Classical Daoism; is there really such a thing?

[BaguaKicksAss]

This is about part 4.3, definitely interesting aspects covered in this one.

 

http://warpweftandway.com/2013/12/02/classical-daoism-really/

 

Snippet below:

 

Mysticism, Self-Cultivation and Longevity

 

Mysticism and quietistic self-cultivation practices have long been associated with the classical Daoist texts of Laozi 老子 and Zhuangzi 莊 子. The concern with longevity has primarily been associated with the figure of Laozi and the religion that deified him. In the 19^th and first three quarters of the 20^th centuries, Western scholars regularly described Laozi and Zhuangzi as mystics or quietists. In the past thirty years, however, these texts have been analyzed and interpreted more for their philosophy than for their religious practices or a broader holistic understanding of the spiritual and philosophical content.[1] My hope is to give both the philosophical and religious or spiritual aspects their due.

 

In the mid 1930’s, both Arthur Waley and Henri Maspero stressed the quietism and mysticism of the Laozi and Zhuangzi. Waley described the early Daoists as quietists who used breath-control and yoga to induce “self-hypnosis” and trance,[2] and suspected that it originated in the “cleansing of the heart” that a sacrificer or spirit medium underwent.[3] Maspero held that Laozi and Zhuangzi were mystics who, by union or identification with the Dao, participated in its immortality. They were mystics rather than practitioners of breathing and physical exercises, for Laozi “had found in ecstasy a short cut which, through union with the Dao, avoided the wearisome practices of the other [Daoist] schools.”[4] He believed that Laozi and Zhuangzi, along with Liezi 列子, Guan Yin 關尹 and Qu Yuan 屈原 were a minor branch of Daoism at the time, a Daoism whose main focus was immortality.[5]

 

Objecting to Maspero’s perspective, Herrlee Creel pointed out that the cult of immortality was not associated with early Daoists. The most prominent seekers of immortality were the Qin First Emperor 秦始皇帝 (c. 260 BC – 210 B.C.E.) and the Han Emperor Wu 漢武帝 (156 – 87 B.C.E.), yet neither of them were said to have any interest in Laozi, Zhuangzi, or “Daojia.”[6] The legendary Yellow Emperor (Huangdi 黃帝), who became known amongst immortality-seekers as a patron saint-type figure is likewise not connected to Laozi (or Zhuangzi) in the pre-Han sources.[7] Creel acknowledged that references to immortality, longevity and certain spiritual practices are to be found in the Zhuangzi; however, he believed these are either misinterpreted or are “isolated passages” that are over-emphasized by scholars like Maspero.[8] This is a matter to be taken seriously, especially since the early texts such as the Zhuangzi contain the writings of numerous authors, who should not be taken to have identical aims or philosophies. However, we should also be hesitant to disregard certain passages because they do not fit our own conceptions. D.C. Lau, for example, argued against any mysterious doctrines in the Laozi,[9] but admitted that chapter 10 suggests a “breathing exercise or perhaps even yogic practice.” Yet Lau suggested this is an “isolated passage” that properly belonged to a different school of immortality seekers.[10] Arguably, the Laozi is not chalk full of mystical doctrines, references to self-cultivation practices or prescriptions for longevity, but these so-called “isolated passages” need to find their place in our interpretations rather than be dismissed.

 

Angus Graham conceived of a “deep end” and a “shallow end” of Daoist self-cultivation practices. The deep end was authentic mystical experiences of oneness, whereas the shallow end served as a “means to relaxation, poise, loosening of habit, creativity, quickening of responsiveness … using meditative techniques to enhance [one’s] efficiency. The author of Laozi certainly sounds familiar with the deep end, but the book has had many readers who, far from sharing the Daoist renunciation of fixed goals, sought in it only a mental discipline in the service of their ends.”[11] Mark Csikszentmihalyi agrees that the authors of the Laozi were familiar with this “deep end,” but cautions that “there is nothing to show that the use of meditational vocabulary is anything but metaphorical.”[12] This is especially important to take into account with regards to the Zhuangzi as well, as most scholars recognize that many of the stories of spirit journeys and such serve as metaphors for spiritual liberation and may not describe or advocate actual practices.

 

[Marblehead]

Yes, that is a valid way of looking at Taoism however it is not the way I view it. Different strokes for different folks.

[dawei]

I have long studied the ancient periods leading up to and whistling past LZ and ZZ.

 

One thing I have learned over the years is that anyone who tries to take LZ and ZZ as the starting point of Daoism just doesn't get it and isn't worth talking to about it

 

This site gives this somewhat simple breakdown:

Proto-Daoism - Antiquity to 2nd Century

Classical Daoism - Era of Celestial Masters through Tang Dynasty 900 AD

Modern Daoism - Song Dynasty through 20th Century.

Contemporary Daoism - The "near-total collapse"

 

If one can accept the following then they are on the right road...

Daoism was not created on one specific date by a specific person. It was rather a result of preexisting Chinese philosophies and folk religions (such as shamanism) combining together. Nevertheless, the Daoism today is considered by many to have been created by Laozi, the author ofTao Te Ching, who established a focus of study for the future generations of Daoists. Many aspects of Daoism, however, can be traced back way further before Laozi wrote his teachings. The spiritual, not philosophical, part of Daoism such as the spirits and Feng Shui, a Chinese system of geomancy, were present before the creation of Tao Te Ching.

 

http://doyoubelieveindao.weebly.com/origins-and-events.html

 

The spiritual was prior to the philosophical... some might call it mystical but this is western interpretation by researchers and scholars not practitioners. And what was prior to the spiritual?

[Brian]

<snip>

And what was prior to the spiritual?

Experiential. A small child laughs at the explosion of multihued light emanating from a crystal dangling in a sunbeam without seeking explanation or understanding.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Brian

[ChiDragon]

I have just received this article in my email. To me, it is only an opinion of an one man's own interpretation. I will not use it as a factual reference.

Edited December 2, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

Experiential. A small child laughs at the explosion of multihued light emanating from a crystal dangling in a sunbeam without seeking explanation or understanding.

 

Here is a guy I can talk with

[dawei]

Experiential. A small child laughs at the explosion of multihued light emanating from a crystal dangling in a sunbeam without seeking explanation or understanding.

 

As a history test... who is that earliest child in recorded chinese history?

 

Don't you hate to be the one to speak out.... to yet be asked the follow up 'punch' question?

[Brian]

I don't know, dawai.

[Marblehead]

I don't know, dawai.

Perfect response Brian. That was exactly my thought when I read Dawei's post/question.

[dawei]

I don't know, dawai.

 

I was thinking of the Zhuangzi line that "I am born with the 10,000 things"... You are speaking of the primordial arising... yourself.

 

I am surprised to find that people want to put a rubber stamp on the start of so-called "daoism" and yet neglect the most fundamental idea that mere existence is the ink.

 

But if we use historical records alone, then we have to go back to Fu Xi as the first experiencer:

 

“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.”

[Brian]

Gotcha.

 

I think the origin of "taoism" coincides with the origin of the tao, whatever that means. The origin of a particular human name for it, or even a formal discussion of principles, is irrelevant.

 

As to my primordial arising, I don't think I am mentioned by name in the Chinese history books but I haven't read them all.

 

Once upon a time, your question would have prompted an extensive literature search to fill in a gap in my knowledge.

 

Thank you for the Fu Xi reference!

[dawei]

Gotcha.

 

I think the origin of "taoism" coincides with the origin of the tao, whatever that means. The origin of a particular human name for it, or even a formal discussion of principles, is irrelevant.

 

As to my primordial arising, I don't think I am mentioned by name in the Chinese history books but I haven't read them all.

 

Once upon a time, your question would have prompted an extensive literature search to fill in a gap in my knowledge.

 

Thank you for the Fu Xi reference!

 

A really good question has misleading information in it... if you simply follow the exactness of the question then you are a dog on a leash. I am trying to teach my step-daughter this as she navigates accounting questions which provide too much information and will lead you down a rabbit hole if you chase the wrong part.

 

But you are mentioned by 'name'... I just gave you that reference in ZZ... you just don't recognize your true 'name'

[Brian]

Thank you!

 

Yes, that's me.

 

In fact, my teacher reminded me of it just the other day, too.

 

_/|\_

Edited December 3, 2013 by Brian

[NotVoid]

We all have our own point of view and opinions and beliefs and ways of looking at things and doing things. Some things we may believe to be true, and other things we may believe to be false. The tao te ching can be interpreted in numerous ways, but since the tao te ching is supposed to have been very influential in the formation of later forms of 'taosim', the tao te ching should then provide us some hints as to what 'taoism', at least in part, really is about or supposed to be about.

 

The following is just based my own interpretations and views, but anyway there may be some common ground amongst others in the following. The tao te ching seems to draw attention to an ultimate truth or ultimate reality which is inconceivable and unnameable; i.e., this ultimate truth or ultimate reality is beyond the reaches of the conceptual mind. The 'world' of our senses and conceptualizations is therefore not the 'ultimate reality'. Although the unnameable is beyond the reaches of the conceptual mind, all things arise from or are an 'expression' of this unnameable or 'tao'. Although this tao is beyond our conceptualization, the tao expresses 'itself' in all things with direction and purpose. This direction and purpose implies that there are clear and definite 'ways' within the enfolding of all things. Go against these ways in the phenomenological world and you go against 'tao', and this will likely bring undesirable results. Align with these natural ways and you and everyone else will reap benefit. Therefore the more we can identify and align our self with these natural ways, the more we benefit and the more we become 'in tune' with tao. The more we go against or interfere with these natural ways, the more we are 'out of sync' with tao and the results will be undesirable.

 

That which brings us more in sync with tao or 'closer' to tao is beneficial, and that which puts us less in sync is not beneficial. So whether it be observation, philosophy, religion, ritual, prayer, physical or mental practices, geomancy, divination, yoga, meditation, etc., etc., if it brings you more in tune with the ways of tao or gives you some degree of direct experience with tao, it is beneficial, and if it brings you further from the ways of tao it is not beneficial.

 

Also, another concept in the tao te ching would seem to indicate that the unnameable or inconceivable can apparently become to be directly experienced to some degree or other by turning one's attention completely away from the outward phenomenological world and 'holding to the one', i.e., putting the conceptual mind to rest and holding the attention 'inward'. There are passages here and there within the tao te ching that seem to possibly give hints or tips toward this purpose.

 

Another interesting concept in the tao te ching is the notion that the sages of old existed well before Lao Tzu's time, and were possibly more prominent in those earlier times, or at least that this tradition existed long before Lao Tzu's time. This seems to imply that what Lao Tzu wrote about was actually a long standing tradition which had seemingly decayed to some extent by the time of Lao Tzu.

 

So how does this all fit into the current popular views and classifications of 'taoism'?

Edited December 3, 2013 by NotVoid

[dawei]

Also, another concept in the tao te ching would seem to indicate that the unnameable or inconceivable can apparently become to be directly experienced to some degree or other by turning one's attention completely away from the outward phenomenological world and 'holding to the one', i.e., putting the conceptual mind to rest and holding the attention 'inward'. There are passages here and there within the tao te ching that seem to possibly give hints or tips toward this purpose.

 

I have never understood why this is so overlooked. Nicely said.

 

Another interesting concept in the tao te ching is the notion that the sages of old existed well before Lao Tzu's time, and were possibly more prominent in those earlier times, or at least that this tradition existed long before Lao Tzu's time. This seems to imply that what Lao Tzu wrote about was actually a long standing tradition which had seemingly decayed to some extent by the time of Lao Tzu.

 

And definitely this one too!

 

So how does this all fit into the current popular views and classifications of 'taoism'?

 

Du Daojian (1237–1318) stated, “Laozi that the Han people discussed was Laozi of the Han dynasty; Laozi that the Jin people discussed was Laozi of the Jin dynasty; and Laozi that the Tang and Song people discussed was Laozi of the Tang and Song dynasties.”

Laozi is a syncretic text which was interpreted according to the times and the reader. The first definition of a Daoist per Sima Qian was they were syncretic... yet to this day people still fight against this as sacrilegious.

Some of your points each deserve an individual thread of it's own.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Daoism begins when someone starts using the character 道, pronounced something like dào, as a simple label for the self existent cosmogenic principle which is both the source of our experience and a normative principle for successful living. Anything else that talks about these subjects and even contributes to the eventual content of Daoism, but does not unify them under the label 'Daoism' is proto-Daoism.

Dào (道) has many meanings in Chinese and a long prehistory before 'Daoism', thus:

direction / way / road / path / principle / truth / morality / reason / skill / method / Dao (of Daoism) / to say / to speak / to talk / classifier for long thin things (rivers, cracks etc), barriers (walls, doors etc), questions (in an exam etc), commands, courses in a meal, steps in a process / province (of Korea or Japan)
MDGB online Chinese-English Dictionary

Because of this it is used in a lot of words that have nothing to do with 'Daoism” for example:

Yikes, So many words use 道 (dào) and only a few have anything to do with Daoism!

(Again courtesy of MDGB.)

It should now be clear that the use of dào is multitudinous and varied and a source of some confusion, thus this guy's reaction:

One of my favorites scenes in the 10,000 movies by the way (pun intended).

That the Dao De Jing contains teachings which meet the criterion cited above can be seen in Chapters:

One

The Dao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Dao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name. (Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator of heaven and earth; (conceived of as) having a name, it is the Mother of all things.
Always without desire we must be found,
If its deep mystery we would sound;
But if desire always within us be,
Its outer fringe is all that we shall see.
Under these two aspects, it is really the same; but as development takes place, it receives the different names. Together we call them the Mystery. Where the Mystery is the deepest is the gate of all that is subtle and wonderful.

Twenty-five

There was something undefined and complete, coming into existence before Heaven and Earth. How still it was and formless, standing alone, and undergoing no change, reaching everywhere and in no danger (of being exhausted)! It may be regarded as the Mother of all things.
I do not know its name, and I give it the designation of the Dao (the Way or Course). Making an effort (further) to give it a name I call it The Great.
Great, it passes on (in constant flow). Passing on, it becomes remote. Having become remote, it returns. Therefore the Dao is great; Heaven is great; Earth is great; and the (sage) king is also great. In the universe there are four that are great, and the (sage) king is one of them.
Man takes his law from the Earth; the Earth takes its law from Heaven; Heaven takes its law from the Dao. The law of the Dao is its being what it is.

Thirty-two

The Dao, considered as unchanging, has no name.
Though in its primordial simplicity it may be small, the whole world dares not deal with (one embodying) it as a minister. If a feudal prince or the king could guard and hold it, all would spontaneously submit themselves to him.
Heaven and Earth (under its guidance) unite together and send down the sweet dew, which, without the directions of men, reaches equally everywhere as of its own accord.
As soon as it proceeds to action, it has a name. When it once has that name, (men) can know to rest in it. When they know to rest in it, they can be free from all risk of failure and error.
The relation of the Dao to all the world is like that of the great rivers and seas to the streams from the valleys.

 

Forty-two

The Dao produced One; One produced Two; Two produced Three; Three produced All things. All things leave behind them the Obscurity (out of which they have come), and go forward to embrace the Brightness (into which they have emerged), while they are harmonised by the Breath of Vacancy.
What men dislike is to be orphans, to have little virtue, to be as carriages without naves; and yet these are the designations which kings and princes use for themselves. So it is that some things are increased by being diminished, and others are diminished by being increased.
What other men (thus) teach, I also teach. The violent and strong do not die their natural death. I will make this the basis of my teaching.

The texts look to be derived from Paul Carus' early Twentieth Century translation and are from:

Chinese Text Project; Dao De Jing

Where one can find them along with the Chinese text.

Whoever unified these concepts under the label Dào (道) is the originator of Daoism, whether the semi-mythical Laozi or someone else. Around these fundamental concepts a number of themes from Warring States era writings were woven and the exposition of these ideas became the text we know refer to as the Dao De Jing.

If there is such a thing as a Classical Period of Daoism it would begin with this act of labeling, whoever made it and whenever it was made. The Dao De JIng would be an important part of it.

There is much more to all of this and if I have time I will post more.

[dawei]

Daoism begins when someone starts using the character 道, pronounced something like dào, as a simple label for the self existent cosmogenic principle which is both the source of our experience and a normative principle for successful living.

. . .

 

Whoever unified these concepts under the label Dào (道) is the originator of Daoism, whether the semi-mythical Laozi or someone else.

 

I generally agree with what you are saying but maybe just different on the points above which seem to imply that language / letters are required to understand Dao... or for Daoism to exist.

 

I understand we are using words and that requires language and so if we want to define a word it should be done in the context of language but Dao is outside of language and for me, it can be discovered outside of language.

[opendao]

The spiritual was prior to the philosophical... some might call it mystical but this is western interpretation by researchers and scholars not practitioners. And what was prior to the spiritual?

 

Nothing. From a traditional point of view, the knowledge that constitutes the core of Dao teaching, hasn't been invented by humans. The scholars love to distinguish things, but in Chinese history we always see a tendency to connect different teachings (different schools of Tao, Yijing, Buddhism, external alchemy etc), take best of them. Because their core is the same. So this core in Dao schools is associated with Huangdi and Lao Zi. That's why Huang-Lao Xue. This is "Classical Dao", in my opinion.

[dawei]

Nothing. From a traditional point of view, the knowledge that constitutes the core of Dao teaching, hasn't been invented by humans. The scholars love to distinguish things, but in Chinese history we always see a tendency to connect different teachings (different schools of Tao, Yijing, Buddhism, external alchemy etc), take best of them. Because their core is the same. So this core in Dao schools is associated with Huangdi and Lao Zi. That's why Huang-Lao Xue. This is "Classical Dao", in my opinion.

 

What you said is a bit contradictory:

1. The core Dao teaching hasn't been invented by humans

2. So this core in Dao schools is associated with Huangdi and Laozi

 

This is the Han era and exemplified by Huainanzi Huang-Lao philosophy which is indeed syncretic (connecting schools or thoughts).

 

Your point #1 (which I made a #1) is my point... don't just look to human invention but human appearance towards an understanding. And there is human appearance prior to Laozi to show us the meaning of Dao. JMO.

[Marblehead]

And there is human appearance prior to Laozi to show us the meaning of Dao. JMO.

This is something that is so often over-looked. There were natural processes long before man showed up on the scene and started trying to explain these processes. The processes have not changed; man's understandings of them have changed.

[opendao]

What you said is a bit contradictory:

1. The core Dao teaching hasn't been invented by humans

2. So this core in Dao schools is associated with Huangdi and Laozi

 

no, it has some logic. Just read legends how Huangdi learnt Dao. He hasn't invented it. Lao Zi brought it, but also it wasn't an invention.

 

This is the Han era and exemplified by Huainanzi Huang-Lao philosophy which is indeed syncretic (connecting schools or thoughts).

 

Huainanzi has appeared later, much later then Huangdi and Laozi, so I don't see why you point to Han era?

 

Your point #1 (which I made a #1) is my point... don't just look to human invention but human appearance towards an understanding. And there is human appearance prior to Laozi to show us the meaning of Dao. JMO.

 

Who?

[ChiDragon]

My belated answer to the OP....

Yes, there is such thing as Classical Daoism. The original Daoism was the high morality of human conduct until the Taoist religion came into the picture. Then, the definition of Daoism has to be changed to distinguish the difference.

[dawei]

no, it has some logic. Just read legends how Huangdi learnt Dao. He hasn't invented it. Lao Zi brought it, but also it wasn't an invention.

 

I didn't brush off the logic as illogic is sometimes logic. Yes, Huangdi did not invent it... he was taught it... Xi Wang Mu comes to mind.

 

Huainanzi has appeared later, much later then Huangdi and Laozi, so I don't see why you point to Han era?

 

Huangdi and Laozi were not joined at the hip till the Han era... that is when the Huang-Lao philosophy was recognized and put forth strongly by even the historian Sima Qian.

 

 

Who?

 

The roll call is too long... I'll go back as far as stories go: Fuxi, Nuwa, Shen Nong, Sui Ren, Gong Gong... if I recall, Zhuangzi calls up some ancients... The point is: From the appearance of man there is the appearance of the working of Dao... even in an intuitive manner.

[Bao Pu]

Greetings.

I just noticed that BaguaKicksAss shared a link to my essay. Thanks.

I thought I'd make a couple comments regarding some of the replies.

Marblehead wrote: "Yes, that is a valid way of looking at Taoism however it is not the way I view it. Different strokes for different folks."

-- I can't be sure what you mean, but are you denying that quietistic self-cultivation practices were practiced by the authors of the Laozi and Zhuangzi, that "mind-fasting" and "sitting forgetting," for instance, were not actual practices?

Dawei wrote: "One thing I have learned over the years is that anyone who tries to take LZ and ZZ as the starting point of Daoism just doesn't get it and isn't worth talking to about it."

-- As stated in the first in the essay series, I am exploring whether the Daojia ("Daoism") that we find described in the Shiji and Hanshu histories attest to a school of thought in the pre-Han era. The relation to the Daoist religion is not part of this exploration. My discussion of some of Wang Chong's accounts in his Lunheng come the closest in this regard, for what he referred to as Daojia and the daoshi seems to me to attest to the beginnings of the religion. On the other hand, if you're arguing that the starting point of Daoism is earlier than the Laozi and Zhuangzi, I would cautiously assent to this, but would 1) like to know what criteria one is using (which is purpose behind the last two essays in the series), and 2) what textual evidence we have.

"This site gives this somewhat simple breakdown: Proto-Daoism - Antiquity to 2nd Century, Classical Daoism - Era of Celestial Masters through Tang Dynasty 900 AD, Modern Daoism - Song Dynasty through 20th Century, Contemporary Daoism - The "near-total collapse.""

-- According to this, my exploration is of your "proto-Daoism." I chose the term Classical Daoism over "early Daoism" or "philosophical Daoism" simply because I see the early tradition as being much more than "philosophical" and the classical era does start in the B.C.E. period.

Regarding your "Daoism was not created on one specific date by a specific person. It was rather a result of preexisting Chinese philosophies and folk religions (such as shamanism) combining together."

-- If this is your view, then how to divide proto-Daoism from your Classical Daoism? When did folk religion become Daoism?

ChiDragon wrote: "I have just received this article in my email. To me, it is only an opinion of an one man's own interpretation. I will not use it as a factual reference."

I would say yes and no to this. Obviously, it is my interpretation of the texts. But a number of people have referred to my essays as "state-of-the-field" studies, meaning, I present the views of many scholars in my review. And as for "factual reference," I try to include more quotations than most writers do and so think I do a decent job of letting the texts speak for themselves.

[Marblehead]

 

Marblehead wrote: "Yes, that is a valid way of looking at Taoism however it is not the way I view it. Different strokes for different folks."

-- I can't be sure what you mean, but are you denying that quietistic self-cultivation practices were practiced by the authors of the Laozi and Zhuangzi, that "mind-fasting" and "sitting forgetting," for instance, were not actual practices?

Nope. Not suggesting that at all. What I do suggest though is that a person need not be a follower of a tradition, be a practitioner of an established practice, etc. One can live a life in accord with the Tao without any of these rituals. To live naturally according to one's constitution is also Tao.