Classical Daoism; is there really such a thing?

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I'd say the core of Daoist philosophy, that of knowing one's place in nature, in time, in circumstances, in society, etc., and being able to glide harmoniously through the changes of this environment, is where Daoism starts. The grain of this wisdom sprouted in various directions, including meditation, political, philosophical, and understanding nature and the nature of the human body.

 

During the time of the "100 schools of thought," there were so many people putting their philosophies out there as "the truth" (not unlike on chat-rooms of today), and the Dao De Jing was the response to these writings, saying "you say it's like this, but really, it's like this" (not unlike on chat-rooms of today). It was a historical discourse, and the Dao De Jing represented the corner of the scholars who studied and developed the ideas presented by Huang Di, Fu Xi, and the masters who taught Huang Di.

 

The scholars in this corner, I would suggest, were normally content to let their contributions reach whoever had the good fortune to come into contact with them, which was fairly easy, not having so many voices clamouring to be heard over each other. When the "100 schools of thought" came to town though, the Dao De Jing was put forth like a bell tower or light-house to ensure that people were not lost in the powerful waves of thought, ensuring that the true measure of depth would not be lost, and the passage would not be cluttered with ships forever stuck in these ideas.

[dawei]

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.

 

One needs to get beyond and prior to written 'text'... there is so much going on prior to written text...

 

I don't always agree with Derek Lin but I do agree with his points in here:

http://www.taoism.net/ikuantao/origin/home.htm

 

"Many people interested in the Tao are still under the impression that Lao Tzu founded Taoism about 2,500 years ago. There is some truth to this, as long as we are only talking about philosophical Taoism (Dao Jia) or religious Taoism (Dao Jiao). However, the one thing that most people do not realize is that both variants of Taoism came from a much older tradition, known to the Chinese simply as the Tao. It is not possible for Lao Tzu to be the founder of this ancient tradition for the simple reason that it began at least 2,300 years before his time."

 

"Essentially, the Tao Te Ching was written as a collection of teachings from the original form of Taoism. Lao Tzu presented these teachings in an organized and accessible format. His work revitalized and energized Tao cultivation, so its importance cannot be overlooked. At the same time, it's also important for us to recognize that Lao Tzu was not the one who "invented" concepts like wu wei,p'u, and ziran. Nor was he the first to talk about the significance of silence, harmony, intuition and emptiness."

 

 

"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?

This is not my division but I pointed out a site which has a division which seems one of the better. I personally don't quite see it so black and white; meaning, the gradient is much more gradual, continual and multi-colored.

I once said that Daoism seems to evolve as:

Primitive Naturalism > Divining and Mythology > Shamanism/Spiritualism > Political Philosophy > Alchemy > Religion > Dark Philosophy > Modern Philosophy

To me, it is not "When did folk religion become Daoism", but rather: When did Daoism reveal folk religion?

Folk Religion goes back to primitive cultures and that is where we need to look to understand the unfolding of Daoism and the eventual syncretic text known as the DDJ. LZ and ZZ both refer to those prior and that is something I won't overlook.

Hongkyung Kim provided this quote in his book on LZ:

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.”

He later said that one cannot prefer one period LZ at the expense another period LZ. I would content this basic point when looking at Daoism if one is to understand the entire history.

 

The evolving nature of how Daoism reveals itself means it inherently always has a prior and thus syncretic in nature. We see this in the LZ, ZZ, and how Sima Qian describes Daoist and thus how Huang-Lao is based.

Edited January 27, 2014 by dawei

[Bao Pu]

Greetings dawei,

 

 

One needs to get beyond and prior to written 'text'... there is so much going on prior to written text.

 

The problem is that we have little else but written text. How do you propose we talk about early Daoism before written texts? You later wrote

 

Folk Religion goes back to primitive cultures and that is where we need to look to understand the unfolding of Daoism and the eventual syncretic text known as the DDJ.

 

No problem with this, provided we are looking at actual evidence, which would be archaeological findings, I would guess. But then we'd have to show how these findings relate to what we find in later Daoism. In my case, however, I would need to show how these findings relate to the Laozi and Zhuangzi (and Huainanzi, etc), as this is my chosen field of study.

 

My comments on Lin's words:

 

 

Many people interested in the Tao are still under the impression that Lao Tzu founded Taoism about 2,500 years ago. There is some truth to this, as long as we are only talking about philosophical Taoism (Dao Jia) or religious Taoism (Dao Jiao).

 

As stated, daojia is what I am concerned with. I don't pretend to be qualified to speak on later manifestations.

 

 

However, the one thing that most people do not realize is that both variants of Taoism came from a much older tradition, known to the Chinese simply as the Tao. It is not possible for Lao Tzu to be the founder of this ancient tradition for the simple reason that it began at least 2,300 years before his time.

 

The problem here, in my opinion, is that he is not basing this on any facts. As shown in part 4.2 of my series, the Laozi was the first (extent) text that speaks of Dao as a cosmic ancestor, rather than simply a road or proper way of doing things. We have no records of anything 2300 years prior to his supposed lifetime, therefore, I will not take such claims seriously.

 

 

Essentially, the Tao Te Ching was written as a collection of teachings from the original form of Taoism. Lao Tzu presented these teachings in an organized and accessible format. His work revitalized and energized Tao cultivation, so its importance cannot be overlooked.

 

I agree that the Daodejing is a collection of teachings or sayings from some sort of tradition. That "his" (editorial) work revitalized 'dao cultivation' is not really a factual statement based on any evidence.

 

 

At the same time, it's also important for us to recognize that Lao Tzu was not the one who "invented" concepts like wu wei,p'u, and ziran. Nor was he the first to talk about the significance of silence, harmony, intuition and emptiness.

 

It depends on what we mean by 'invented' I suppose, but pu, ziran and (his version of) wuwei are found first in the Daodejing, so any claim that they were invented earlier lacks evidence. They were probably invented in the tradition that produced the Daodejing, but we don't know when exactly. We can speculate, but I think we should be clear that it is speculation.

 

(Sorry to be so negative about Derek's words. Although I've only met him once, I quite liked him.)

 

With regards to Kim, you say:

He later said that one cannot prefer one period LZ at the expense another period LZ. I would content this basic point when looking at Daoism if one is to understand the entire history.

 

I agree with you.

 

 

[dawei]

Yes, in a word, archaeology... It surprises me how much those who want to stick to a historical record ignore this or don't study more of what we know from it. I prefer to consider this as far as possible.

 

It really doesn't hold that much weight to say a word first appeared here or there... Qigong as a word didn't appear until the modern age but it would be quite silly to claim it did not pre-date the actual word.

 

Another example might be that "Dao" was made reference to in different words. One doesn't have to say "Dao" to mean what it means or what was understood. The Tai Yi Sheng Shui has a much more complete cosmology than the DDJ and fills in lots of blanks. There were other concepts of a cosmic ancestor; LZ chose to use the word Dao where others spoke differently. Heng as in Hengxian is another interesting use of the cosmic ancestor...

 

Just as there are many dualistic archetypes which pre-date the actual word "Taiji" doesn't mean that ancients did not create the concept before the word.

The problem is that Dao pre-dates language and is thus can be found outside of language. But I understand that some want to only look at text for their answers. Of course this ignores another fundamental angle important at this website and that is the experiential aspect. In fact, I would argue that this was the original awareness before text... There are many facets to consider but some may not have this or even want to consider how that reveals something beyond the text.

 

I understand that LZ and ZZ is where all roads need to lead for your study, but I don't hold that as my centrist pivot. So we are likely to simply not agree as our reference and starting points differ.

Edited January 27, 2014 by dawei

[Harmonious Emptiness]

[....]

 

It depends on what we mean by 'invented' I suppose, but pu, ziran and (his version of) wuwei are found first in the Daodejing, so any claim that they were invented earlier lacks evidence. They were probably invented in the tradition that produced the Daodejing, but we don't know when exactly. We can speculate, but I think we should be clear that it is speculation.

 

[....]

 

Lao Tzu speaks of wu wei as knowing when not to act, when not to put oneself in front of others. These tenets are central to the I Ching commentaries written by King Wen (1152 – 1056 BC), explaining the trigrams, and by his son the Duke of Zhou, explaining each line.

[Bao Pu]

dawei,

Prior to the Laozi, Tian was the closest thing to a cosmic ancestor. Different from Laozi's Dao, it usually was conceived to have had a Will. (Xiang'er's commentary to the Laozi also affirmed the Dao had desires and a will). But without evidence that some idea existed, we are just guessing. I may have a perspective that is more "progressive" than you, by which I mean that certain ideas or observations came progressively, over time. It means little to say that Dao was used in the Daoist sense prior to the Laozi unless we can prove it. While it certainly did, when did this idea/observation develop? 310 BCE? 500 BCE? 1000 BCE? Our present evidence is the 4th century BCE. (In my paper on De, I mentioned that the word/concept existed prior to the written character chosen to represent it. But anything we want to say about it prior to its written attestation can be nothing more than speculation.) It seems people just want to push dates back into obscurity and deny that the ancients who left us writings were capable of coming up with new ideas, insights or realizations.

With my study, it is not so much that all roads need to lead to Laozi and Zhuangzi, but that these texts represent the (hypothetical) tradition in question (i.e., Sima Tan's and Ban Gu's Daojia). Part 4.1 of my series does a decent job of explaining my objectives I think:

 

http://baopu81.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/classical-daoism-is-there-really-such-a-thing-part-4-1/

Edited January 28, 2014 by Bao Pu

[dawei]

Prior to the Laozi, Tian was the closest thing to a cosmic ancestor. Different from Laozi's Dao, it usually was conceived to have had a Will. (Xiang'er's commentary to the Laozi also affirmed the Dao had desires and a will). But without evidence that some idea existed, we are just guessing.

I guess we disagree. IMO, the Zhou idea of Tian is not worth discussing... I gave two examples which are in ancient texts though. But I see most ancient cosmologies don't have Dao as the cosmic ancestor.

 

I may have a perspective that is more "progressive" than you, by which I mean that certain ideas or observations came progressively, over time. It means little to say that Dao was used in the Daoist sense prior to the Laozi unless we can prove it. While it certainly did, when did this idea/observation develop? 310 BCE? 500 BCE? 1000 BCE? Our present evidence is the 4th century BCE. (In my paper on De, I mentioned that the word/concept existed prior to the written character chosen to represent it. But anything we want to say about it prior to its written attestation can be nothing more than speculation.) It seems people just want to push dates back into obscurity and deny that the ancients who left us writings were incapavble of coming up with new ideas, insights or realizations.

So any archtypes found in archaeology prior are just speculation because the actual words were not written down yet? They couldn't figure out which bone to write on and which graphic would be understood by all later generations... Only once we have the words of LZ do we have valid theories? (Rhetorical). We'll just differ on this.

 

With my study, it is not so much that all roads need to lead to Laozi and Zhuangzi, but that these texts represent the (hypothetical) tradition in question (i.e., Sima Tan's and Ban Gu's Daojia). Part 4.1 of my series does a decent job of explaining my objectives I think:

http://baopu81.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/classical-daoism-is-there-really-such-a-thing-part-4-1/

 

I accept that you wrote something according to your objectives. You can judge how decent it is towards the goal and end results you wanted.

Edited January 28, 2014 by dawei

[Ya Mu]

One needs to get beyond and prior to written 'text'... there is so much going on prior to written text...

 

...

 

 

...

The problem is that we have little else but written text. How do you propose we talk about early Daoism before written texts?

...

Of course there is also the oral history handed down from those who actually study Taoism through Master-Student oral and practice tradition, much of which predates these texts.

But it would totally freak the scholars who don't know of the practices and they will correctly argue that there is no proof. And I say "correctly" because they are correct in the technical sense. But those who did learn the oral traditions would disagree.

But I certainly can't argue about it - only show the concepts as something that can be experienced.

My opinion, based on the above, is that there is absolutely no question that what is called Taoism predates the texts.

[Bao Pu]

Ya Mu,

 

 

Of course there is also the oral history handed down from those who actually study Taoism through Master-Student oral and practice tradition, much of which predates these texts.

 

Suffice to say that I am very skeptical that the philosophy and practices from 2500 years ago have been handed down faithfully in oral form. I suspect countless practitioners throughout the centuries have modified and supplemented the old teachings alot.

[Bao Pu]

dawei,

 

 

So any archtypes found in archaeology prior are just speculation because the actual words were not written down yet?

 

Yes. I trust you know what speculation means.

To which archetypes are you referring?

[Ya Mu]

Ya Mu,

 

 

 

Suffice to say that I am very skeptical that the philosophy and practices from 2500 years ago have been handed down faithfully in oral form. I suspect countless practitioners throughout the centuries have modified and supplemented the old teachings alot.

Most scholars are because they have not practiced the practices nor have they heard the oral traditions. Understandable.

[Bao Pu]

Most scholars are because they have not practiced the practices nor have they heard the oral traditions. Understandable.

 

I doubt this is relevant; neither hearing the oral tradition nor practicing the practices would likely convince me they are 2500 years old.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

above THUNDER

below WIND

 

THE JUDGMENT

 

DURATION. Success. No blame.

Perseverance furthers.

It furthers one to have somewhere to go.

 

 

THE IMAGE

 

Thunder and wind: the image of DURATION.

Thus the superior man stands firm

And does not change has direction.

 

 

THE LINES

 

Six at the beginning means:

Seeking duration too hastily brings misfortune persistently.

Nothing that would further.

 

° Nine in the second place means:

Remorse disappears.

 

 

Nine in the third place means:

He who does not give duration to his character

Meets with disgrace.

Persistent humiliation.

 

Nine in the fourth place means:

No game in the field.

 

Six in the fifth place means:

Giving duration to one's character through perseverance.

This is good fortune for a woman, misfortune for a man.

 

[Wu Jing Nuan translates this last line as "Constant one's virtue. The divination: a wife, good fortune; a husband, bad fortune."]

 

 

Six (Yin)at the top means:

Restlessness as an enduring condition brings misfortune.

 

 

above WATER

below EARTH

 

 

THE JUDGMENT

 

HOLDING TOGETHER brings good fortune.

Inquire of the oracle once again

Whether you possess sublimity, constancy, and perseverance;

Then there is no blame.

Those who are uncertain gradually join.

Whoever come too late

Meets with misfortune.

 

THE IMAGE

 

On the earth is water:

The image of HOLDING TOGETHER.

Thus the kings of antiquity

Bestowed the different states as fiefs

And cultivated friendly relations

With the feudal lords.

 

THE LINES

 

Six at the beginning means:

Hold to him in truth and loyalty;

This is without blame.

Truth, like a full earthen bowl"

Thus in the end

Good fortune comes from without.

 

Six in the second place means:

Hold to him inwardly.

Perseverance brings good fortune.

 

Six in the third place means:

You hold together with the wrong people.

 

Six in the fourth place means:

Hold to him outwardly also.

Perseverance brings good fortune.

 

° Nine in the fifth place means:

Manifestation of holding together.

In the hunt the king uses beaters on three sides only

And forgoes game that runs off in front.

The citizens need no warning.

Good fortune.

 

Six at the top means:

He finds no head for holding together.

Misfortune.

 

[Harmonious Emptiness]

The Duke of Zhao's commentary on line one, from Water over Earth, "Union," is

 

初六：有孚，比之，无咎。有孚盈缶，終來有它吉

 

which can be translated (selon moi) as:

 

First six: Have sincerity (trustworthiness). Like this there is no misfortune. Have (let there be) sincerity (to) fill the (earthenware) vessel. The end will arrive with the same. Fortunate.

 

 

Then in Earth over Heaven, "Tai" (translated by Legge)

 

九二：包荒，用馮河，不遐遺，朋亡，得尚于中行

The second NINE, undivided, shows one who can bear with the uncultivated, will cross the He without a boat, does not forget the distant, and has no (selfish) friendships. Thus does he prove himself acting in accordance with the course of the due Mean.

 

包荒，得尚于中行，以光大也。

'He bears with the uncultivated, and proves himself acting in accordance with the due mean:' - for (his intelligence is) bright and (his capacity is) great.

 

九三：无平不陂，无往不復，艱貞无咎。勿恤其孚，于食有福

The third NINE, undivided, shows that, while there is no state of peace that is not liable to be disturbed, and no departure (of evil men) so that they shall not return, yet when one is firm and correct, as he realises the distresses that may arise, he will commit no error. There is no occasion for sadness at the certainty (of such recurring changes); and in this mood the happiness (of the present) may be (long) enjoyed.

 

无往不復，天地際也

There is no going away so that there shall not be a return' refers to this as the point where the interaction of heaven and earth takes place.

 

六四：翩翩，不富，以其鄰，不戒以孚

The fourth SIX, divided, shows its subject fluttering (down) - not relying on his own rich resources, but calling in his neighbours. (They all come) not as having received warning, but in the sincerity (of their hearts).

 

翩翩不富，皆失實也。不戒以孚，中心願也

'He comes fluttering (down), not relying on his own rich resources:' - both he and his neighbours are out of their real (place where they are). 'They have not received warning, but (come) in the sincerity (of their hearts):' - this is what they have desired in the core of their hearts.

[dawei]

Its a dead end topic for me if it is all about a text or two... and nothing prior is reliable. To me, there are many dots to connect but not if we're stuck in a certain period and treat it one dimensionally. I can't ignore related issues, even if they are beyond the senses. It would be like trying to argue Wu Wei is a philosophy and ignoring the more primordial, energetic or spiritual aspect. But one can't get there if they don't step outside the box which contains them in the physical presence dependent on text as the final authority.

[Marblehead]

I've enjoyed the discussion y'all are having. I have my opinions but here is not the place to share them.

[Ya Mu]

I doubt this is relevant; neither hearing the oral tradition nor practicing the practices would likely convince me they are 2500 years old.

 

It is relevant, not because they give you your "written what you take as "proof" - but because the practices themselves allow understanding of a personal nature. And of course, if one studies with a person deeply steeped in the culture, they pick up nuances that the text, which usually are translations of translations, cannot give to a person. This is where the oral tradition goes much further than the written one. And I would submit that instead of them being less accurate than the written ones, that they are more accurate especially considering that the texts, which are based on practices (or how do you think these fellows came about this knowledge except through observation through personal practice), were mostly translated by scholar non-practitioners. And consider the fact that the practices allow one to understand on their own without coloration by either text or oral, although I would allow that either can be helpful but oral more accurate as these were the things not written down. IMO NO teacher has ever written the full extent of their knowledge but many have passed it down to others oral and practice wise.

 

But yes, IF IF IF IF one practices, they can come to these conclusions on their own and concepts like "wu wei" become self evident AND I would submit that the self-evident understanding differs quite much from a simple scholarly textual understanding. But I don't expect someone arguing from the point of view of having only read the texts to understand, which is the majority of scholars. Anyone should do both if they want to really understand Taoism.

 

I have posted this on here before but my understanding started in the late 60's and by the early 70's I was one of those who THOUGHT they knew a great deal about Taoism and indeed referred to myself as a Taoist and even taught information from the classics to others, tossing around words like "wu wei" as if I really understood them. Which of course once the actual Taoist practices kicked in - as in a time period of doing them, I found that I was simply full of non-sense derived from a non-understanding of literal translations of translations which for the most part were not even steeped in the cultural experience from whence they came.

 

I am not saying these texts hold no value but that the real understanding is much deeper than in the reading of them. Sometimes reading CAN trigger certain deeper memory or discovery that is unprecedented in one's journey. But it is the living of the thing itself that brings true understanding.

 

The oral traditions I learned which also coincide with the practices has indeed convinced me that concepts/teachings/knowledge called Taoism is much older than 2500 years - MUCH older. I am not attempting to "prove" this but to explain about the difference in a knowledge set gained through practice and oral traditions.

Trying to "prove" anything based only on that particular thing lacks depth - such as trying to "prove" that texts written since 2500 years ago (by referring to them) are the only and ultimate source and beginning of any particular knowledge, especially since those who actually studied oral and practice traditions have a different and expanded knowledge set.

[Bao Pu]

Ya Mu,

re: "I have posted this on here before but my understanding started in the late 60's and by the early 70's I was one of those who THOUGHT they knew a great deal about Taoism and indeed referred to myself as a Taoist and even taught information from the classics to others, tossing around words like "wu wei" as if I really understood them. Which of course once the actual Taoist practices kicked in - as in a time period of doing them, I found that I was simply full of non-sense derived from a non-understanding of literal translations of translations which for the most part were not even steeped in the cultural experience from whence they came."

 

In view of the historical nature of my study (i.e., the Daojia tradition of the pre-Han era), no modern Daoists are "steeped in the cultural experience from whence they [e.g., the authors of the Laozi and Zhuangzi] came." So much has changed in China in the last 2500 years. I'm not claiming absolutely nothing has remained, but that, without proof, it is just hearsay. There is no direct line of transmission from modern teachers of "Daoist practices" to the original authors of the Laozi and Zhuangzi. I think it quite naive to believe that a 21st century Daoist tradition has preserved a 2500 year-old tradition's practices without modification. Nobody could improve upon them?

re: "I am not saying these texts hold no value but that the real understanding is much deeper than in the reading of them. Sometimes reading CAN trigger certain deeper memory or discovery that is unprecedented in one's journey. But it is the living of the thing itself that brings true understanding."

 

Statements such as these suggest to me that you misunderstand my goals. My work is historical: what do we know about this so-called Daojia tradition that Sima Tan talked about? Who may they have been? What beliefs and practices may they have had, and by whom were they influenced? What historical events triggered certain stances on the issues of their day? My goal is NOT to tell one how to be a Daoist or live a fulfilling life.

I am guilty as charged of sticking to the early texts. I would be a poor historian if I made claims about ancient things to which we have no evidence. My work is speculative enough as it is.

re: "The oral traditions I learned which also coincide with the practices has indeed convinced me that concepts/teachings/knowledge called Taoism is much older than 2500 years - MUCH older."

 

How does practice convince you that such practices are older than 2500 years old? How does practice provide information on the date of origination? And does ancient = better, in your opinion?

To re-quote something dawei shared with us:

 

 

Hongkyung Kim provided this quote in his book on LZ:

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.”

 

Du was arguing that people of different generations interpret the Laozi according to the times they live in; the concerns and worldview they have at that particular point in time. That's why commentaries over the centuries differ. To assume that oral traditions (and their practices) don't evolve and change with the times is ridiculous.

My essay examines most of the practices we find referred to in the early texts. If there are some you think I've misinterpreted because I'm not experienced in them, feel free to tell me about it.

[Bao Pu]

I've enjoyed the discussion y'all are having. I have my opinions but here is not the place to share them.

 

If not here, then where?

[ChiDragon]

If not here, then where?

In his solid marble head........

 

PS.....

The subject being discussed is really to broad to be done here. Unless, it was narrowed down to one particular thought.

Edited January 28, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Bao Pu, any comments on the quotations I've provided? They are 1000 years older than the Dao de Jing. That's plenty of time for something as important as the I Ching to penetrate the philosophies of ancint China and lead to someone writing about having a clear and sincere heart (pu, zi ran), and appreciating the unadultered nature.

[Ya Mu]

 

Ya Mu,

re: "I have posted this on here before but my understanding started in the late 60's and by the early 70's I was one of those who THOUGHT they knew a great deal about Taoism and indeed referred to myself as a Taoist and even taught information from the classics to others, tossing around words like "wu wei" as if I really understood them. Which of course once the actual Taoist practices kicked in - as in a time period of doing them, I found that I was simply full of non-sense derived from a non-understanding of literal translations of translations which for the most part were not even steeped in the cultural experience from whence they came."

 

In view of the historical nature of my study (i.e., the Daojia tradition of the pre-Han era), no modern Daoists are "steeped in the cultural experience from whence they [e.g., the authors of the Laozi and Zhuangzi] came." So much has changed in China in the last 2500 years. I'm not claiming absolutely nothing has remained, but that, without proof, it is just hearsay. There is no direct line of transmission from modern teachers of "Daoist practices" to the original authors of the Laozi and Zhuangzi. I think it quite naive to believe that a 21st century Daoist tradition has preserved a 2500 year-old tradition's practices without modification. Nobody could improve upon them?

re: "I am not saying these texts hold no value but that the real understanding is much deeper than in the reading of them. Sometimes reading CAN trigger certain deeper memory or discovery that is unprecedented in one's journey. But it is the living of the thing itself that brings true understanding."

 

Statements such as these suggest to me that you misunderstand my goals. My work is historical: what do we know about this so-called Daojia tradition that Sima Tan talked about? Who may they have been? What beliefs and practices may they have had, and by whom were they influenced? What historical events triggered certain stances on the issues of their day? My goal is NOT to tell one how to be a Daoist or live a fulfilling life.

I am guilty as charged of sticking to the early texts. I would be a poor historian if I made claims about ancient things to which we have no evidence. My work is speculative enough as it is.

re: "The oral traditions I learned which also coincide with the practices has indeed convinced me that concepts/teachings/knowledge called Taoism is much older than 2500 years - MUCH older."

 

How does practice convince you that such practices are older than 2500 years old? How does practice provide information on the date of origination? And does ancient = better, in your opinion?

To re-quote something dawei shared with us:

 

 

Du was arguing that people of different generations interpret the Laozi according to the times they live in; the concerns and worldview they have at that particular point in time. That's why commentaries over the centuries differ. To assume that oral traditions (and their practices) don't evolve and change with the times is ridiculous.

My essay examines most of the practices we find referred to in the early texts. If there are some you think I've misinterpreted because I'm not experienced in them, feel free to tell me about it.

I think you are ignoring my main point, which as I have said is quite understandable given yours is a scholastic text oriented view. One of my points is that you are leaving out the majority of what Taoism actually is and utilizing a view based SOLELY on texts which are translations of translations by mostly non-practitioners of Taoist methodologies, many of which are far more divorced from the culture itself than the oral traditions from teachers living in China.

 

If any scholar considered the energetic view, which can only be derived from the practices, I think they would have a completely different opinion.

 

Do you really think that what was written down was only one original work by each author and that their source material didn't come from oral history and/or practices? If not, how is oral different than the written or considered to be less accurate? How about the opinion that the Tao Te Ching was written by one man who lived several centuries instead of being a collection of works by many that spanned more than one person's lifetime and itself included oral teachings? In fact, if the latter is more accurate, how could it not?

 

If a practice worked 10,000 years ago and still works today but was modified slightly for increased efficiency, so what? It doesn't mean the practice isn't the true essence of 10,000 years ago. No one including me said that the practices hadn't evolved for efficiency, only that the oral tradition as well as the practices themselves demonstrated (to the practitioner) they were older than the 2,500 years you give - and of course a non-practitioner wouldn't nor couldn't see this.

 

Truth is truth and illusion is illusion no matter what time period it came from so I think the whole point is moot except to make a point concerning the nature of history. Dropped, forgotten, oral only available to a few, versus written, distorted, re-written from another culture's perspective and/or changed for some particular divorced from truth purpose. An example below:

 

George Washington was a true benevolent patriot when he refused an offered salary to be a general. True or false? If we believed written history books from our grade school years (at least mine) we would say true. And this is not 2500 years ago. In fact look at how distorted history books were in the 50's-80's speaking more from a current cultural, religious, and governmental control perspective than from any truth. How can anything written up to 2500 years ago be any different than subject to these same type distortions?

[Marblehead]

In his solid marble head........

 

PS.....

The subject being discussed is really to broad to be done here. Unless, it was narrowed down to one particular thought.

Yeah, my position is that I actually agree with both major posters (Ya Mu & Bao Pu).

 

At the personal level I agree with Bao Pu in that the texts available to me (TTC & Chuang Tzu) are all I care to concern myself with. They are, in my opinion, the best of the best. I try to imploy the teachings in my real world.

 

On the other hand, I agree with Ya Mu in that the TTC and The Chuang Tzu did not appear mysteriously solely from the thoughts of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. They both have roots in much older thoughts in China's history. If one wishes to understand the source of these two texts then sure, one would have to research everything that is available which would include oral teachings that were later put to pen.

 

I often say that Religious Taoism and Alchemic Taoism is not Taoism but this is really a false statement but this won't stop me from saying it whenever I feel the need to do so. Alchemic Taoism surely dates older than the TTC whick would make it older than Philosophical Taoism.

 

Anyhow, we search for our needs. Some people's needs are satisfied by reading only the TTC. I am very sure that there are even a number of our members on this board who have not even read the TTC. They are here because of other common interests.

 

So basically, both Ya Mu and Bao Pu are right. There is no wrong here if looked at from a perspective of agreement with one or the other.

[silent thunder]

I agree.

One gem has many facets... none of them are wrong.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Anyways.. yin and yang, Classic on the Changes (of yin yang, bagua), wu wei, you wei - this all goes back over 1000 years, in study and in writing, before Lao Tzu.

 

 

from Water over Mountain, "Difficulty," (trans. Legge)

 

 

初六：往蹇，來譽

From the first SIX, divided, we learn that advance (on the part of its subject) will lead to (greater) difficulties, while remaining stationary will afford ground for praise.

 

往蹇來譽，宜待也

'Advancing will conduct to (greater) difficulties, while remaining stationary will afford ground for praise:' - the proper course is to wait.