COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS CONCERNING DAOISM (TAOISM)

[Mark Saltveit]

Stigweard: 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.

 

You cited the classic article by Sivin as your main source, and I quoted you chapter and verse from that very article in response. It seems like my good faith efforts would merit a response. If I'm missing two or more fundamental points, how difficult can it be to mention them? Or at least to provide a pointer to the previous comments you believe I missed?

 

I'll go back to the rest of your post, after you mentioned Sivin:

 

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."

OK, but as far as we know, the early sects did not appear until 400-500 years after the oldest copies of the DDJ and ZZ that we've found, and those texts may be decades or centuries older than that. So the question is not, "when did the earliest sects arise?," but "what was the understanding of Lao Zhuang (and related) thought in the long period before the sects arose?" If you have solid evidence of Daoist sects before the Celestial Masters, I would love to hear about it.

 

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.

 

So what you've established here is that Han synthesists, many centuries after Laozi and Zhuangzi, considered them related to other, even earlier Chinese works. That's not surprising, since they arose from the same culture, but that doesn't mean that all ancient Chinese thought is Daoist. Is Confucianism Daoist? Zhuangzi quotes him, too -- and favorably! (But I don't think it's meant to be taken literally. It strikes me as more of a mischievous teasing.)

 

Call me simple, but the fact that Zhuangzi is critical of the old esoteric practices seems like strong evidence that they are something different than Daoism, even if later writers disagreed.

 

 

The point being is that ALL of it is Taoism.

 

All of it fits under the very broad of historical Daoism, but that umbrella covers many wildly contradictory ideas. I don't see why any Daoist is "obligated" to accept all of it, if they even could. Would you argue that any believer in the way of Jesus must accept the teachings of Mormons and neo-Nazi "Identity Christians," since they all fit under the broader Christian umbrella? I have trouble accepting that.

[Stigweard]

Mark, once again you are repeatedly missing my point and I really don't feel the need or inclination to repeat myself to try and make you understand what I have been saying. Maybe at some other time I would have been happy to re-paraphrase myself in order to help you see my view of it, but right now I just don't have that inclination.

 

Be well my friend.

 

[dawei]

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.

 

I tend to think it recurs due to it's practical humanistic side; people like to apply stuff to the here-and-now. So whether various admonitions were meant for the ruler or not, the people find wisdom in what is said "to do". I would sum up chinese thinking with the thought of what "to do".

 

 

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

 

I tend to view issues about Dao as a continuous unfolding microcosm. Thus, what we see later has its roots earlier. So I would probably say I do not see shamanism in the later Daoist sects in the shamanistic way, but the appeal to immortality, to deity worship seem rooted in shamanism, and has evolved in its expression.

 

My position seems to be as was stated In that article: "Finally, I will argue that a more satisfactory state of affairs will depend not on imposing standard definition but on being explicit about which of the many senses of Taoism we are invoking in each instance".

 

So, I would not directly look for Shamanism in latter sects but the influences of Shamanism on later sects.

 

One far-reaching example which appears completely unrelated, I would say is from 'influence'; Shamanistic influence on Wang Bi. That may seem the longest stretch possible. It was Wang Bi who put the emphasis on the idea of "Wu" (non-existence) vs You (existence). While he comes out of the 'dark philosophers', the connection to the Shaman (Wu) is without question, IMO.

[dawei]

OK, but as far as we know, the early sects did not appear until 400-500 years after the oldest copies of the DDJ and ZZ that we've found, and those texts may be decades or centuries older than that. So the question is not, "when did the earliest sects arise?," but "what was the understanding of Lao Zhuang (and related) thought in the long period before the sects arose?" If you have solid evidence of Daoist sects before the Celestial Masters, I would love to hear about it.

 

This is indeed hard to produce one needs a public emergence on some level. I don't think such issues were considered in the past. Instead, simply following of a leader was a more private matter. Tribes depended on their own, and there was not enough size (think a city-state or society) for the idea of a sect. Tribes were sects to some degree and archaeology clearly shows the 'groups' practiced together. IMO, this is the Shaman influence on later religions.

 

 

Call me simple, but the fact that Zhuangzi is critical of the old esoteric practices seems like strong evidence that they are something different than Daoism, even if later writers disagreed.

 

Or maybe just an application of Daoism he disagree with? It is interesting that he feels the Sage-Kings was the falling away from Dao (for the rulers), while others have mentioned them as in the line of Shaman Kings.

[Mark Saltveit]

Very interesting points, Dawei, and thanks for that. My last point was a specific response to Stigweard, who was arguing that Zhuangzi's mention of the old esoteric practices (even if critical) puts them in the same tradition. But you're right, criticism doesn't imply being out of the same tradition. If anything, people seem to criticize those from the same tradition who are "doing it wrong" far more.

 

Why, that might even happen here on TTB from time to time. :-)

[Stigweard]

Very interesting points, Dawei, and thanks for that. My last point was a specific response to Stigweard, who was arguing that Zhuangzi's mention of the old esoteric practices (even if critical) puts them in the same tradition. But you're right, criticism doesn't imply being out of the same tradition. If anything, people seem to criticize those from the same tradition who are "doing it wrong" far more.

 

Why, that might even happen here on TTB from time to time. :-)

 

You know Mark the reason why I am inclined to draw away from having a discussion with you is your demonstrated tendency to create straw dog arguments ... you misrepresent what I have said and argue against those incorrect assumptions. It is exceptionally frustrating to try and engage with you when you do this.

 

For example, nowhere did I mention that that article was my "main source", in truth it was the result of a 3min Google Scholar search and I threw it in because it was relevant and I would prefer to be using correctly presented research as a basis of discussion rather than personal opinions and biases.

 

Also I did not try and say that Zhuangzi and the Xian practices were of the "same tradition" prior to the Han synthesis. I said that the they were contemporaneous, meaning that they were prevalent within Chinese culture at the same chronological time, and therefore any assertion that the philosophy preceded these metaphysical/religious practices is factually incorrect.

 

Lao/Zhuang philosophy and the metaphysical/religious rituals, ceremonies, and practices certainly are an integral part of the same tradition by the simple virtue that they were brought together in the collection of texts, scriptures, and practices categorized by rubric "Daojia"; a collection that subsequently became the Daozhang which proceeded through the centuries as the central cannon of the philosophical/metaphysical/religious tradition that Westerners have termed Dao-ism.

 

On a personal level I certainly agree with the sentiment that the orthodox religious trappings of modern Daoist sects is somewhat of a turn-off. I prefer to keep my practice on the level of enjoying the philosophy, practicing arts like Qigong, Taijiquan, Neidan, chilling out with nature and also engaging in some of the ceremonial/ritual aspects.

 

But I have enough pragmatic honesty to give full acknowledgement to the tradition of Daojia/Daoism as it is without trying to twist and manipulate it to suit my own personal preferences.

 

So please Mark, I would truly appreciate it if you take an extra moment with my words to understand them properly. This is a worthy discussion and I would like to keep tossing it around.

 

[Mark Saltveit]

Certainly Stigweard. I apologize for missing your nuance; it certainly wasn't my intention to twist or distort anything. These are very subtle ideas with a very imprecise terminology describing them, both in English and in Chinese. I think that a lot of the dissension in Daoist circles comes from imprecise terms that obscure the true meaning, which makes sense because I see the first line of the Daodejing as a warning against precisely this phenomenon.

 

In particular, I think a lot of problems come from the many meanings of the word "Daoist" which is why I think Sivin's article that you linked is so important. Another very good one along the same lines is "On the Very Idea of Religions (In the Modern West and in Early Medieval China)" by Robert Campany, where he disects how the metaphors we use to describes relgiions and philosophies (as a living organism, say, or an army conquering new lands) distort the realities they describe.

 

As for the traditions you mention, first I think it is clear that we simply don't know what Daoism looked like in pre-Han times. Perhaps the Celestial Masters were exactly like every Daoist before them; perhaps they radically altered it. Who can tell? It seems likely to me that pre-Han Daoism and esoteric practices were distinct strands of Chinese culture that were braided together into Han daojia, but that's just a guess.

 

I could not agree with your personal statement in your last post more -- a personal distaste for trappings, but a desire to respect everyone from different schools of Daoism and see what they have to offer. In particular, with a tradition/religion/philosophy that starts with a critique of words as a vehicle for transmitting meaning, there's a strong argument that non-verbal transmission is at least as valuable, whether that's learning a form of physical practice, or simply being around and quietly observing someone who understands Dao on a very deep level (say, in a monastery).

 

This topic started with Komjathy's rather exclusionary arguments prefering religious forms of Daoism (such as his own) over different approaches, especially in the U.S. I'm probably unfairly viewing your comments in that light and projecting his arguments onto yours. My apologies.

[dawei]

As for the traditions you mention, first I think it is clear that we simply don't know what Daoism looked like in pre-Han times. Perhaps the Celestial Masters were exactly like every Daoist before them; perhaps they radically altered it. Who can tell? It seems likely to me that pre-Han Daoism and esoteric practices were distinct strands of Chinese culture that were braided together into Han daojia, but that's just a guess.

 

I know I am jumping in the middle of your discussion with Stig but I do find it interesting. I appreciate Stig's point of view and have had the benefit of time here in TTB to know his point of view and frustration with sharing it.

 

But, I think your line of inquiry is worthwhile up to a point. It might be like asking what Christians were like pre-Apostolic age... it may be an anachronistic search.

 

I might be more inclined to say there were Daoist but not Daoism... or else this pre-han Daoism needs to be defined by these pre-han Daoist.

 

Consider that Lao ZI and Zhuang Zi both refer to 'past sages' or 'past times'.

 

I think the single most important document we could look at is the Shen Zi since it pre-dates Lao Zi and it is clear that there is material borrowed from Shen Zi. I think Lao Zi may not be the great originator of thought as he is often thought... but that he systematized and distilled it into an 'ism' for the first time is to her merit. His gift was not as a founder but as the all-seeing.

[Mark Saltveit]

Thanks, dawei, and no, you're not jumping into our discussion. If I wanted to send a private message to Stigweard, I simply would have.

 

Your point is very well taken; I'm also very interested in pre-Apostolic (or maybe I should say, pre-Paul, or pre-Roman) Christianity. In Kerala province of India, there is a tradition that the apostle Peter traveled there after Jesus' death, and was buried there. I'm not sure how their Christianity might differ from orthodox Roman Catholicism, but I do know that whenever I see a passage from the New Testament that offends me -- about wives obeying their husbands, for example -- it's inevitably from the pen of Paul, who never saw Jesus. Who appointed him God?

 

I would love to hear more about the Shenzi. I thought it was a lost book, known only from quotes in other sources?

[Aaron]

Not to pour cold water on the pre-apostolic Christianity conversation, but it might be best to start a topic in the general discussions section, since it is not a Taoist discussion per-se. I'm interested in hearing more, it's a topic that fascinates me as well.

 

Aaron

[flowing hands]

A most interesting topic. The OP has some mixed ideas that are based on general knowledge but are not necessarily true. The origins of Daoism started before writing or thought like Li Erh wrote down in the DDJ, but from spiritual practices, herb lore and natural phenomenon which was to do with how people noticed natural things which enabled them to live easier. That knowledge dates back some 70-100,000 thousand years BCE. We see the invention of the bow and arrow some 70,000 years ago and along with this the first thought about the interconnection of all things and the development of shamanism. The shamans head, wearing deer antlers is our first indication of this wisdom as part of the pictogram of 'Dao'. The other, a foot. Daoism has come along way since this, some would say it has been very much corrupted by the Temple Daoism/religious Daoism of the relative modern age. I would very much tend to agree with this view. IMO There is only Dao there is not a separation of philosophy and religion. People want to divide these schools and therefore miss what Dao is in its essence; it is neither completely spiritual or philosophical, it is though a recognition of the natural laws which all things are bound by, which encompassing all things. Finding it and its root though is lost in the miasma of teachings.

[Stigweard]

A most interesting topic. The OP has some mixed ideas that are based on general knowledge but are not necessarily true. The origins of Daoism started before writing or thought like Li Erh wrote down in the DDJ, but from spiritual practices, herb lore and natural phenomenon which was to do with how people noticed natural things which enabled them to live easier. That knowledge dates back some 70-100,000 thousand years BCE. We see the invention of the bow and arrow some 70,000 years ago and along with this the first thought about the interconnection of all things and the development of shamanism. The shamans head, wearing deer antlers is our first indication of this wisdom as part of the pictogram of 'Dao'. The other, a foot.

 

Heya Flowing Hands,

 

Firstly I will say a big thanks for the Shaman's head wearing antlers connection ... I should have seen that years ago and am very grateful that you have pointed that out. A quick look at some of the seal characters confirms you are more than likely correct:

 

 

 

 

Daoism has come along way since this, some would say it has been very much corrupted by the Temple Daoism/religious Daoism of the relative modern age. I would very much tend to agree with this view.

 

The whole "corruption" idea is dualistic thinking ... by labeling something as corrupt you create something that must be "pure", just as long and short measure each other, and forward and back separate each other.

 

As a point of balance, if it wasn't for the religious aspects of Daoism then there is a rather likely chance none of the texts preserved in the Daozhang would have survived to the modern era for you to even have the chance to comment about Daoism. Just a thought...

 

 

IMO There is only Dao there is not a separation of philosophy and religion. People want to divide these schools and therefore miss what Dao is in its essence; it is neither completely spiritual or philosophical, it is though a recognition of the natural laws which all things are bound by, which encompassing all things. Finding it and its root though is lost in the miasma of teachings.

 

This I agree with completely.

 

[Marblehead]

This I agree with completely.

 

Well, of course you do. Hehehe.

[dawei]

A quick look at some of the seal characters confirms you are more than likely correct:

 

 

I have long agreed to this representation of the shaman wearing antlers... but what I have never heard is the remote possibility that there is a connection to Xi Wang Mu wearing the Sheng Crown.... Thus, another shaman headdress.

 

http://www.suppressedhistories.net/goddess/xiwangmu.html

[dawei]

I would love to hear more about the Shenzi. I thought it was a lost book, known only from quotes in other sources?

 

I have thought we should look at that text in the TTC forum. Maybe I'll start something on it.

[Stigweard]

I have long agreed to this representation of the shaman wearing antlers... but what I have never heard is the remote possibility that there is a connection to Xi Wang Mu wearing the Sheng Crown.... Thus, another shaman headdress.

 

http://www.suppressedhistories.net/goddess/xiwangmu.html

 

Very nice speculation ... interesting.

 

[flowing hands]

Heya Flowing Hands,

 

Firstly I will say a big thanks for the Shaman's head wearing antlers connection ... I should have seen that years ago and am very grateful that you have pointed that out. A quick look at some of the seal characters confirms you are more than likely correct:

 

 

 

 

 

The whole "corruption" idea is dualistic thinking ... by labeling something as corrupt you create something that must be "pure", just as long and short measure each other, and forward and back separate each other.

 

As a point of balance, if it wasn't for the religious aspects of Daoism then there is a rather likely chance none of the texts preserved in the Daozhang would have survived to the modern era for you to even have the chance to comment about Daoism. Just a thought...

 

 

 

This I agree with completely.

 

Deer antlers were worn because shamans believed that deer were signs of immortality along with cranes. It would enhance their connection to the divine and the spirit world. You will note that the pictogram for wu is a female shaman holding feathers while dancing. These were possibly crane feathers. Although I was taught a healing ceremony that involved palm leaves which are a bit similar and equally a very ancient ceremony of healing. Oral transmission was the norm and shamans were 'chosen' by the spirit teacher. Many would see people in the sky when they were young which would be a sign that they were destined to be a shaman in adult life. I have experienced this myself and at the time didn't think it odd, but as I grew up I understood more and thought it very odd until I became a shaman and found out that this was quite usual. The word Dao is basically describing the practices of a very ancient culture based on shamanism, shamans being the 'wise' and knowledgeable folk amongst the tribes. So the roots are very spiritual and based on common sense observation; 'to walk in a wise way'. In temple Daoism there are different levels of mediums they are no longer called wu or fang shi, they are called Dang ki, xian hong etc. These are very different to the ancient wu. The modern Daoists seem to be plagued and stressed with ritual and ceremony beyond call, even down to wearing the right colored cap on the right day. All unnecessary. My robes I very rarely wear and for the greater majority of my spiritual training I have worn tatty jeans and trainers. A misconception; you don't need to wear the uniform to be a real Daoist, you need to have Dao xin. You don't have to burn incense and recite prayers, you need to just live life in a wise way, being aware of the spiritual essence of life and common sense way of the world. There really is no great mystique!

[Mark Saltveit]

Deer antlers are also famed for growing rapidly (on the deer), and have been found to be a natural source of IGF-1 (insulin growh factor), an HGH-like hormone that is banned in the NFL under its steroids policy.

 

There was a big controversy before the Super Bowl about a deer antler spray company that said Ray Lewis and other football stars (including most of Alabama's championship football team) were using their product.

[gendao]

Deer antlers are also famed for growing rapidly (on the deer), and have been found to be a natural source of IGF-1 (insulin growh factor), an HGH-like hormone that is banned in the NFL under its steroids policy.

 

There was a big controversy before the Super Bowl about a deer antler spray company that said Ray Lewis and other football stars (including most of Alabama's championship football team) were using their product.

"Truth Calkins" on deer antler. He says the tips are especially potent because they are what grow so fast.

Has anyone actually tried quality deer antler before?

[dawei]

Has anyone actually tried quality deer antler before?

 

Yes... and currently still do... slivers like your picture... brought back from china... not in a boxed package.

 

The problem is that it is mixed with naturally grown ginseng on a shady side of a field in northeast china... about 7 years old... and a mixed bag of animal parts include parts I should not describe online... and gou qi berries... all mixed in alcohol. It is a tonic of yang Qi which is very powerful. I often have to Yin my way out of it if I take too much. So I can't tell you which part is possibly the high quality or not... but I know all of it is quite strong.