What defines a Daoist?

[zerostao]

6. Worshiping representations as gods and goddesses so base

 

i dont know anyone who is worshipping the representaions

[dawei]

I don't see a single statement I could make that would be true about every one of the hundreds of millions of Daoists in China over the 2,500 years or more of the tradition (5,400 years if you're right about Fu Xi) except that they like the word Dao.

 

I am not sure I follow... what evidence do you use as your basis for your opinion?

 

What is it about Fuxi (or what you know about him) that disqualifies him?

[Mark Saltveit]

I wrote:

I don't see a single statement I could make that would be true about every one of the hundreds of millions of Daoists in China over the 2,500 years or more of the tradition (5,400 years if you're right about Fu Xi) except that they like the word Dao

 

and Dawei responded:

I am not sure I follow... what evidence do you use as your basis for your opinion? What is it about Fuxi (or what you know about him) that disqualifies him?

 

I'm not disqualifying anyone (or thing), just taking issue with the statement that every Chinese Daoist in history agrees that Fuxi and not Laozi is the creator of Daoism. (I know at least two who disprove that.) I favor humility about what we are able to know, especially about poorly documented events so long ago.

 

Just because Fuxi is an earlier (some would say legendary or mythical) figure of Chinese culture, doesn't mean that everything in subsequent Chinese history started with him. Adam didn't create the New Testament, nor did Abraham, Noah or Moses. You could argue that it all started with any one of those four, which is sort of true if you squint, but what would that prove?

 

Generalizations about Westerners are dangerous, too. Many Westerners, especially scholars, doubt that there even was a person named Laozi, especially given the oddity of the name. One theory is that, since classical Chinese apparently didn't signify plurals differently, Laozi could simply mean "The Old Masters" or "The Ancient Masters," which fits the academic consensus that the Daodejing is a compilation, not a book written by one person.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Mark Saltveit

[dawei]

1. Matriarchy again? How boring.

 

Not sure I understand how it is boring. Or your tiring of hearing this?

 

2. Inbreeding? How nice...I suppose when you get down to it we are all brothers and sisters in some way, form, or fashion.

 

Agreed.

 

4. Ah, so the eight diagrams, Ba Gua, can be attributed to Fu Xi? Its funny because the masons say "the serpent is the true god." That's what they believe.

 

Interesting that Fuxi and Nuwa are depicted as serpents.

 

5. You mean this picture?

 

Yes, that picture... and another one I have.

 

6. Worshiping representations as gods and goddesses so base.

 

Worship seems a very old practice in most every culture.

[dawei]

I'm not disqualifying anyone (or thing), just taking issue with the statement that every Chinese Daoist in history agrees that Fuxi and not Laozi is the creator of Daoism. (I know at least two who disprove that.) I favor humility about what we are able to know, especially about poorly documented events so long ago.

 

Just because Fuxi is an earlier (some would say legendary or mythical) figure of Chinese culture, doesn't mean that everything in subsequent Chinese history started with him. Adam didn't create the New Testament, nor did Abraham, Noah or Moses. You could argue that it all started with any one of those four, which is sort of true if you squint, but what would that prove?

 

Generalizations about Westerners are dangerous, too. Many Westerners, especially scholars, doubt that there even was a person named Laozi, especially given the oddity of the name. One theory is that, since classical Chinese apparently didn't signify plurals differently, Laozi could simply mean "The Old Masters" or "The Ancient Masters," which fits the academic consensus that the Daodejing is a compilation, not a book written by one person.

 

 

Ok.. I see your point.

 

I would probably agree more than less with the previous point made about Fuxi. Chinese can tends towards singular acceptance of something in a way that westerners would not. And once one ascended to the order of a "Daoist", I would tend to think they would tend to believe the same history and founding. IMO, the importance placed on Fuxi (and other figures) can't be quite understood by the west where myth and history are cleanly separated.

 

But I am not sure you analogy works. IF you said some would argue that Abraham founded Christianity, that might be similar... but I think that argument could be made! LOL

 

Fuxi is accorded as having understood Dao and to have accomplished much in that direction.

 

As to Lao Zi... I would bet that was not an actual name but more of a title: Old Master. It seems likely he his surname was Li (李 "plum"), and his personal name was Er (耳"ear"). I don't have a strong opinion about how many authors there might be but believe there was some oral tradition. I am more opinionated that we should understand the influences and time periods leading up to it better.

Edited February 19, 2013 by dawei

[PrimordialLotus]

6. Worshiping representations as gods and goddesses so base

 

i dont know anyone who is worshipping the representaions

 

Gods and goddesses are symbols, mere representations of the one truth. They are not the source. People get caught up in the many manifestations.

[PrimordialLotus]

Not sure I understand how it is boring. Or your tiring of hearing this?

 

 

Agreed.

 

 

Interesting that Fuxi and Nuwa are depicted as serpents.

 

 

Yes, that picture... and another one I have.

 

 

Worship seems a very old practice in most every culture.

 

Female supremacy is always boring, as is male supremacy.

 

Anyone trying to "be the boss" is by nature NOT the boss. Up is down and down is up

 

Worship IS old. However, we are speaking of worshiping manifestations as opposed to recognizing the source. The true sage did not worship "gods and goddesses." In fact, the worship of "gods" stems from the degeneration of the One Law .

.

[Mark Saltveit]

Dawei: IF you said some would argue that Abraham founded Christianity, that might be similar... but I think that argument could be made! LOL

That's exactly what I mean, though. The connection is logical, and Jesus himself might well have agreed. But I don't think Abraham tells you very much about Christianity. (Some might also argue that Jesus isn't a big enough part of Christianity, compared to particularly St. Paul, and I might agree with that too.)

 

Chinese can tends towards singular acceptance of something in a way that westerners would not. And once one ascended to the order of a "Daoist", I would tend to think they would tend to believe the same history and founding.

I'm reading Steven Bokenkamp's book "Early Daoist Scriptures," which contains the first English translations of many of these works, and he points out a lot of examples of disagreement about these points throughout the history of Daoism. In particular, many later Daoist groups created Godlike figures, or claimed that older well-known figures had written new scriptures that they produced, in order to give them "authority" over the Laozi Daodejing.

 

Wang Bi considered the Yijing a primary scripture, but the original Celestial Masters (as evidence in the Xiang'er commentary to the DDJ) did not; they had the DDJ as the primary scripture, and chanted it together. The Shangqing school held that one of their deities, the Great Lord of the Dao of Jade Dawn, was Laozi's teacher, and was the one who dictated their new scriptures around 364-370 C.E. to Yang Xi. The Lingbao then -- 30 years later -- claimed that Jade Dawn was "a disciple of their even higher God, the Celestial Worthy." All of these texts were part of the first Daozang assembled in 437 C.E.

 

The point being that "this other God/text came first, and proves I'm right" is an ancient game in Chinese philosophy, one that appears to continue today as modern scholars like Kirkland assert that the NeiYe is the true first Daoist work.

[I am aware]

in my practice...and understanding...

Everything IS of The TAO.

 

YOU.....me.....the tree.....the stream....the air.....the mountain....Everything.

 

whether one "knows" it or not....one is apart of everything...and therefore ARE "that"...The TAO.

 

 

my suggestiong is...to embrace it.

 

to fully....BE...."that".

 

 

 

therefore,

if one knows themselves...as a apart of IT all....as in, one KNOWS in the depth of their BE-ing,

that they ARE of The TAO...

why then "over think" it all?

 

eh?

 

gently.....fully......BE.

 

see?

 

just BE....you....

 

and i will BE....me.

 

and we can sit here as BE-ings....of....The TAO....

 

fully aware of WHO WE ARE.

 

in balance.

 

in peace.

 

in a LOVING state of BE-ing.

 

blessings to you....and everyone/everything....within The TAO.

**bow**

[dawei]

I'm reading Steven Bokenkamp's book "Early Daoist Scriptures," which contains the first English translations of many of these works,

 

I have that book but have only skimmed parts.

[zerostao]

" all religious Daoism that we know of descends from that tradition "

there is a difference between religious and esoteric and Spiritual

edit> and the latter two go back waaaaaaaaaaaay farther

Edited February 19, 2013 by zerostao

[thinker]

I'm going back to a paper called "Common Misconceptions Concerning Daoism (Taoism)" by Louis Komjathy. In it he states that many things that are usually associated with Daoism today either came along much later, or predate it and were a widely accepted part of all of Chinese culture at the time that Daoism was first formalized, and thus have no special attachment to Daoism, even though they were included. The list includes: yin/yang, the five elements, qi, traditional Chinese medicine (some contributions to which were made by Daoists), fengshui, qigong, Daoist yoga, "sexual yoga", taiji quan (a.k.a. tai chi ch’üan), internal style martial arts, and the Yiing (a.k.a. I-Ching), Add to this a few others that I've run across, like deities (any), celibacy, vegetarianism, tree-hugging environmentalism, extreme pacifism (as opposed to a more practical minimization of violence), and the notion that spending your life just "being" (like a plant) will lead to anything good (no offense to "I am aware" intended). At least for the moment it seems that tea is still included.

 

If he's correct then I wonder what percentage of Daoists would run off the moment that they were convinced that all of the really cool Chinese cultural stuff isn't Daoism, just rampant sinophilia on the part of Westerners bored with their own culture. I'm guessing about... 90%? Last I read, the population of self-identified Daoists in the U.S. was about 40,000. That would leave us with about 4,000. Then we could almost get all of us into one big convention center some day.

Edited February 19, 2013 by thinker

[zerostao]

I'm going back to a paper called "Common Misconceptions Concerning Daoism (Taoism)" by Louis Komjathy. In it he states that many things that are usually associated with Daoism today either came along much later, or predate it and were a widely accepted part of all of Chinese culture at the time that Daoism was first formalized, and thus have no special attachment to Daoism, even though they were included. The list includes: yin/yang, the five elements, qi, traditional Chinese medicine (some contributions to which were made by Daoists), fengshui, qigong, Daoist yoga, "sexual yoga", taiji quan (a.k.a. tai chi ch’üan), internal style martial arts, and the Yiing (a.k.a. I-Ching), Add to this a few others that I've run across, like deities (any), celibacy, vegetarianism, tree-hugging environmentalism, extreme pacifism (as opposed to a more practical minimization of violence), and the notion that spending your life just "being" (like a plant) will lead to anything good (no offense to "I am aware" intended). At least for the moment it seems that tea is still included.

 

If he's correct then I wonder what percentage of Daoists would run off the moment that they were convinced that all of the really cool Chinese cultural stuff isn't Daoism, just rampant sinophilia on the part of Westerners bored with their own culture. I'm guessing about... 90%? Last I read, the population of self-identified Daoists in the U.S. was about 40,000. That would leave us with about 4,000. We could almost get all of us into one convention center some day.

" or predate it" how are you going to pre-date Taoism ?

i reckon the Taoist Immortals aint Taoist either

[Mark Saltveit]

I agree with Komjathy's point there -- certainly one risk is a kind of exoticism, where we enjoy the novelty of a very different culture. I think this is part of what Laozi warns against in Chapter 47 (the farther people go, the less they know -- farther applying to time and culture as well as physical distance.) Buddhism and Hinduism appeal to this even more.

 

But to my eye, the last thing Daoism should do is encourage escape from our daily life. Quite the opposite, it's about engaging it more directly.

[Mark Saltveit]

How are you going to predate Daoism? Well you have to date it first. And to do that, you have to define it.

 

I think it's fair to consider Daoism one of the two main indigenous strains of Chinese philosophy, along with Confucianism. Most people are very comfortable dating Confucianism to somewhere between 600 and 400 BCE, and a lot of evidence puts Daoism - as a coherently expressed and developed school of thought -- in that same time frame.

 

If you want to consider every influence that led up to it, or every influence that Daoists have ever pointed to throughout history and said, "No, that is where we started" -- then of course you're back into the prehistory of mankind, probably before language itself existed. But every philosophy makes similar claims, and that doesn't stop people from talking about Buddhism, Hinduism, or Existentialism.

[zerostao]

" it's about engaging it more directly."

agree

 

"you have to define it"

an incomplete definition is of no use to me

you are only looking at the philosophy aspect

dig deeper

[kaaazuo]

Western studies on the Daoist animal follow the same method they use on the study of the dinosaur. All that is needed is a set of dug up bones to come up with an amazingly definitive creature leaping out of an iMax screen showing "Jurassic Park". It even screeches and roar like a dinosaur should 200 million years ago, or so they say!

 

I'll bet a real life dinosaur would have a tough time being one today. It wouldn't fit in with our idea of history. And so it is with living genuine Taoists today. They don't fit in; neither does the Great mother of the West. No way.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

For some people, there are religious reasons that they do or don't do certain things on account of following the precepts of that path. For example, Muslims pray 3 times a day no matter where they are, Jews don't eat pork, some Buddhists don't eat vegetables. These might need to be explained in some cases as "this is part of my spiritual path."

 

When I'm thinking "I refuse this as part of my Taoist path" what I'm usually referring to are these precepts in Chuang Tzu's story "The Old Fisherman":

 

 

http://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu3.html#31

 

".... there are eight faults that men may possess, and four evils that beset their undertakings - you must not fail to examine these carefully. To do what it is not your business to do is called officiousness. To rush forward when no one has nodded in your direction is called obsequiousness. To echo a man's opinions and try to draw him out in speech is called sycophancy. To speak without regard for what is right or wrong is called flattery. To delight in talking about other men's failings is called calumny. To break up friendships and set kinfolk at odds is called maliciousness. To praise falsely and hypocritically so as to cause injury and evil to others is called wickedness. Without thought for right or wrong, to try to face in two directions at once so as to steal a glimpse of the other party's wishes is called treachery. These eight faults inflict chaos on others and injury on the possessor. A gentleman will not befriend the man who possesses them, an enlightened ruler will not have him for his minister.

 

"As for the four evils which I spoke of, to be fond of plunging into great undertakings, altering and departing from the old accepted ways, hoping thereby to enhance your merit and fame - this is called avidity. To insist that you know it all, that everything be done your way, snatching from others and appropriating for your own use - this is called avarice. To see your errors but refuse to change, to listen to remonstrance but go on behaving worse than before - this is called obstinacy. When men agree with you, to commend them; when they disagree with you, to refuse to see any goodness in them even when it is there - this is called bigotry. These are the four evils. If you do away with the eight faults and avoid committing the four evils, then and only then will you become capable of being taught!"

....

 

Confucius looked shamefaced and said, "Please, may I ask what you mean by `the Truth'?"

 

The stranger said, "By `the Truth' I mean purity and sincerity in their highest degree. He who lacks purity and sincerity cannot move others. Therefore he who forces himself to lament, though he may sound sad, will awaken no grief. He who forces himself to be angry, though he may sound fierce, will arouse no awe. And he who forces himself to be affectionate, though he may smile, will create no air of harmony. True sadness need make no sound to awaken grief; true anger need not show itself to arouse awe; true affection need not smile to create harmony. When a man has the Truth within himself, his spirit may move among external things. That is why the Truth is to be prized!

[dawei]

I think what is being raised by a few recent posts are very good points. I want to find Thinker's article as I am usually willing to read the opposite side of my thought. So yes, I am one who says Daoism is bigger rather than smaller.

And I agree with the comments of ZeroTao and Kaazuo. H.E. shares an interesting story on 'truth', which is an elusive thing, particularly in classical chinese.

 

How are you going to predate Daoism? Well you have to date it first. And to do that, you have to define it.

 

I think it's fair to consider Daoism one of the two main indigenous strains of Chinese philosophy, along with Confucianism. Most people are very comfortable dating Confucianism to somewhere between 600 and 400 BCE, and a lot of evidence puts Daoism - as a coherently expressed and developed school of thought -- in that same time frame.

 

If you want to consider every influence that led up to it, or every influence that Daoists have ever pointed to throughout history and said, "No, that is where we started" -- then of course you're back into the prehistory of mankind, probably before language itself existed. But every philosophy makes similar claims, and that doesn't stop people from talking about Buddhism, Hinduism, or Existentialism.

 

 

The problem with comparing Daoism and Confucianism is like comparing Christianity and Existentialism. The former ones include creation myths and span into the non-existent, while the latter are simply more like behavioral science. I don't disagree with looking at D&C as two indigenous strains but it stops pretty quickly, to me, with the last word.

 

One issue which I feel is not accepted enough is that in the period prior to the warring states, such thought was not broken down but rather they all mixed as they wanted. The Guodian Bamboo of Lao Zi shows distinct sharing with Confucius texts and was non-disparaging; later revisions reflect disparagement towards Confucianism.

 

Sima Qian, the great historian, was a follower of Huang-Lao and defined Daoism as that which was the best of all the other thoughts merged together. I don't say this to suggest that is Daoism (although it may be it's redeeming value) but to show that sharing philosophical thoughts was more the norm. After the great compartmentalization of Sima Qian into the Six Schools, it seems the west followed this without realizing it was a painting of colors which blend.

 

I don't consider Daoism a school of thought. If we put it that way, then we can date it near Lao Zi and we can compartmentalize the philosophical Daoism too.

[thinker]

I want to find Thinker's article...

 

Try: http://www.daoistcenter.org/Daoism_Misconceptions.pdf

[dawei]

I agree with about 2.5 opening pages of Komjathy's paper ... and then I simply disagree with a number of his comments. He shares his POV in the opening lines:

 

 

"Popular misconceptions concerning Daoism are numerous and increasingly influential in the modern world. All of these perspectives fail to understand the religious tradition which is Daoism, a religious tradition that is complex, multifaceted, and rooted in Chinese culture."

He seems to have a pre-determined notion of the religious tradition which is Daoism.

The religious movement was the very last and most modern movement. Naturism, shamanism, spiritualism, alchemy, immortality, philosophy... had already contributed their share... finally religious daoism arose... last but not least.

The points that TCM and Qigong are not daoist seems far off my radar. If one wants to pluck a name, then names arise in time but the influences which created TCM and QIgong are documented in archaeology beyond dispute.

K.C. Chang, the most well known chinese archaeologist, may of prophetically stated that scholars and archaeologist needed to pay attention to each others works.

But this is simply my point of view. I view Dao as a very wide net working from the original creation and including anything that exists. Certain folks seemed to have figured the Great Way and utilized this understanding to further all things arising and communicating between heaven and earth.

This is in no way comparable to Confucianism or Legalism. Yet they shared common ideas. It may be closer to the Yin Yang school and it did easily share ideas.

What we may be missing is that we are in the end still trying to do what the west likes to do: Compartmentalize when the early scholars tended towards mixing... and Daoism is the ultimate blender of creation.

[Mark Saltveit]

Dawei, I think we may just see this differently, and that's fine. From my point of view, much of what you describe is simply Chinese culture rather than the roots of Daoism -- I think many Chinese who don't follow Daoism embrace TCM and qigong, and many who do follow Daoism don't embrace those traditions. They may actually be more entwined with Daoism in the U.S. these days, as China increasingly adopts Western ideas.

 

I agree though that the article cited is not Komjathy's most careful work. If I remember correctly, that's just something he posted on the Center for Daoist Studies' web site, not a published paper. He is more careful in his wording in, for example, his article "Tracing the Contours of Daoism in America" (Nova Religio, 2004).

 

 

Sima Qian, the great historian, was a follower of Huang-Lao and defined Daoism as that which was the best of all the other thoughts merged together. I don't say this to suggest that is Daoism (although it may be it's redeeming value) but to show that sharing philosophical thoughts was more the norm. After the great compartmentalization of Sima Qian into the Six Schools, it seems the west followed this without realizing it was a painting of colors which blend.

 

But Sima Qian wrote around 100 B.C.E. and no one in the West even heard of Daoism until the 1800s, almost two millenia later. I have trouble believing that "the West" picked up a false picture from Sima Qian that no one in China believed.

[kaaazuo]

Daoism is Chinese culture and Chinese culture is Daoism.

 

But then the stubborn could argue that not all Chinese culture is Daoism, and not all every Chinese is a Daoist.

 

Such arrogance is beyond the pale.

[thinker]

If I remember correctly, that's just something he posted on the Center for Daoist Studies' web site, not a published paper.

 

As far as I know you're correct. Certainly I found it online, not in a refereed journal.

[Mark Saltveit]

He [Komjathy] seems to have a pre-determined notion of the religious tradition which is Daoism.

 

I believe he is an initiated of Quanzhen Daoism. His biography says "Professor Komjathy has conducted archaeological fieldwork on Shandong Daoism and ethnographic work on contemporary Daoist monasticism, which included living as a participant-observer in a variety of Quanzhen monasteries."