COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS CONCERNING DAOISM (TAOISM)

[Mark Saltveit]

the word "daoist" (in english) is a NEW WORD and different people give it different meaning.

As a new word/concept everyone is entitled to call him/herself as such.

 

If, however, one takes the word "Daoist" as the english translation of the chinese word "daoshi" (or similar terms) THEN it is correct to say it cannot be utilized for someone who has not received oral transmission and has been accepted by a lineage master in a specific (chinese) daoist tradition.

 

Interesting, thanks. Where would one run across the word "daoshi" or find it translated? Does it appear in the DDJ or Zhuang Zi?

[Stigweard]

Guys,

 

this horse has been beaten to death for YEARS!

 

First of all no (chinese) daoist would say that one has to "become a part of a Daoist lineage to really experience Dao". I don't know where you get that, but 'Dao' is a concept that permeates chinese history and therefore it is a common idea to everybody and everything. Confucians have 'their' Dao, Buddhists have 'their' Dao and they all agree it is the same old Dao.

 

The problem of "calling oneself a Daoist" it is very much a semantic issue actually, because the word "daoist" (in english) is a NEW WORD and different people give it different meaning.

As a new word/concept everyone is entitled to call him/herself as such.

 

If, however, one takes the word "Daoist" as the english translation of the chinese word "daoshi" (or similar terms) THEN it is correct to say it cannot be utilized for someone who has not received oral transmission and has been accepted by a lineage master in a specific (chinese) daoist tradition.

 

It is quite simple in fact

 

YM

Ahh ... excellent post my friend. Thank you for sharing your learned and experienced view.

 

Actually that is probably the strongest argument yet for the liberalization of the term "daoist".

 

@Mark Saltveit ... you wont find Daoshi in Laozi or the Zhuangzi. Daoshi 道士 is a formal term for an ordained priest. What you will find in both Zhuangzi and Laozi is repeated usage of the term Zhenren/Shengren 真人 meaning "true person" synonymous with "sage" or "holy person". It also appears in Huainanzi, Liezi, Wenzi etc.

 

[Mark Saltveit]

Thus it is quite accurate to say that Lao-Zhuang philosophy predated the organized religion of Daoism. But Lao-Zhuang philosophy was only one part of the complete world view of Dao-centric Chinese culture at the time. Right along side you had active and alive traditions whose ontology found their way into texts like:

 

* Huainanzi 淮南子 -- contains details of jing 精, qi 氣, shen 神, and the cosmology of Tian-di-ren 天地人.

* Baopuzi 抱朴子 -- contains Ge Hong's own researches into the art of transcendence and immortality, topics like alchemy (jindan 金丹, pills), health preserving (yangsheng 養生), meditation and breathing techniques (xingqi 行氣), exorcism, sexual practices (fangzhongshu 房中術), herbalism (fuyao 服藥) and talismanic charms (shenfu 神符)

 

Significantly predating Laozi and Zhuangzi by over a millennium is the Huangdi Neijing 黃帝內經, the contents of which covers Yin/Yang theory and the Wuxing (five elements) and the extensive early methodology of traditional Chinese medicine. ... I believe that you can only get an integral perspective of this overall Dao-centric world view by studying and engaging the full spectrum ... or at least a greater bandwidth than Lao-Zhuang philosophy.

 

 

I respect that opinion, but hope that you might respect those who disagree. If you are studying Chinese culture and history per se, then yes absolutely you need to know about all of that stuff. But Lao-Zhuang philosophy clearly seems to be the most universal and least culturally-specific element of what later became Daojia.

 

There are millions in China who find value in Aristotle, Christianity and American entrepreneurship. We don't insist that they must understand classical Greek conceptions of mentor/boy relationships, Italian espresso or America's gun fixation to fully appreciate these. There are hundreds of millions of Chinese Buddhists who know very little if anything about India's culture.

 

I don't know of any other context where we require someone interested in another culture's philosophy (or part of that philosophy) to absorb the entire cultural context of that original culture before they can adopt the philosophy. If a philosophy is universally applicable -- and you seem to agree that Daoism is -- why can't it be appreciated in isolation, or adapted to other cultures? If Laozi and Zhuangzi didn't see fit to mention Yin/Yang or Chinese medicine, why should we think it's necessary for modern Westerners to understand these concepts in order to appreciate their work?

[YMWong]

Interesting, thanks. Where would one run across the word "daoshi" or find it translated? Does it appear in the DDJ or Zhuang Zi?

 

While the term "daoshi" has been in use quite early, by memory I think as early as the Warrior States, at the time 'daoists' were mostly called by other names: from the earliest 'fangshi' to 'fashi' to 'zhenren' etc.

 

I think there is no mention in the DDJ, thou I seem to recall a 'daoren' reference in the Xiang'er commentary, and most probably not in Zhuangzi (which might have plenty of "zhenren" and "fangshi" I guess).

A "daoshi" can then be called by other terms depending on his specialization, his lineage, his rank etc.

 

Most of those original terms, be that before of after the common usage of the term "daoshi" in history, have been translated variously as "taoist" (then 'daoist' with the advent of pinyin in academia) in western sources.

A few authors have tried to suggest terms like "daoist priest" to identify certain characteristics but ever since N. Sivin the bickering around the usage of the term 'taoist/daoist' has been heated.

 

Anyway, it does not help to look at sources 2000 years old to define daoism or a daoist. Actual daoism is what has been transmetted to us to modern times and it is more important to look at the last couple of hundred years to understand the Tradition.

 

Academia has understood this problem so much so that in the last few years, after dozen of years spent only looking at written sources of antiquity, studies of daoism in the Qing and late Qing dynasty together with fieldwork done in China finally dominated.

 

It is to those sources that people in the west should look at for guidance, as they are closer in time and affinity to what daoism is today. For one, I suggest the excellent work by Prof. Liu Xun (Daoist Modern: Innovation, Lay Practice and the Community of Inner Alchemy in Republican Shanghai, Cambridge: Harvard University Asian Center/HUP, 2009)which sheds good light on this issue.

 

Best

 

YM

[dawei]

I thought this a rather interesting take on the two different viewpoints of the Laozi on Daoism:

 

"Philosophical" and "Religious" Daoism: Two Commentaries on Daode Jing

 

If the two Daoisms represented by the two commentaries are different as night and day, then let the student who balances himself thus, holding one text in each hand, be called the traveler who goes by night and by day. Keeping faith with Dao, his essence refined, people will barely know of his existence, and his steps will leave no trail.

 

---

 

Here is my thoughts on the history of the commentaries and their influence:

 

One's position on the DDJ may be a reflection of which commentator/translator they are most familiar with. But it should be pointed out that in general, the Neo-Daoist Wang Bi (a confucian seeking daoist understanding) is the world-over text that most everyone uses. He develops the metaphysical-political-philosophy which most adhere to.

 

Some have broken down the first half (Dao Jing) as more metaphysical and the second half (De Jing) as socio-political. But the Wang Bi seems to combine the themes more than other commentary had done prior to him.

 

Without any surviving parts, the keeper of the pass who asked Lao Zi to pen the DDJ is said to have written his own works based on the Laozi. These were used many years later by the more religious groups but that he may of had themes compatible to religious thinking shows an early interpretation along that lines. No text survives, only mentions of it.

 

Few know that the very first commentary on the Laozi was Han Fei, the legalist, written probably prior to 230 BC (because he seems to have a more complete version than the Guodian and he cites the Warring state turmoil still going on). His commentary conveys a sense of fear and survival; Consistent to the times. There is not any mention of Dao as metaphysical... it's all war and politics.

 

There is a commentary by Yan Zun about 80 BC. China had been already unified by the exceedingly cruel first emperor but this period is the golden Han dynasty--think 'han chinese'. Huang-Lao political-legal-philosophy was the state ideology for a while. In this climate was Yan Zun, the Huainanzi and the famous Shi Ji (Classic of History) which first coined the phrase "Dao Jia". Confucianism was adopted as the state ideology and the civil exams for government jobs were based on the Confucian classic. This commentary talks much of the sage following nature, and thus the people as well will. Socio-Political harmony is important.

 

Around 100 is the famous Heshanggong commentary which was popular even until the Song Dynasty (1000 years later). There is some focus on cultivation aspects of the Lao Zi, so a return to self-cultivation which was known among early Daoist text. The Yellow Turban Rebellion had already occurred and Buddhism had just step ashore of China.

 

Around 200 is the Xiang'er commentary and this represents a stronger return to the spritual and self-cultivation. This was used by the Tian Shi Dao for their religious application of Dao.

 

Around 230 was Wang Bi's text and commentary was written. He also wrote a commentary on the Yi Jing before dying at the young age of 23. He was a confucian who wanted to interpret a compatible version of the Lao Zi. He was associated with the Dark Learning School, taken from DDJ1. Their revival of daoist texts is almost a reaction to the religious revival of the text, but for socio-political reasons.

 

During the Tang Dynasty was the Elizabethan Age of China where buddhism peak, the famous zen patriarchs lived, a temple was built to Laozi and poets flourished. There was a textual revival of the Lao Zi with every way of explanation; among the buddhist was their 'twofold mystery' taken from chapter 1. In the end, the Wang Bi text and commentary comes down to us as the version of choice (for that time period at least).

 

The Daoist Cannon had it's fourth compilation during the Ming Dynasty (1445) and comprises over 5,000 books.

[Marblehead]

There was at least 5,000 years of tribal plains ...

 

All valid what you have said my friend.

 

However, I feel I am riding a good horse and find no need to get on a different one.

[Marblehead]

 

Yes the philosophical treatise of Laozi and Zhuangzi were written before the Han synthesis and formalization of the classification "Daojia". Thus it is quite accurate to say that Lao-Zhuang philosophy predated the organized religion of Daoism.

 

Great response Stig. I have no arguement with what you said in the rest of your post. All valid as far as I understand.

[Marblehead]

I respect that opinion, but ...

 

Nice post and considerations.

[Marblehead]

During the Tang Dynasty ...

 

I was pleased seeing you write of the Tang Dynasty. Way back when, many years ago, I had a course titled "A Short History of China and Japan" and I thought that the early Tang period was the most progressive period in China's history.

[gendao]

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

Interestingly, I just read this passage that echoes this same description:

The saying, “inverting the course generates an Immortal” (nixing chengxian) does not only apply to one’s own practice, but to the whole view of the cosmos: “invertingthe course” means reversing the ordinary patterns, so that all thingsreturn under the command of the alchemical master.

I think the real measure of a Daoist path or individual is how close it gets to the Dao.

 

First, I only read about the Great Mountain.

Then, I had the fortune of meeting some travelers who had actually been there and got a few glimpses.

Finally, I embarked upon the journey to the Great Mountain myself.

 

Each level of encounter has its place, though. A distant one is good as an introduction for n00bs or those who have little time or desire for more. Something is better than nothing. The closer encounters would be for those with more time and desire.

Edited March 22, 2011 by vortex

[VCraigP]

Hey,

 

When Stig writes that he is not a Taoist, and then Marblehead writes that Stig is in fact a Taoist it becomes clear that this is not a philosophical debate but one of linguistics. As such it cannot be resolved due to the elusive nature of that thing through which humans write and speak. Until there is a universally accepted definition of the words Tao and Taoist then the debate that has taken place on this thread is nonsensical. The first chapter of the TTC (seminal to the context of "Taoism") indicates that by its very nature the Tao cannot be defined...it is by definition impossible to define. So without the ability to define Tao, how can one define Taoist within the boundaries of the context of Taoism? This reduces the problem from one of philosophy to one of marginally intellectual entertainment.

 

 

 

Now I think I understand beter why my teacher likes to use the term "Chinese Wisdom Traditions" for his transmissions of Taiji, Qigong, Calligraphy, I Ching (yijing), Qin, Xinyi etc. All of which seem "Taoist" but may arguably not actually be, depending upon your definition of course.

 

I AM A TAOIST. My definition is my own and I allow no one to correct it! I am a follower of the way. I am ignorant, and yet I seek.

 

Earlier in this thread someone mentioned seeking "the root" and they were talking about texts. These are not the root they are not even the branches but maybe the leaves.

The philosopy is not the root. The practices are not the root. The Religion is NOT the root.

 

I seek the way, therefore I am a Taoist.

 

I have learned something about tools to help illuminate the way, but it is not this, not this, not this.

 

I am a seeker. Right now I seek to release my attachment to stories about myself, labels which obscure my true being.

 

I think the best thing a Taoist could do would be to disavow being a Taoist. Not this , not this, not this.

 

But rituals, labels, costumes, forms have a certain romance to them. Hard to let go.

 

Still on the way, as are all.

 

Craig

[Stigweard]

[Marblehead]

Seeing that Daoist philosophy is more or less only a cultivation of the mind (which is an important aspect), then I maintain that, on its own, studying Lao-Zhuang philosophy is insufficient to achieve an experiential awareness of Dao.

 

I am almost tempted to agree with this but I'm not going to. Hehehe.

[Stigweard]

I am almost tempted to agree with this but I'm not going to. Hehehe.

Go on ... you know you want to

[Marblehead]

Go on ... you know you want to

 

Okay. Let's look at this.

 

You stated: Seeing that Daoist philosophy is more or less only a cultivation of the mind (which is an important aspect), then I maintain that, on its own, studying Lao-Zhuang philosophy is insufficient to achieve an experiential awareness of Dao.

 

I agree. That is, I agree if that is all we do with the wisdom (couldn't use the word 'knowledge') we gain from understanding the philosophy of Taoism. That is, we talk our talk but we walk a different path.

 

However, if we walk our talk, that is, we apply the wisdom of Taoist philosophy to our everyday life, including our thoughts and actions, we will be living the Way of Tao.

 

Now, this is not meant to downplay the importance of supplimental aspects of taoism including religion, the arts, spirituality, etc. It is just saying that I think it is possible to have the total without studying and ritualistically following these supplimental aspects.

 

Sure, I will grant you that Philosophical Taoism does not place very much attention on spirituality. Chuang Tzu does to a degree. But I still think that once we have grasped the concept, I mean really grasped, of Oneness, spirituality will always be in the background of every thought we have.

 

Your turn Stig. Hehehe.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Marblehead

[Marblehead]

PS Everyone else are welcome to challenge or question what I stated above as well, not just Stig.

[宁]

PS Everyone else are welcome to challenge or question what I stated above as well, not just Stig.

 

Thanks, don't mind if i do! See, you are a person that talks from a perspective which most if not all of us don't undertand: the perspective of a man in his 70's. In daoist understanding, a man that has reached that age is close to the first level of immortality. You consciousness is different, and therefore you can state and stand by what you have stated regarding daoism, and no Chinese in his right mind (at least none from the past) would tell you that you haven't got it. Esoterically speaking, your five shen have been living for so long together, that is most likely they have achieved a state of harmony, that usually would pertain to a practicioner.

 

In China it seems that, at least from the p.o.v of popular belief, old age doesn't come on it's own, you need to keep the Way if you want to ever reach longevity. I'm not sure you see my point, you would need a more thorough introduction in Chinese mystical thought for it all to make sense.

Am not sure you'll even agree with it, however this is the only stance by which i can grant you the truth of your vision and statements. Be it by mystical reasons, friendship reasons, scientific/objective reasons, i think in the end it doesn't really matter...

Edited March 22, 2011 by Little1

[Marblehead]

Thanks, don't mind if i do!

 

Hi Little1. Thanks for that post. Whether intended or not I will accept that entire thought of yours as a compliment.

 

And I am not accepting it that way just for the purpose of boosting my ego. (I know how to do that on my own. Hehehe.) I am accepting it because you have seen a part of me, no, not with your eyes, not with your mind, but with your inner essence.

 

And yes, it is true, I have an advantage on many here because of my age and the experiences many years of living has brought to me.

 

I have been to Hell. I have rested in Heaven. And I assure you and everyone else that these two places reside inside each and every one of us.

 

One comment I make sometimes about my age is that at least I haven't pissed anyone off so badly that they took action to kill me. (Yeah, some have told me where I could go but we won't talk about that.)

 

"Harmony" What a beautiful concept. You know I love that concept don't you?

 

I am glad you didn't let the consideration of whether or not I would agree with you when you created this post. I feel your words are sincere and that is all that really matters.

 

And you are right, it doesn't matter what I am called by others or even by myself. What I am is all that matters. And, of course, that goes for all of us here. If we can walk our talk we are doing better than most. Doesn't matter what others think or what labels they wish to place on us.

 

(Well, sure, we might get lost sometime. And I truely do know about that! But there is always a way back. Many ways, in fact.)

[宁]

I'm happy you took it that way, as it was meant that way...

 

I can see the way time itself has affected my own consciousness, and looking from that perspective i think i begin to understand why would the daoist find it appealing to strife for longevity. I can barely imagine what changes will the years to come mold on my own consciousness.

 

So, that settles it, we indeed have a 'daoist' sollution to it eh?

 

Time, potion of wisdom, whether you exist or not, we owe yee so much!

Edited March 22, 2011 by Little1

[Stigweard]

Okay. Let's look at this.

 

You stated: Seeing that Daoist philosophy is more or less only a cultivation of the mind (which is an important aspect), then I maintain that, on its own, studying Lao-Zhuang philosophy is insufficient to achieve an experiential awareness of Dao.

 

I agree. That is, I agree if that is all we do with the wisdom (couldn't use the word 'knowledge') we gain from understanding the philosophy of Taoism. That is, we talk our talk but we walk a different path.

 

However, if we walk our talk, that is, we apply the wisdom of Taoist philosophy to our everyday life, including our thoughts and actions, we will be living the Way of Tao.

 

Now, this is not meant to downplay the importance of supplimental aspects of taoism including religion, the arts, spirituality, etc. It is just saying that I think it is possible to have the total without studying and ritualistically following these supplimental aspects.

 

Sure, I will grant you that Philosophical Taoism does not place very much attention on spirituality. Chuang Tzu does to a degree. But I still think that once we have grasped the concept, I mean really grasped, of Oneness, spirituality will always be in the background of every thought we have.

 

Your turn Stig. Hehehe.

 

Perhaps the best thing you have ever written my fuzzy eared old friend

 

Essentially I agree with you. Always will I maintain the pivotal role Lao-Zhuang philosophy must take in cultivation.

 

I love that word "cultivation" ... very similar to the term yǎngshēng 養生, the translation of which means "health preservation" or "nourishing life". This is what Daoist movement arts were referred to before they became popularized under the modern name of Qigong.

 

I believe there is something about the wisdom that age naturally brings. There is also some truth in the idea that a healthy clean body produces a clear mind, and perhaps you would agree with me that a clear, unfettered mind is a mind that can truly see the oneness of Dao.

 

Recognizing this our Daoist practitioners through the ages have dedicated eons of research into how to keep the body healthy so the mind can be clear, and how we can preserve this health so that we can cultivate the wisdom granted by many passings of the seasons.

 

There is also some truth in the idea that the stronger the illness the stronger the medicine needs to be.

I have also heard it said that the true art of healing is, "The right cure, for the right person, at the right time."

 

If a person's mind is crystal clear and their health is enduringly-vibrant, then perhaps just the gentle caress of Lao-Zhuang philosophy is all they need.

 

If, however, their mind is sullied with conditioned fixations and their health is severed at the root, then this is where the stronger medicine of the "supplemental" Daoist practices like Yangsheng come into play.

 

The plain truth is that most modern people have many afflictions so, in terms of what best serves people to help them start making the journey back to oneness, then I feel that a wider spectrum of Daoist cultivation is required.

 

[Marblehead]

I love that word "cultivation" ... very similar to the term yǎngshēng 養生, the translation of which means "health preservation" or "nourishing life". This is what Daoist movement arts were referred to before they became popularized under the modern name of Qigong.

 

I like the way that came out of your mind. Applicable to every aspect of our life, I think.

 

There is also some truth in the idea that the stronger the illness the stronger the medicine needs to be.

 

I have also heard it said that the true art of healing is, "The right cure, for the right person, at the right time."

 

If a person's mind is crystal clear and their health is enduringly-vibrant, then perhaps just the gentle caress of Lao-Zhuang philosophy is all they need.

 

If, however, their mind is sullied with conditioned fixations and their health is severed at the root, then this is where the stronger medicine of the "supplemental" Daoist practices like Yangsheng come into play.

 

The plain truth is that most modern people have many afflictions so, in terms of what best serves people to help them start making the journey back to oneness, then I feel that a wider spectrum of Daoist cultivation is required.

 

Yep. I would speak to this but your words did very well so I see no need for 'supplimental' words.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Marblehead

[Mark Foote]

[Marblehead]

You guys are all 'way comfy now... here's one I hope you'll agree with, in spite of my affinity for "not one, not two" (Shunryu Suzuki?) and "not always so" (ditto):

 

 

Yep. We should always be present in the 'where are are' no matter where we are. Being present is the beginning of the journey.

 

Now, where was I?

[Stigweard]

I like the way that came out of your mind. Applicable to every aspect of our life, I think.

 

Yep. I would speak to this but your words did very well so I see no need for 'supplimental' words.

It would appear we have arrived at an harmonious agreement ... much respect my friend.

 

[Marblehead]

It would appear we have arrived at an harmonious agreement ... much respect my friend.

 

 

Same back at cha', my friend.

 

Although we walk different paths, the journey is the same, so I see no reason why we cannot walk side by side when our paths do happen to merge for a while, and all paths do that now and again.

 

So are there any other misconceptions of anything we need address?