Are Wang Chung Yang Zhu, Taoists?

[Rob Patterson]

How can neoTaoists like Wang Chung and Yang Zhu considered Taoist when their writings come to far different conclusions from the original Taoists? When I think of Taoism I think of Laozi and Zhuangzi, but I have a hard time thinking that the neoTaoist can fall into the same category. My Taoism professor wants to know how all the above mentioned writers can be considered Taoist, but I'm not sure they can be. Possibly from a historical perspective, they are Taoists, because they all called themselves Taoists. But doesn't that mean that Taoism loses all meaning meaning as a philosophy if there aren't any unifying themes? Thanks for your help.

 

-Rob

[Yen Hui]

Lao Tzu was not the first Taoist sage, as you know, so perhaps you should ask your Prof to demonstrate the

continuity between Lao Tzu and both his immediate precedessors and successors. By continuity I mean the

absence of any deviations from the Teachings that were handed down to Lao Tzu, and transmitted by him. In

other words, let him/her prove Lao Tzu did not "reinterpret" the Teachings, or change anything, by addition or

subtraction, but handed them down unaltered as he received them. Then let him do the same with Chuang

Tzu. Let him demonstrate that Chuang Tzu's teachings are identical to Lao Tzu's, and depart from them in no

wise. I wager that he cannot, as Taoist scholars already speak of "differences" between Lao Tzu and Chuang

Tzu. These differences only continued to grow with time and each new generation. Let your Prof demonstrate

the complete continuity between Lao Tzu and the Huainan Tzu, or between Chuang Tzu and Wei Boyang, and

between Leih Tzu and Wang Pi. It cannot be done, imo, if by continuity we mean the absence of any changes.

[mbanu]

How can neoTaoists like Wang Chung and Yang Zhu considered Taoist when their writings come to far different conclusions from the original Taoists? When I think of Taoism I think of Laozi and Zhuangzi, but I have a hard time thinking that the neoTaoist can fall into the same category. My Taoism professor wants to know how all the above mentioned writers can be considered Taoist, but I'm not sure they can be. Possibly from a historical perspective, they are Taoists, because they all called themselves Taoists. But doesn't that mean that Taoism loses all meaning meaning as a philosophy if there aren't any unifying themes? Thanks for your help.

 

-Rob

 

How would you say their writings come to different conclusions than the original Taoists?

 

All of the Taoists produced their writings before achieving wu wei. At most, even Lao Tzu was working with only a 3/4 understanding of the Tao when he dictated the Taoteching; otherwise he wouldn't have spoken. Each Taoist had their own personality, and their own fate. This exposed different aspects of the Tao to them at different times, which influenced which parts of the Tao became clear to them, and which remained hidden. The shape changes, but not the form; The perspectives are different, yet the Tao is the same.

 

With wood from a hundred-year-old tree, they make sacrificial vessels, covered with green and yellow designs. The wood that was cut away, lies unused in the ditch. If we compare the sacrificial vessels with the wood in the ditch, we find them to differ in appearance: one is more beautiful than the other. Yet they are equal in this: both have lost their original nature. So if you compare the robber and the respectable citizen, you find that one is, indeed, more respectable than the other: yet they both agree in this: they have both lost the original simplicity of man.

Edited June 8, 2007 by mbanu