Classical Daoism; is there really such a thing?

[Marblehead]

That sounds like something from "The Art of War".

[Harmonious Emptiness]

That sounds like something from "The Art of War".

 

Well, Sun Tzu also meditated on the Changes, which were at the base of his theory.

 

Note that the hexagram of Earth over Heaven, Tai, is titled as "great." In the Dao De Jing, Lao Tzu says "I don't know what to call it so I write it's name as Da, Great." Tai is full Yin over full Yang - expressed later as Taiji, which also synonymous with Dao.

 

It's all there in the trigrams and hexagrams. Learning from them was generally something done with a teacher, so the what has been written of Daoist philosophy is, at best, the tip of the iceberg.

 

Our intellectual/scholastic ping-pong games are also obviously no more than recreational past-times, but, you never know where showing up will lead you to.

[Bao Pu]

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.

 

No one believes the Yijing commentaries were written by King Wen or his son anymore. From what we can tell, neither Confucius, Mozi, Laozi, Zhuangzi, Hanfeizi, Sunzi, Mencius or Xunzi had any interest in the divination of the Yijing. Sincerity is such a common value that you would need more than this to prove the authors of the Daodejing were influenced by the Yijing.

[Marblehead]

Well, Sun Tzu also meditated on the Changes, which were at the base of his theory.

 

Note that the hexagram of Earth over Heaven, Tai, is titled as "great." In the Dao De Jing, Lao Tzu says "I don't know what to call it so I write it's name as Da, Great." Tai is full Yin over full Yang - expressed later as Taiji, which also synonymous with Dao.

 

It's all there in the trigrams and hexagrams. Learning from them was generally something done with a teacher, so the what has been written of Daoist philosophy is, at best, the tip of the iceberg.

 

Our intellectual/scholastic ping-pong games are also obviously no more than recreational past-times, but, you never know where showing up will lead you to.

Okay, that response presents a perfect example of why one would want to read the classics. To find the roots of what is being said.

 

Nice post.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

 

No one believes the Yijing commentaries were written by King Wen or his son anymore. From what we can tell, neither Confucius, Mozi, Laozi, Zhuangzi, Hanfeizi, Sunzi, Mencius or Xunzi had any interest in the divination of the Yijing. Sincerity is such a common value that you would need more than this to prove the authors of the Daodejing were influenced by the Yijing.

Confucius had no interest in the I Ching? And what do you base this on exactly?

 

You should probably know that the I Ching is also a source of wisdom, not only a tool for divination and is studied deeply for this reason.

[Bao Pu]

Confucius had no interest in the I Ching? And what do you base this on exactly?

 

You should probably know that the I Ching is also a source of wisdom, not only a tool for divination and is studied deeply for this reason.

I base it on the Analects mostly, but quotations of his in the Mencius and Xunzi also do not portray him interested in this divination manual. And that is basically what it was, before the more philosophical commentaries were written (which scholarly consensus says is 3rd century BCE).

[Bao Pu]

Ya Mu,

 

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.

 

You have preconceptions of what pre-Han Daoism is about. I have tried to remove most of my preconceptions and am simply seeing what the evidence (which are only texts for the pre-Han era) tells us. I don't know what you mean when you claim I'm relying on translations of translations. Are 2000-year old bamboo slips and silk manuscripts translations of translations by non-practitioners? On the other hand, if you're not referring to pre-Han Daoism, then you are criticizing me for not doing a study on your field of interest, like criticizing someone who is writing on Karl Marx (1818-1883) for not taking into consideration 21st century communism.

 

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?

 

I've already written much about orally-transmited ideas in my essays, and so, don't deny it occurred. As for orally-transmited practices (that aren't written down), we can only guess. Even when they wrote down some of their practices, so much is left out that we can only make educated guesses. My guesses on the self-cultivation we find in the texts are found in my essay. Your point, I believe, is that my guesses are not educated enough. You are entitled to this opinion of course. I have often read that when the Daodejing or Zhuangzi says such-and-such, they are referring to the same thing that later qigong, taichi, or Daojiao practiced. I am reluctant to draw these lines without more evidence. Perhaps I am guilty of being over-cautious.

And as for " If not, how is oral different than the written or considered to be less accurate?"

Well, that is easy: a 2100-year old excavated manuscript accurately shows what was believed, practiced, or advocated 2100 years ago, whereas the fidelity of 2100 years of oral transmission is highly questionable. In fact, I bet if you were to read alot of practice manuals from the last 2000 years, you will find many teachers who said they were true inheritors of the old teachings and that the others were bogus. (And of course, they demonstrate the bias that older = better.)

 

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.

 

Your thinking really puzzles me. You are still assuming that modern practice is basically the same as those of - what?! Now 10,000 years ago? If the practices themselves magically demonstrate (through some sort of vision?) that they were invented in the year 7986 BCE (that's 10,000 years ago), then ... I am speechless. As far as I can see, the only way you can arrive at some ancient date of origination is by someone telling you this. The practice doesn't provide dates. And such a person, presumably a teacher, is just telling you what he or she was told. He or she doesn't really know this. It is simply faith-based. And I am sorry, no - actually I am not, but I do not have this faith. I am a skeptic. From my experience with people and orally-transmitted information, things all to easily change from telling to telling. Back in ancient China, the disciples of Confucius and Mozi famously could not agree on what their master had taught, and that was only within the first century after the master's death!

 

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.

 

Oral teachings do not undergo (intentional or inadvertent) distortion in transmission? They do not get re-interpreted according to the times? They do not get influenced by other cultures? Ya Mu, we have nothing more to talk about.

[Bao Pu]

Marblehead,

 

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 agree, and have done my best. The only text I haven't read that (supposedly) predates the Daodejing and Zhuangzi is the Chunqiu Zuozhuan, though I have read many parts. I have read many bronze inscriptions and oracle bone divination texts. As for oral teachings later put to pen, I would need to be convinced that such a text was worth my time, as there is so much out there to study.

 

Have you read any of the Huainanzi?

Edited January 30, 2014 by Bao Pu

[Ya Mu]

 

Ya Mu,

 

 

You have preconceptions of what pre-Han Daoism is about. I have tried to remove most of my preconceptions and am simply seeing what the evidence (which are only texts for the pre-Han era) tells us. I don't know what you mean when you claim I'm relying on translations of translations. Are 2000-year old bamboo slips and silk manuscripts translations of translations by non-practitioners? On the other hand, if you're not referring to pre-Han Daoism, then you are criticizing me for not doing a study on your field of interest, like criticizing someone who is writing on Karl Marx (1818-1883) for not taking into consideration 21st century communism.

 

 

I've already written much about orally-transmited ideas in my essays, and so, don't deny it occurred. As for orally-transmited practices (that aren't written down), we can only guess. Even when they wrote down some of their practices, so much is left out that we can only make educated guesses. My guesses on the self-cultivation we find in the texts are found in my essay. Your point, I believe, is that my guesses are not educated enough. You are entitled to this opinion of course. I have often read that when the Daodejing or Zhuangzi says such-and-such, they are referring to the same thing that later qigong, taichi, or Daojiao practiced. I am reluctant to draw these lines without more evidence. Perhaps I am guilty of being over-cautious.

And as for " If not, how is oral different than the written or considered to be less accurate?"

Well, that is easy: a 2100-year old excavated manuscript accurately shows what was believed, practiced, or advocated 2100 years ago, whereas the fidelity of 2100 years of oral transmission is highly questionable. In fact, I bet if you were to read alot of practice manuals from the last 2000 years, you will find many teachers who said they were true inheritors of the old teachings and that the others were bogus. (And of course, they demonstrate the bias that older = better.)

 

 

Your thinking really puzzles me. You are still assuming that modern practice is basically the same as those of - what?! Now 10,000 years ago? If the practices themselves magically demonstrate (through some sort of vision?) that they were invented in the year 7986 BCE (that's 10,000 years ago), then ... I am speechless. As far as I can see, the only way you can arrive at some ancient date of origination is by someone telling you this. The practice doesn't provide dates. And such a person, presumably a teacher, is just telling you what he or she was told. He or she doesn't really know this. It is simply faith-based. And I am sorry, no - actually I am not, but I do not have this faith. I am a skeptic. From my experience with people and orally-transmitted information, things all to easily change from telling to telling. Back in ancient China, the disciples of Confucius and Mozi famously could not agree on what their master had taught, and that was only within the first century after the master's death!

 

 

Oral teachings do not undergo (intentional or inadvertent) distortion in transmission? They do not get re-interpreted according to the times? They do not get influenced by other cultures? Ya Mu, we have nothing more to talk about.

"Oral teachings do not undergo (intentional or inadvertent) distortion in transmission?"

Not anymore than the written ones, which was my point - that you ignore the oral & practice traditions that make up the majority of Taoism because they don't fit into your tunnel vision view and are basing your conclusions ONLY on that narrow view. Others on here have quoted plenty of text that your rejection of what they posted demonstrates you are missing the point.

I wasn't "criticizing you" but attempting to make you more aware of the vastness that Taoism is.

 

One day, you may expand your horizons with an open mind and see what you are missing. Or not.

 

Good luck with your research! It is a noble effort.

[Marblehead]

Marblehead,

 

 

I agree, and have done my best. The only text that (supposedly) predates the Daodejing and Zhuangzi is the Chunqiu Zuozhuan, though I have read many parts. I have read many bronze inscriptions and oracle bone divination texts. As for oral teachings later put to pen, I would need to be convinced that such a text was worth my time, as there is so much out there to study.

 

Have you read any of the Huainanzi?

You have done much better than I. I did try reading the Huainanzi very early in my reading of Taoist texts but it caused only confusion at the time and had to stop. I haven't had a reason to return to it again.

[ChiDragon]

No one believes the Yijing commentaries were written by King Wen or his son anymore. From what we can tell, neither Confucius, Mozi, Laozi, Zhuangzi, Hanfeizi, Sunzi, Mencius or Xunzi had any interest in the divination of the Yijing. Sincerity is such a common value that you would need more than this to prove the authors of the Daodejing were influenced by the Yijing.

 

Did you know Confucius was, at the age of fifty, introduced to the Yijing by Lao Tze? The 十翼,Ten Wing(explanation of Yijing), was written by Confucius.

 

The concept of Yin-yang in Chapter 41 of the TTC was from the Yijing.

Edited January 30, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Bao Pu]

You have done much better than I. I did try reading the Huainanzi very early in my reading of Taoist texts but it caused only confusion at the time and had to stop. I haven't had a reason to return to it again.

 

Thanks for understanding my poorly written post. I have corrected it to read " The only text I haven't read that (supposedly) predates the Daodejing and Zhuangzi is the Chunqiu Zuozhuan, though I have read many parts."

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Wikipedia says:

 

Traditionally, the I Ching and its hexagrams were thought to pre-date recorded history,^[2] and based on traditional Chinese accounts, its origins trace back to the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE.^[3] Modern scholarship suggests that the earliest layers of the text may date from the end of the 2nd millennium BCE, but place doubts on the mythological aspects in the traditional accounts.^[4] Some consider the I Ching the oldest extant book of divination, dating from 1,000 BCE and before.^[5]The oldest manuscript that has been found, albeit incomplete, dates back to the Warring States period (475–221 BCE).

[Harmonious Emptiness]

The later date for the lines attributed to King Wen and the Duke of Zhao is late (early) 9th century BCE (see Edward L. Shaughnessy).

Edited January 30, 2014 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Walker]

 

Your thinking really puzzles me. You are still assuming that modern practice is basically the same as those of - what?! Now 10,000 years ago? If the practices themselves magically demonstrate (through some sort of vision?) that they were invented in the year 7986 BCE (that's 10,000 years ago), then ... I am speechless.

 

The harshest scolding I ever received from a Daoist came when he was talking about why Laozi wrote the Daodejing and I contradicted him by referencing one of the common stories from "history." Boy did I draw his ire. He certainly held that such visions are possible and indeed are prerequisite to one's having the right to speak on such things. His belief in/experience of these things is not uncommon if one taps into the oral tradition. There is an important part of Daoist practice which is almost never discussed in public (however, its name is well-known) which is believed to bestow adepts with the ability to know the past. Of course, no matter how accurate these visions may be, naturally enough they cannot be included in any bibliographies.

 

I agree that your research is a noble effort--your linguistic skills and persistence are impressive! However, even if for scholastic purposes we do manage to get a very clear picture of history through such efforts, the fact seems to remain that the muddy, muddled nature of the Three Teachings in Chinese culture is ripe enough ground for cultivation as-is. From the standpoint of cultivators, chasing after such clarity could be a bit like choosing to plant a seed in spring water instead of shit (Zhuangzi's proverbial shit, of course).

[Marblehead]

Hi Walker,

 

For whatever the reason your first paragraph reminded me of Flowing Hands.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

A little more wisdom from the early lines of the I Ching:

 

Water over Heaven, Xu, "Waiting"

 

需：有孚，光亨，貞吉。利涉大川

Xu intimates that, with the sincerity which is declared in it, there will be brilliant success. With firmness there will be good fortune; and it will be advantageous to cross the great stream.

 

需，須也；險在前也。剛健而不陷，其義不困窮矣。需有孚，光亨，貞吉。位乎天位，以正中也。利涉大川，往有功也

Xu denotes waiting. (The figure) shows peril in front; but notwithstanding the firmness and strength (indicated by the inner trigram), its subject does not allow himself to be involved (in the dangerous defile); - it is right he should not be straitened or reduced to extremity. When it is said that, 'with the sincerity declared in Xu, there will be brilliant success, and with firmness there will be good fortune,' this is shown by the position (of the fifth line) in the place assigned by Heaven, and its being the correct position for it, and in the centre. 'It will be advantageous to go through the great stream;' - that is, going forward will be followed by meritorious achievement.

 

....

 

需于郊，不犯難行也。利用恆，无咎；未失常也

'He is waiting in the (distant) border:' - he makes no movement to encounter rashly the difficulties (of the situation). 'It will be advantageous for him constantly to maintain (the purpose thus shown), in which case there will be no error:' - he will not fail to pursue that regular course.

 

 

So you can see, that this is the kind of counsel that existed in writing before the Lao Tzu. This same sort of wisdom was then expressed ingeniously by Lao Tzu in a way that was also multi-dimensional, and made to speak differently to the reader depending on their current external and internal landscapes.