COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS CONCERNING DAOISM (TAOISM)

[Stigweard]

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

 

Good to read your article Mark ... interesting to pick this conversation up again after nearly 2-years

 

I think an important facet of what can be called "Daoism" is well and truly founded in the tumultuous history of the Daozhang. We must remember that Daojia was a term used as to categorize a collection of texts and practices gathered during the "Han synthesis". After the ravages and cultural purges of Legalism, the Han attempted to revitalize the Chinese indigenous culture by gathering as many of the remnant texts into the imperial library.

 

[it must also be noted that Daojia and Daojiao have been used interchangeably and that even Buddhism once used Daojiao to reference its own teachings. It is perhaps a late campaign of Daoist trying to assert their individuality that these terms became a "purely Daoist thing".]

 

And yes, the Tianshi Dao 天師道 certainly formed and rose in prominence as the first organized "religion" around those teachings.

 

Subsequently though, the Daozhang has been destroyed and recompiled several times, with sections lost and new sections added. As such it is, as you have indicated, almost impossible to know with certainty the exact ontology of the early Daoists.

 

It must be noted though that the Daozhang was never about just two texts. Yes the Laozi and Zhuangzi were central and pivotal texts. But within the Daozhang and the Daoist corpus of texts we also have:

• Shenzi / Shen Tzu 慎子
• Liezi / Lieh Tzu 列子
• Wenzi / Wen Tzu 文子
• Yijing / I Ching 易經 (Book of Changes)
• Neiye / Nei Yeh 內業 (Inner Cultivation)
• Huainanzi / Huai-nan Tzu 淮南子 (The Masters of Huainan)
• Huangdi Neijing 黃帝內經 (Yellow Emperor's Inner Canon)
• Baopuzi / Pao-p'u-tzu 抱朴子 (Master Who Embraces Simplicity)
• Taiping Jing 太平清领书 (Scriptures of the Great Peace)
• Tai Xi Jing / Tai Hsi Ching 胎息經 (Respiration of the Embryo)

Knowing this gives me considerable confidence that Daojia/Daojiao/Daoism has never been "just about philosophy".

 

However I will agree wholeheartedly that there have been traditions, like the Lao-Zhuang schools, who were more or solely focused on the philosophical tenets of the "great two" books of Daoism. But, as I have before, I will firmly debate any notion that the philosophy of Laozi or Zhuangzi is somehow the "original" Daoism and the metaphysical or theological aspects were somehow a distorted latecomer.

 

Again, as I have proffered before, I believe the philosophy is only really assimilated through engaging in practices emerging from the same ontological source. However I will admit my own pragmatism (and perhaps western ignorance) when I say that simple pursuits like Taijiquan, Qigong and Neidan are much more digestible than the folk-occultism that many orthodox Daoist sects engage in.

 

[Mark Saltveit]

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.

 

Buddhism once used Daojiao to reference its own teachings.

 

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.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Mark Saltveit

[dawei]

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.

 

I learned more in those mountains than 10 years of reading

 

I see Stig wrote some on Daojia and Daojiao. The terms do seem to predate Sima Qian. Let's not forget a very small point; that it was his father who started the histories and thus it was probably his father who began to systematize the 'school of six'... but that is a small point as the time frame is still about the same. But that other's used the phrases before the Daoist [proper], I hold the same position as Stig of a 'late campaign' to get themselves a label on some level. It was the Daoist who may of turned the meaning of Daoism in a distinct direction away form a more classical and broad usage.

 

I agree about your point on 'distance'; While Dao is unchanged in the Way of its operation, it is ever-changing in its effect/outcomes; singularity gives rise to multiplicity. So the 'relevance for today' argument may be semantics: One side claiming singularity and other side multiplicity but they are really the same thing (or at least from the same source).

[dawei]

I think a list of related documents is good to note and there are others which could be added to the list above. But I think if we get stuck on 'when' did they each get considered as part of the Daozang then we may miss part of the point that they predate any idea of organizing texts (as a canon) under a school of thought.

 

The fact is, some of these texts may either pre-date or be very close to the time of Laozi (and Confucius)... and so they reflect that this thought is not suddenly emerging in a person or two (or a book or two).

 

I would at least consider the following:

1. Other written material like Shenzi (from Chu) may pre-date Laozi and Laozi appears to borrow from it and Zhuangzi quotes him. Laozi makes references to 'past masters' and so we can assume some form of lineage of thought pre-exists. The proximity of the Wenzi is similar.

2. Liezi quotes from the "book of the yellow emperor" and we find the same quote for quote in Laozi... so previous text (or sayings probably existed).

3. The Tai Yi Sheng Shui cosmology text is the most complete and very early, found also in the Guodian bundles. It also has text which is almost line for line in the Laozi.

4. The area of Chu would be a worthy study (as I think Scott-Bao Po) is doing... it appears rich in a tradition of Shamanistic thought and where Shenzi and Laozi originate. One should not overlook the Chu poet Qu Yuan who is about the same time of Laozi and where shamanism can be found in his writings.

5. The history of Wu, the female shaman, and it's connection to the prominence of a "Wu-state" in Laozi.

6. Archaeology clearly supports the primitive cultures use of dancing and meditation. The precuror to the "Dance of Yu" (Yu the great was considered a shaman). Mythology on Fuxi and others leading up to this period are important, IMO.

 

I know that some take some stand on mixing in mythology but ancient cultures did not separate Myth and history; they are one for the purposes of understanding the meaning of the cosmos and the microcosm of the body and life.

 

If we stop trying to define Daoism by the number of books and when it was started, and instead see it as starting in primitive cultures, then I think we see Daoism is more than a philosophy or book count. It is an unfolding of outcomes.

[eye_of_the_storm]

OP very good read... thanks!

[Everything]

Tao Massage, allways have happy ending.

 

Let the people say; Tao can suck my dick.

 

Teach the people Horse Stance.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Everything

[Stigweard]

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.

 

Likewise I can ask, is there any evidence at all that the Tian Shi Dao were exclusively a Lao-Zhuang school??

 

To the contrary...

 

We can be confident that the Tian Shi Dao drew their views from various Han and Warring States Period ontological sources. For example, the Taipingjing was a central component of Tian Shi Dao corpus of scriptures and this text dates to the time of Emperor Ch'eng (32-7 BC) (Kaltenmark, "The Ideology of the T'ai-ping ching", p.19).

 

There are also very close links to Mozi (ca. 470-ca. 400 BCE), as well as beliefs and practices that were starkly un-Laozi (like meditating on the gods of the body -- practices that have, interestingly enough, perpetuated into the modern Daozhang).

 

So is there enough evidence that the body of scriptures of the early Tian Shi Dao contained more than Laozi and Zhuangzi? Quite confidently I can say "Yes".

 

http://www.goldenelixir.com/publications/eot_tianshi_dao.html

 

Edited January 29, 2013 by Stigweard

[Mark Saltveit]

Stig: I would never claim that the Tianshi Dao were based purely on the ZZ & DDJ. The question to me though is, was there a coherent Daoism or school of Daoist thought before them, which was dramatically changed with the addition of these other influences?

Catholicism incorporated lots of elements from other religions, Lupercalia for Christmas, Tonantzin for the Lady of Guadelupe, etc. Zen combined Buddhism and Daoism, and there is considerable evidence of cross-fertilization between those two, so it wouldn't be the first time.

 

That doesn't mean its wrong, but it might be different. And people can prefer one or the other version.

[dawei]

Stig: I would never claim that the Tianshi Dao were based purely on the ZZ & DDJ. The question to me though is, was there a coherent Daoism or school of Daoist thought before them, which was dramatically changed with the addition of these other influences?

 

The phrase 'Celestial Master' comes from Zhuangzi... so that should settle it, yes?

 

I would answer the first question YES but with explanation. Sima Qian (and his father) came up with the 'school of six'. But if you look at how he describes the Dao Jia, it takes the best from each of the other schools... What Sima really qualified was the Huang-Lao school of thought, as this was his personal inclination. So the classical Daoism of two books (maybe one or two more could be justified) but by this point it is a Political-Legalist-Philosophical Daoism.

 

Now if we move on to the Celestial Masters as to the influences they had, it seems clear that my explanation above is not sufficient to show why a Daoist religious movement commenced. There is a Xian Dao (仙道)-daoist immortal, aspect missing... which had to come from somewhere that Sima Qian missed.

 

I feel these are more 'under-ground' on some level. Shamanism, spirituality, alchemy, etc... coming out of the closet to finally form an organized religion under the banner (and appearance on a mountain) of Lao Zi.

[Stigweard]

Stig: I would never claim that the Tianshi Dao were based purely on the ZZ & DDJ. The question to me though is, was there a coherent Daoism or school of Daoist thought before them, which was dramatically changed with the addition of these other influences?

 

Fair question, and to be honest I don't know. I connect with Fabrizio Pregadio on occasion so I will ask him.

 

To be sure though, Tianshidao scriptures included both philosophical commentary on Laozi as well as dozens of scriptures on rituals and ceremony (apparently a lot of their ritual practice was an attempt to reinvent and eradicate the popular blood-letting rituals of the times).

 

So if we assert that the Tianshidao is the first formalization of a Daoist theocracy then, to link back to the opening post, Komjathy is perfectly correct in articulating the misconception of there being two forms of Daoism, “philosophical Daoism” and “religious Daoism”.

 

[Marblehead]

Komjathy is perfectly correct in articulating the misconception of there being two forms of Daoism, “philosophical Daoism” and “religious Daoism”.

 

Are we going to have to fight about this again? Hehehe.

[Stigweard]

Are we going to have to fight about this again? Hehehe.

 

Sure, why not ... game on

 

[Marblehead]

You said this:

Komjathy is perfectly correct in articulating the misconception of there being two forms of Daoism, “philosophical Daoism” and “religious Daoism”.

 

Now, I won't deny that this can be true in many cases. But I will suggest that if one follows the Way of Tao without observing any of the religious or alchemic aspects of the belief system then all one is left with is Philosophical Taoism.

 

And just as with Christianity, Religious Taoists can just as easily be lebelled "believers" but yet their way of life and the path they walk is far from the teachings of the philosophical aspect of the belief system.

[Marblehead]

I think that this thread could also be linked with many of the earlier posts in the "American Taoist" thread.

[Mark Saltveit]

Marblehead: Are we going to have to fight about this again? Hehehe.

Stigweard: Sure, why not ... game on

 

Well, my latest post on Taoish.org is precisely about that debate, hopefully a somewhat nuanced view, splitting the baby in half as it were. And -- as I suggested in the comments, discoursing with a Tao Bum who chimed in there -- I would love to see a one-on-one debate between you two, specifically, on this subject. Not sure how technical details would work, probably email responses sent to me, to paste into one continuous post -- we can discuss that.

 

What do you say? I like the idea of literal dialogues. "Warriors, come out to play-y-ay!"

[Marblehead]

Hi Mark,

 

The first thing I had to do was read your article so I knew what you are talking about. Yes, nice article and I found nothing (except one misspelled word) to make mention to.

 

Stig and I have had this discussion before when I was placing emphasis on Philosophical Taoism. His interest was in validating Religious Taoism because I have always ignored it. (Hey, I am an Atheist, I ignore all religions.)

 

And I will even go so far as to say that aspects of Shamanic Taoism exist in the TTC. Some would argue that Shamanism is not a religion but I feel that, even if it is not, it has the same attachements that religions have.

 

I grant that many members here have a greater intellectual knowledge of the history of Taoism than I have. I have never felt that this is a problem because I mostly speak from my gut, my intuition, my "Tzujan".

 

The point I always try to put forth is that Taoism (the Way) can be practiced, and lived, without the attachments of religion, alchemy and shamanism. That is to say, living in the Manifest (the physical universe) without adding any man-made illusions and delusions.

[dawei]

The issues seems to me to be two-fold, which I think Mark mentions (whether in the article or here).

1. Theoretical: The distinction being made about philosophical vs religious daoism

2. Practical: Whether what we see in practice are people picking the parts (sometimes more parts and sometimes less parts) they are interested in and make that a part of their life.

 

The first one is debatable but the second is a reality. I think most of the debate over the issue tends to overlook the latter and this causes the debaters at times to seem to be out of touch with what the other 'feels' at the practical level. My feeling is the arguments tend to from our practical perspective and application.

 

My personal view is that Daoism is a set of continuous parts which are a whole series of time events (let's set aside whether time is real). For this reason, I say Daoism started in primitive cultures.

 

When the ancient text said: “In the old times of King Fuxi’s regime, he observed sky and the stars when he looks upwards, and researched the earth when he looks downwards, and watched the birds and beasts to see how they live in their environment. He took examples from nearby and far away, and then made 8 Yin Yang signs to simulate the rules of universe.”

 

And Zhuangzi pointed back to the time of perfect virtue as that time of 'making knots with cords'... there is little doubt that he also was talking the neolithic period.

 

If we are caught up when Daoism was organized and systematicized into thoughts put in books, we've lost Daoism, IMO...

[Marblehead]

The issues seems to me to be two-fold, which I think Mark mentions (whether in the article or here).

 

2. Practical: Whether what we see in practice are people picking the parts (sometimes more parts and sometimes less parts) they are interested in and make that a part of their life.

That's me, but you already knew that.

[Mark Saltveit]

Good points, Dawei. And yet, all human thought is built on previous human thought. It may be fundamentally wrong to chop it into isms and schools of thought, but if you don't, it kind of all flows together.

 

No one has trouble discussing Aristotelian thought, or Hegelian concepts. Daoism strikes me as rather more distinctive and unique than those examples. It also has a certain hard logical (well, anti-logical) purity, internally consistent and endlessly flowering, that I personally just don't find in other schools of thought. Compare the Bible and Buddhism, which are roughly contemporary with it -- the former has some great lines and some compelling dramas, like a Hollywood movie, but is a complete mishmash of styles, attitudes and theologies. The latter seems far too abstract and intellectual, removed from life.

 

I think the concept of philosophical Daoism keeps recurring because of this sense of purity, a hard simplicity that proves paradoxically fruitful. We know that aspect was there in the Warring States period. We don't have any solid evidence of the religious aspects going back that far. I don't think we have any proof they don't, but there's at least a solid circumstantial case that they came later.

 

Do you see shamanism in the later Daoist sects, or just in the older prehistory?

[Stigweard]

There is quite alot I could say at this point ... unfortunately I don't have the time right now to dedicate an appropriate response (though in reviewing the previous pages of the thread I have already said quite sufficient to the point).

 

I will however share this article because it is both pertinent and pragmatic when dealing with this issue:

 

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~nsivin/from_ccat/perp.pdf

 

I will quickly point out that the mere suggestion that Taoism is a philosophy only and somehow is a more "purer" version is simply a fabrication and is not in anyway supported by historical evidence.

 

Ofuchi Ninji said in 1969: "There was no Taoism - no community of interest or consciousness of shared conviction among early sects now considered Taoist - until it was created by the classification of scriptures."

This synthesis, under the classifcation of Taojia, brought together scriptures and practices that shared the same or similar indigenous Chinese ontology. Laozi and Zhuangzi were apart of this collective, but so were scriptures like Liezi and the Neiye that have the SAME vintage as the classical two philosophical works. The mere fact that Zhuangzi directly mentions Xian practices, albeit with a critical tone, is evidence enough that the esoteric practices were, at the least contemporaneous with said philosophical works. If analysis is true then the scriptures like the Huangdi Neijing predates the Laozi and Zhuangzi by several centuries.

 

The point being is that ALL of it is Taoism. You cannot raise one aspect of it and say "this is the purest part", or "this part preceded all the others". That is just simple BS.

 

Yes, sure, you may personally subscribe to certain elements of it ... and yes sure you can say that you are a philosophical Daoist indicating that you are only interested in the philosophy. But to try and say that that "bit" is the "true and only Daoism" is just pure bigotry.

 

Edited February 1, 2013 by Stigweard

[Stosh]

Buddhism may too often 'speak' or 'be spoken of' in abstract terms, but is still involved-addresses the human condition and experience , so ,,It is or would be a generous thing to attempt to bring the ideas down to earth by phrasing them differently.

But in the end one lives ones faith if one has it , and so it isnt any more removed from reality than christianity which includes angels and demons and witches and patron saints and happy places in the sky.

But Id agree Daoism is altogether different (depending on what strain of thought-faith one approaches it from - either shamanistic or philosophical)

[Marblehead]

Yes, sure, you may personally subscribe to certain elements of it ... and yes sure you can say that you are a philosophical Daoist indicating that you are only interested in the philosophy. But to try and say that that "bit" is the "true and only Daoism" is just pure bigotry.

 

You know I have no problem with this.

[Mark Saltveit]

Thanks, Stig, for linking that classic article. (It cracks me up that he seems to describe Taoism as "this young discipline" but I think he really means Western scholarly study of Taoism.)

 

Sivin has a fairly nuanced view, esp. about the issues of this discussion. He criticizes Needham for blurring the difference "between the metaphysical poetry of Lao Tzu and the sacerdotal rites of the Celestial Masters" (p308) He also starts by warning about ":the tendency, many centuries old, to regard as 'Taoist' practices and beliefs which originated in popular religion and were very widely distributed. This often happens even in circumstances where no connection to Taoist organizations or writings can be demonstrated."

 

It seems to me that the latter happens a lot with regard to the Neiye, Yijing, Liezi and others. It's a tautology; "Look these other practices are at least as old as the DDJ, and Daoist sects practice them, so they must be Daoist." Not really.

 

It's like the old argument about marijuana leading to harder drugs: "85% of hard drug users smoked marijuana first!" Yeah, but 99% of them drank milk first; doesn't mean either was the original source of the problem.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Mark Saltveit

[Stigweard]

It seems to me that the latter happens a lot with regard to the Neiye, Yijing, Liezi and others. It's a tautology; "Look these other practices are at least as old as the DDJ, and Daoist sects practice them, so they must be Daoist." Not really.

 

It's like the old argument about marijuana leading to harder drugs: "85% of hard drug users smoked marijuana first!" Yeah, but 99% of them drank milk first; doesn't mean either was the original source of the problem.

 

You are completely missing a fundamental point Mark ... a couple of them in fact.

 

...

 

In fact ... no I wont repeat myself again ... I have spoken to point clear enough here recently and also previously in this thread. If you still don't get it then I guess that is as it is.

 

Daoism is a synergy of philosophical, alchemical, and religious tenets. Every scrap of historical evidence supports this. You are welcome to prefer the philosophy over the other aspects, but please don't try and discount or discredit the other aspects in favor of your view.

 

[Vmarco]

Louis Komjathy 康思奇, Ph.D. has a quite biased, sciential point of view and understands very little about Taoism. The essense of Taoism is not religious,...if anything, it is irreligious. Religion is a set of beliefs. Taoism is not about beliefs,...except how beliefs obscure the Tao.

 

Lao Tzu said, "Do not go about worshipping deities and religious institutions as the source of the subtle truth.....religions are desperate, clever, human inventions that rely on hypnotic manipulation of undeveloped minds."