I don't know what we did but I'm sorry if it made you cry And if there's any justice at all I'd be punished for it I'd surmise..."