COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS CONCERNING DAOISM (TAOISM)

[Stigweard]

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.

Hi Mark, no I don't know Komjathy personally, only through some of his published works. You may be able to contact him through the Daoist Centre Contact Page.

 

I would love to read your article when you are finished.

 

[Stigweard]

It is not incorrect to remark that any Quanzhen disciple with only a four-year stint, whether part or full time, would have much to learn in Quanzhen.

 

Just ask your friend to do more research on the existence of the great sage, Laozi and Zhang SanFeng and to check where possible - if he has the requisite access - whether both have any link or not with Quanzhen. Thereafter he may have cause to change his informed view on both of them?

 

There is nothing else to share.

Quite to the contrary, there is plenty to share. Your above comment along with the following is laced with insinuations:

 

"Do you know of any very senior Quanzhen members and speak to them often about Quanzhen practices and beliefs over the past two decades?"

 

It insinuates that:

 

* You know senior Quanzhen members

* You speak to them often about Quanzhen practices and beliefs over the past two decades

* You have more than four years personal training in Quanzhen

* You have the requisite access to be "in the know"

 

And you are using these insinuations as social ornaments to prop up your self-assumed authority. Now if your statements are true then you are doing us all a disservice by your reticence. And whilst you remain skulking behind your vagueness, your purpose of discrediting Komjathy only serves to discredit yourself.

 

Now I would like nothing more than to respectfully learn from your experience. But your current approach of shooting barbs from the shadows prohibits this.

 

[RyanO]

The OP is a good reminder not to fall for the popular or commercial. But it has an element of throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is no surprise for instance that Ursula Le Guin is not a Taoist scholar and these are easy targets. It is helpful to have some rigorous and accurate scholarship on the subject of Taoism but there is something missing which is ... one would have thought that a source text like the TTC being inspirational to thousands if not millions of people across the western world would be held up as evidence of the wise and profound nature of Taoist teachings ... i.e. that they can cross cultural boundaries, be subject to some dubious translation but still ring true in hearts if so many readers. Ok their understanding might be limited and lack the nuance that serious study would give ... but still it is true that the Tao has made an impact in the West. This is something to be built on and it is perhaps a criticism of the 'serious' Taoists that they have left a vacuum into which Ms. Le Guin and others have stepped.

 

Buddhism suffered similarly in the early days but then it made serious efforts to spread authentic teachings. Now Buddhism is better understood in the west. So if the writer quoted in the OP is pointing the finger of criticism then quite a lot of that should rebound straight back on him.

 

Well said Apech.

[Mark Saltveit]

The OP is a good reminder not to fall for the popular or commercial. But it has an element of throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is no surprise for instance that Ursula Le Guin is not a Taoist scholar and these are easy targets. It is helpful to have some rigorous and accurate scholarship on the subject of Taoism but there is something missing which is ... one would have thought that a source text like the TTC being inspirational to thousands if not millions of people across the western world would be held up as evidence of the wise and profound nature of Taoist teachings ... i.e. that they can cross cultural boundaries, be subject to some dubious translation but still ring true in hearts if so many readers. Ok their understanding might be limited and lack the nuance that serious study would give ... but still it is true that the Tao has made an impact in the West. This is something to be built on and it is perhaps a criticism of the 'serious' Taoists that they have left a vacuum into which Ms. Le Guin and others have stepped.

 

 

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.

[Guest allan]

Quite to the contrary, there is plenty to share. Your above comment along with the following is laced with insinuations:

 

"Do you know of any very senior Quanzhen members and speak to them often about Quanzhen practices and beliefs over the past two decades?"

 

It insinuates that:

 

* You know senior Quanzhen members

* You speak to them often about Quanzhen practices and beliefs over the past two decades

* You have more than four years personal training in Quanzhen

* You have the requisite access to be "in the know"

 

And you are using these insinuations as social ornaments to prop up your self-assumed authority. Now if your statements are true then you are doing us all a disservice by your reticence. And whilst you remain skulking behind your vagueness, your purpose of discrediting Komjathy only serves to discredit yourself.

 

Now I would like nothing more than to respectfully learn from your experience. But your current approach of shooting barbs from the shadows prohibits this.

 

 

First you challenged my authority to critic an author. (I thought this forum and your thread welcomes comments.)

 

Then you accused me of insinuating about this and that. You seem to like to put words in my mouth? Please read carefully what I wrote, before you put the shoe in your mouth, again.

 

Just because an author is from Quanzhen, it does not mean he knows much about the practices and beliefs of this Daoist Sect, especially since he joined it in 2006. The four years came from that. The rest you made it up yourself by making various assumptions.

 

And I am out of this your thread. I suggest that you stop hurling insults on my integrity and my rights. It could be for your own good.

[Apech]

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).

 

 

 

Wizard of Earthsea wasn't too bad from memory - although I did read it in my Tolkein starved youth.

 

I think you are right that she is being held up as a symbolic hate figure - which is unfair really.

[RyanO]

Stig,

 

Since you have basically had to be on the defense here, I am wondering what your personal opinion of Dr. Komjathy's article is and if there is anything you disagree or take issue with?

[Stigweard]

First you challenged my authority to critic an author.

Yup I sure did. Just as you challenged Komjathy's credibility. Fairs fair wouldn't you say?

 

I thought this forum and your thread welcomes comments.

Absolutely! You have to accept that anything posted on this forum is going to be examined and cross examined. And if criticism is given you also have to accept that the validity and credibility of that criticism is also going to come under the same rigor.

 

Then you accused me of insinuating about this and that. You seem to like to put words in my mouth? Please read carefully what I wrote, before you put the shoe in your mouth, again.

Your comments stand on their own

 

Just because an author is from Quanzhen, it does not mean he knows much about the practices and beliefs of this Daoist Sect, especially since he joined it in 2006. The four years came from that. The rest you made it up yourself by making various assumptions.

Whilst he may have only been ordained in 2006, his study seems to have extended much earlier. He has written two books on the subject:

 

* Cultivating Perfection: Mysticism and Self-transformation in Early Quanzhen Daoism (Brill, 2007), and

* Handbooks for Daoist Practice (Yuen Yuen Institute, 2008)

 

With third on the way:

 

* The Way of Complete Perfection: A Quanzhen Daoist Anthology

 

That, in my mind, gives him a decent amount of credibility to back his views. Enough so for me to consider his words diligently even if I may not agree with them all.

 

And I am out of this your thread. I suggest that you stop hurling insults on my integrity and my rights. It could be for your own good.

 

I would suggest that you back up your criticisms with some credible foundations. Discussion and debate is great. Presenting views and counter views is part of how we learn on this forum.

 

You don't agree with Komjathy ... GREAT! Hell I don't agree with all of what he says either. But don't just throw about your ad hominem remarks like a troll, tell us WHY you think his views are incomplete or incorrect by using real substance and real information that we can chew over and make up our own minds.

 

So instead of skulking off, give us what you have. Do you have a counter-view? Do you have knowledge and experience about this that would provide greater clarity? You never know, stepping up to the plate "could be for your own good."

 

[Stigweard]

Stig,

 

Since you have basically had to be on the defense here, I am wondering what your personal opinion of Dr. Komjathy's article is and if there is anything you disagree or take issue with?

Thank you for asking

 

It all depends on where you sit on the sliding scale from inclusiveness to exclusiveness. If we were to be totally liberal and inclusiveness we would say, "Hey it's all good, you want to call yourself a Taoist? That's fine. You want say that your practice is Taoist? That's fine too." Obviously Komjathy has taken the extreme exclusive stance in this article with clear and technically correct definitions of what Taoism is an is not.

 

Personally I sit somewhere in the middle. I think the modern student should have at least an educated awareness of Taoist orthodoxy. This is the reality of where the Taoist religion is today. And if you are ever going to raise a banner saying "I am Taoist and/or my practice is Taoist" than you have to be prepared to have someone from the exclusive camp beating a drum saying, "Please explain".

 

I also think it would be unskillful to be too loose with the term "Taoist", and I agree here with Komjathy that being too inclusive can and has led to a certain degree of exploitation and appropriation of the Taoist tradition.

 

This reminds me of my incessant advice to my Taiji students:

 

"We have to find the right balance between Song and Gun."

 

Song is the looseness of long flowing hair, it is fluid without structure. Whilst Gun is the rigidness of a wooden club, it is strong but it can be brittle.

 

So in Taiji we must be song, song, song ... loose, relaxed, and fluid. And yet we must have enough 'rigidness' to maintain correct posture and alignment.

 

So perhaps my stance is 60% inclusiveness and 40% exclusiveness.

 

Let people find their own way, but let them honor and respect the tradition that inspires their journey.

 

[Mark Saltveit]

Thank you for asking

 

It all depends on where you sit on the sliding scale from inclusiveness to exclusiveness. If we were to be totally liberal and inclusiveness we would say, "Hey it's all good, you want to call yourself a Taoist? That's fine. You want say that your practice is Taoist? That's fine too." Obviously Komjathy has taken the extreme exclusive stance in this article with clear and technically correct definitions of what Taoism is an is not.

 

 

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.)

[Stigweard]

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.)

Yup ... fair comments.

 

[RyanO]

Thank you for asking

 

It all depends on where you sit on the sliding scale from inclusiveness to exclusiveness. If we were to be totally liberal and inclusiveness we would say, "Hey it's all good, you want to call yourself a Taoist? That's fine. You want say that your practice is Taoist? That's fine too." Obviously Komjathy has taken the extreme exclusive stance in this article with clear and technically correct definitions of what Taoism is an is not.

 

Personally I sit somewhere in the middle. I think the modern student should have at least an educated awareness of Taoist orthodoxy. This is the reality of where the Taoist religion is today. And if you are ever going to raise a banner saying "I am Taoist and/or my practice is Taoist" than you have to be prepared to have someone from the exclusive camp beating a drum saying, "Please explain".

 

I also think it would be unskillful to be too loose with the term "Taoist", and I agree here with Komjathy that being too inclusive can and has led to a certain degree of exploitation and appropriation of the Taoist tradition.

 

This reminds me of my incessant advice to my Taiji students:

 

"We have to find the right balance between Song and Gun."

 

Song is the looseness of long flowing hair, it is fluid without structure. Whilst Gun is the rigidness of a wooden club, it is strong but it can be brittle.

 

So in Taiji we must be song, song, song ... loose, relaxed, and fluid. And yet we must have enough 'rigidness' to maintain correct posture and alignment.

 

So perhaps my stance is 60% inclusiveness and 40% exclusiveness.

 

Let people find their own way, but let them honor and respect the tradition that inspires their journey.

 

 

Well put!

[Aaron]

Well put!

 

Hello Stigweard,

 

I would like to know what the purpose of this thread is? What was your intention? To me it seems like you're starting the same thread over and over trying to get the reaction and answer that you want. Perhaps you should look within and see exactly why you feel so strongly about this? To me it's all silly squabbling that has no purpose or reason, except to stroke one's own ego and feel superior to others. Bigotry, regardless of how you wrap it up, is still bigotry. If someone is not interested in the religious aspect of Taoism, but rather the philosophical aspect, there should be no reason why they can't explore that further.

 

I find it particularly interesting that the people that claim that they don't really care about this argument (i.e. Western Taoists aren't real Taoists) are the quickest to point out this fact, but always remind us that it doesn't matter.

 

Well let me be honest, it does matter to me, that's why I'm responding to this argument. Regardless of the validity of this argument, the fact is there is a new form of Taoism present in the world today. Whether you call it Popular Western Taoism, Pooh Bear Taoism, or Modern Neo-Taoism, it's there and it's alive and it has a strong following.

 

The more important question and the one often overlooked is why Westerners seem to follow the more philosophical approach to Taoism and I think there is a simple answer. Our own philosophical understanding stems from Socratic philosophy, the idea that the unexamined life is not worth living. We are more interested in the physical world and how the physical world works, rather than the idea that there are supernatural forces at work in the universe that somehow influence our lives. When the westerner views Taoism they understand it differently than the Chinese, simply because there is a cultural difference. I think the argument might be made that the Westerner may actually understand it more clearly, because they tend to see it undiluted by thousands of years of religious and cultural alteration.

 

I could never be a Religious Taoist (i.e. Traditional Taoist) for the simple reason that I don't believe in Dragons, the river spirits, or the Celestial Court. I choose to apply those aspects of Taoism that I think are relevant to my life and leave out those aspects that I feel are superstitious and have no factual basis. If that makes me a Pooh Bear Taoist, so be it, but trust me when I say that regardless of who it is, when they choose to ridicule someone else's beliefs and label them with a derogatory term like that, they've lost my respect as an academic.

 

In the end Pooh Bear Taoism is not going away and whether others choose to try to convert Western Taoists to "true Taoism" or not, it doesn't matter. The Western world will never be able to embrace Religious Taoism en masse, rather you'll find that, much as Western Buddhism, they'll take those aspects of the philosophy that they can relate to and apply it to their own perception. If the Chinese could do this to Buddhism 1500 years ago, why can't we do that to Taoism today? Stop hating and just let it go.

 

Aaron

Edited March 17, 2011 by Twinner

[Stigweard]

Hello Stigweard,

 

I would like to know what the purpose of this thread is? What was your intention? To me it seems like you're starting the same thread over and over trying to get the reaction and answer that you want. Perhaps you should look within and see exactly why you feel so strongly about this? To me it's all silly squabbling that has no purpose or reason, except to stroke one's own ego and feel superior to others. Bigotry, regardless of how you wrap it up, is still bigotry. If someone is not interested in the religious aspect of Taoism, but rather the philosophical aspect, there should be no reason why they can't explore that further.

 

I find it particularly interesting that the people that claim that they don't really care about this argument (i.e. Western Taoists aren't real Taoists) are the quickest to point out this fact, but always remind us that it doesn't matter.

 

Well let me be honest, it does matter to me, that's why I'm responding to this argument. Regardless of the validity of this argument, the fact is there is a new form of Taoism present in the world today. Whether you call it Popular Western Taoism, Pooh Bear Taoism, or Modern Neo-Taoism, it's there and it's alive and it has a strong following.

 

The more important question and the one often overlooked is why Westerners seem to follow the more philosophical approach to Taoism and I think there is a simple answer. Our own philosophical understanding stems from Socratic philosophy, the idea that the unexamined life is not worth living. We are more interested in the physical world and how the physical world works, rather than the idea that there are supernatural forces at work in the universe that somehow influence our lives. When the westerner views Taoism they understand it differently than the Chinese, simply because there is a cultural difference. I think the argument might be made that the Westerner may actually understand it more clearly, because they tend to see it undiluted by thousands of years of religious and cultural alteration.

 

I could never be a Religious Taoist (i.e. Traditional Taoist) for the simple reason that I don't believe in Dragons, the river spirits, or the Celestial Court. I choose to apply those aspects of Taoism that I think are relevant to my life and leave out those aspects that I feel are superstitious and have no factual basis. If that makes me a Pooh Bear Taoist, so be it, but trust me when I say that regardless of who it is, when they choose to ridicule someone else's beliefs and label them with a derogatory term like that, they've lost my respect as an academic.

 

In the end Pooh Bear Taoism is not going away and whether others choose to try to convert Western Taoists to "true Taoism" or not, it doesn't matter. The Western world will never be able to embrace Religious Taoism en masse, rather you'll find that, much as Western Buddhism, they'll take those aspects of the philosophy that they can relate to and apply it to their own perception. If the Chinese could do this to Buddhism 1500 years ago, why can't we do that to Taoism today? Stop hating and just let it go.

 

Aaron

An excellent post!

 

The purpose for my current little campaign was to stimulate/provoke exactly the sort of post that you have just made. Thank you for your consideration and sincere response.

 

Over in Taoism Today -- The Controversy Continues I mentioned that I had recently came into contact with a gentleman who was starting a documentary project about Taoism in today's world. One of the things I strongly suggested was that the documentary should not just be about Taoism in modern China, but also about Taoism in the west.

 

So I will confess fully that I started these topics fore-mostly to stimulate a cross-section of people's impressions about how Taoism expresses itself in the western world. Hopefully the caliber of the responses in these topics gives my documentary friend some inspiration to work with.

 

Secondary to this prime motive is that I wanted to become clearer on my thoughts and impressions around the subject, and there is nothing like mixing it with the Bums to get that happening in short order. Additional to this is my own advocacy, as I have stated previously, that regardless of whether you chose the more philosophical side of the tradition IMHO serious students of Taoism must have at least an educated awareness of the full scope of what Taoism is.

 

And in regard to your post, you are absolutely right. Taoism will naturally have a new expression in the Western world. As I have also said elsewhere, the orthodox religion of Taoism arose firstly from the ancient indigenous world view of ancient China and then was conditioned into shape by eons of social transformation.

 

The western ancient world view was different and we have had a different passage of social conditioning through the centuries. So, again, it is only natural that we will have a different "view" on the fundamental principles of the Taoist ontology.

 

So another, perhaps deeper, cross-purpose I have in provoking this dialogue is to delve deeper into this phenomena that we may call Western Taoism. Let's explore this landscape like the pioneers we in fact truly are. For the reality is that the conversations here are the leading edge of this new cultural evolution, and that is very, very exciting!

 

[dawei]

You didn't answer my question: "What do you believe the Daoist tradition is if you so adamantly disagree?"

 

You find this statement unfounded:

 

"The Daoist tradition consists, first and foremost, of ordained priests and monastics and lay supporters."

 

Exactly what part of that do you find objectionable/questionable. And if you so strongly disagree then please give me your alternative view.

 

If you had to complete this sentence what would you say:

 

The Daoist tradition consists of....

 

First I will say. Great thread Stig... as usual. I agree with most of what is posted.

 

But on this point I agree with Devoid here. And I suspect the reason for the non-response is common sense; Daoism (as a lived-by concept) pre-dates priests (even shamans). But that it was probably religious before it was philosophical I might agree.

 

He does not need to prove you wrong. Honestly, you posted this so you would need to support it first... or your author would.

[Stigweard]

First I will say. Great thread Stig... as usual. I agree with most of what is posted.

 

But on this point I agree with Devoid here. And I suspect the reason for the non-response is common sense; Daoism (as a lived-by concept) pre-dates priests (even shamans). But that it was probably religious before it was philosophical I might agree.

 

He does not need to prove you wrong. Honestly, you posted this so you would need to support it first... or your author would.

OK I sense a difference in scope in the usage of the term "Daoism".

 

The English translation of Daoism/Taoism comes from the term Daojia 道家. Jia is nominally attributed to the meaning of a house, school, family or a specialization.

 

[side Note: Funnily I just saw that the character pictographically shows pigs under a roof, so its like a pigsty. Stig, as in Stigweard, is the Old English for a pigsty How funny.]

 

Now the first recorded usage of the term Daojia was in the Han Dynasty and referred to the synthesis of diverse cultural teachings of Dao under one banner. Included into this synthesis of course were texts like Laozi, Zhuangzi, Shenzi, Neiye, certain chapters of Guanzi, Paopuzi plus many others. These were the beginning of what would eventually become the Daozang, Treasury of Dao.

 

Now it is important for this discussion I believe to highlight that the term Daojia was used as a bibliographical term to classify these texts as a cultural group. This term was used more and more often by scholars and historians of the Han dynasty, and eventually Daojia referred quite specifically to the texts in the Imperial Library classified as such.

 

If the text was in the library it was Daojia ... Daoist. If it was not in the library it was not.

 

It is important to note that in this collection were both the philosophical treatise of Laozi and Zhuangzi and ALSO the texts on rituals, alchemy, and hygiene like Neiye, and the Paopuzi. Thus the first distinctions of Daojia/Taoism intrinsically and indivisibly included both philosophical and religious teachings.

 

But we have to remember that this synthesis was not just about gathering books. Along with the books inevitably came the practicing teachers, adherents, scholars and students. Out of this congregation eventually came the first formalization of an organized tradition of Daojia with creation of the Tian Shi Dao school.

 

From this earliest outset, and through all subsequent sects and sub-sects, Daojia has very much consisted of "ordained priests and monastics and lay supporters" who adhered to the specific collection of texts and teachings first gathered in the Imperial Libraries of the Han Dynasty.

 

However, this collection that would become known as the Daozang is an open source collection because in later centuries other texts like Liezi, Xuanxue, Qingjing jing, Xisheng jing, Yinfu jing, etc. also gained acceptance as being Daojia.

 

So to be technically correct, as liberally minded as I like to be, the term Daojia, and its English Daoism/Taoism, does refer quite specifically to this exclusive list of texts and to the "ordained priests and monastics and lay supporters" who adhere to them.

 

[devoid]

You didn't answer my question: "What do you believe the Daoist tradition is if you so adamantly disagree?"

 

You find this statement unfounded:

 

"The Daoist tradition consists, first and foremost, of ordained priests and monastics and lay supporters."

 

Exactly what part of that do you find objectionable/questionable. And if you so strongly disagree then please give me your alternative view.

 

If you had to complete this sentence what would you say:

 

The Daoist tradition consists of....

 

 

Hi Stig,

 

You can keep asking me questions back all you like - I asked the first one: What do you or the author found this on?

 

We can discuss Daoist Tradition - let me state up front that I didn't introduce the term and I think it is silly - I shall demonstrate why shortly (while simultaneously answering your question). You may try to suggest that Daoist Tradition is very different from Taoim and considering oneself a taoist, but please recall the context in which you have presented these words: Common misconceptions on taoism.

 

Taoist Tradition is not clearly definable - in fact the term suggests that a (one) general tradition exists. This is in fact not the case because many traditions exist and just as importantly many practices exist. To really find out what it means to practice taoism we should look at the roots rather than only at the tradition which can be found in certain sects. The roots are a quite large number of documents which exist in various versions. A document that all people seem to agree on considering inherently taoist is the Tao Te Ching. However, many more exits, but this is where the agreement between taoists begin to come apart - often scriptures such as e.g. those in the taoist canon are discussed - yet there is no firm agreement as to exactly which bodies of text should be included.

 

Listen, I will be happy if you can point towards a generally accepted source of taoist text which suggests that taoism is defined first and foremost, by ordained priests and monastics. I don't think this exists and so you have me complaining....

 

The ball is in your camp, Stig - you can ask me all the questions you want, but I will continue to have a problem with you telling taoists that they are nothing but mere sympathisers of taoism because they don't practice according to rules of certain sects within taoism.

 

Edit: Typo

Edited March 17, 2011 by devoid

[gendao]

At the simplest level, a Daoist does things in reverse from normal humanity to return to our true Nature.

 

He empties his mind and fills his dantian. He lets go, rather than clings. Does less, yet accomplishes more.

 

All concepts are merely koans, even the term, "Dao." All koans are merely fingers pointing at the moon. The further people are from the moon, the more they rely upon fingerpointing and disagree over it. The closer they are, the more they agree upon their shared direct experience.

[Marblehead]

The further people are from the moon, the more they rely upon fingerpointing and disagree over it. The closer they are, the more they agree upon their shared direct experience.

 

I like that.

[Stigweard]

[Stigweard]

Hiya Devoid,

 

Continuing on...

 

Firstly, to your semantic argument that I am trying to differentiate the terms “Taoism” and “Taoist tradition”. In no place have I done this. To me these terms are synonymous. I apologize if my poor use of words has given any other impression.

 

The point I made in my previous post is that Daojia in its inception during the Han dynasty was quite a clear distinction. Daojia was the classification of a body of texts gathered into the imperial library as an organized effort to synthesize the cultural world view of the time surrounding "the concept" of Tao. The classification of Daojia synergistically also included the collective of people who were adherents to those texts.

 

However in the centuries that followed, Daojia morphed and evolved in pace with the succession of dynasties. There were repeated cycles of the Daojia texts being burnt or lost only be followed by renewed compilations.

 

The current Daozang is the 正统道藏 Zhengtong Daozang collated during the Ming Dynasty (1368 to 1644) and contains nearly 1500 texts. So, following the original use of the word, the contents of the Zhengtong Daozang is Daojia/Daoism, and the lineages and sects that adhere to the ontology/world view of the Daozang are also Daojia/Daoism.

 

For interest the Daozang include these subsections:

 

1. Original texts, which refer to the original true texts of the scriptures;

2. Divine talismans, which refer to the scripts of characters on seals and numinous talismans;

3. Jade formulae, which refer to the commentaries of Daoist books;

4. Numinous charts, which refer to the illustrations of the texts or scriptures mainly composed of charts;

5. Records of lineages, which refer to Daoist scriptures recording the deeds of Perfect Men and Sages' transformation and their merits and ranks;

6. Precepts, which refer to scriptures about commandments and Ledgers of Merits and Demerits ( 功過格 gongguo ge );

7. Rituals, which refer to scriptures about Fasts and Offerings ( 齋醮 zhaijiao ) and rituals;

8. Methods, which refer to Daoist books on methods of cultivation of perfection, nourishing spiritual nature, worship and refinement;

9. Techniques, which refer to Daoist books on Outer Alchemy ( 外丹 waidan ) and Divinatory Calculation ( 術數 shushu );

10. Biographies, which refer to the biographies and stele inscriptions of immortals and Perfect Men and annals of Daoist temples;

11. Hymns, which refer to scriptures lauding spirits;

12. Petitions and memorials, which refer to the petitions and Qingci (Daoist prayers written in vermilion on a kind of special paper) presented in fasts and offerings.

 

http://en.daoinfo.org/wiki/The_Daoist_Canon

Edited March 18, 2011 by Stigweard

[dawei]

The English translation of Daoism/Taoism comes from the term Daojia 道家. Jia is nominally attributed to the meaning of a house, school, family or a specialization.

 

 

Now the first recorded usage of the term Daojia was in the Han Dynasty and referred to the synthesis of diverse cultural teachings of Dao under one banner. Included into this synthesis of course were texts like Laozi, Zhuangzi, Shenzi, Neiye, certain chapters of Guanzi, Paopuzi plus many others. These were the beginning of what would eventually become the Daozang, Treasury of Dao.

 

Now it is important for this discussion I believe to highlight that the term Daojia was used as a bibliographical term to classify these texts as a cultural group. This term was used more and more often by scholars and historians of the Han dynasty, and eventually Daojia referred quite specifically to the texts in the Imperial Library classified as such.

. . .

So to be technically correct, as liberally minded as I like to be, the term Daojia, and its English Daoism/Taoism, does refer quite specifically to this exclusive list of texts and to the "ordained priests and monastics and lay supporters" who adhere to them.

The phrase was most likely first coined by Sima Tan, father of Sima Qian who wrote the phrase in his monumental Shi Ji (Classic of History). He used it to differentiate the other 'schools of thought', as he (and his father) saw them:

 

The Daoists enable man's Numinous Essence (jingshen) to be concentrated and unified, enable him to move in unison with the Formless (wuxing), and to provide adequately for the myriad things. As for its methods, it follows the great compliance of the Yin-Yang specialists, picks out the best of the Confucians and Mohists, and adopts the essentials of the Terminologists and Legalists. It shifts with the times, changes in response to things, and in establishing customs and in practical applications it is nowhere unsuitable. the general drift of its teachings is simple and easy to hold onto; there is much achievement for little effort.

 

They were followers of the Huang-Lao philosophy which developed a few hundred years prior and was the state ideology for a while. In his history he covers the masters of this tradition. Ever wonder why Sima Qian's first chapter covers Huang Di?

 

I think your argument would be more convincing if you had stuck to the origin of the phrase Dao Jiao, which was actually used much earlier and meant more like "Teachings of the Dao" and was used to describe anyone who might follow the principles of the Way, even if from another 'school'. This seemed a more universal and original.

[Stigweard]

[henro]

But. . . the primary "daoist" texts compiled in the imperial libraries pre-date any type of formal daoist religion (i.e. ordained monks, priests and nuns). As you said:

 

"Daojia was the classification of a body of texts gathered into the imperial library as an organized effort to synthesize the cultural world view of the time surrounding "the concept" of Tao. The classification of Daojia synergistically also included the collective of people who were adherents to those texts."

 

So if we use your comment "The Daoist tradition consists, first and foremost, of ordained priests and monastics and lay supporters", there were no daoists at the time these texts were written ? We have people who were not taoists writing text that became religious documents for ordained daoists ?

 

My research suggests that the first organized daoist religion was during the Han dynasty by Zhang Daoling, but it looked like a cult, and a power grab more than anything else.

 

Further, the page you reference, and many of your posts suggest the idea that there is no philosophical daoism:

 

"In any case, there are no theoretically grounded, historically accurate, or anthropologically relevant referents for the Western distinction between “philosophical Daoism” and “religious Daoism.” “Philosophical Daoism” is wholly a modern fiction."

 

Yet, if the primary daoist text were written before any organized religion aren't we then indeed speaking about a philosophy that was turned into a religion ? Using daojia in this context may be a modern phenomena, but it's certainly a classification that most would understand.

Edited March 18, 2011 by robmix

[Stigweard]