Can you please tell me the names of Daoist scriptures and their authors?

[Ervin]

I want to order books. The books that I am interested in are the actual Daoist scriptures.

 

So can someone please tell me what are the names of those scriptures. By all means, do tell me the names of good books about Daoism and the names of authors.

 

I know about Dao De Jing and La Tzu(By the way, I can see my self aligning with it),but I am not sure about the names of the other or others.

 

Religious Daoism is the one I am interested in my self.

 

Thanks

[dust]

I wonder, how do you know you're interested in "religious Daoism" if you haven't yet read the "scripture" ?

[Apech]

Start here I would suggest:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daozang

 

... I would also suggest after the LaoTzu to read Chuang Tzu or if you want an overview you could try Taoism by Eva Wong or Daoism A Guide for the Perplexed by Louis Komjathy.

[dawei]

I want to order books. The books that I am interested in are the actual Daoist scriptures.

 

As you seem to want religious scriptures, they are generally a small collection of short text in although some go to specific topics like neidan practices.  The more exact you can be the better.

 

The one book that comes to mind is Early Daoist Scriptures by Bokenkamp

 

 

So can someone please tell me what are the names of those scriptures. By all means, do tell me the names of good books about Daoism and the names of authors.

 

Have a look here on our site:

http://www.thedaobums.com/forum/439-miscellaneous-daoist-texts/

 

These are small publications which can actually all be found online somewhere and I'll continue to post there.

[Ervin]

I wonder, how do you know you're interested in "religious Daoism" if you haven't yet read the "scripture" ?

 

Hi dustybeijing, I am generally more interested in religious texts than in philosophical.

 

I have looked into many religions and philosophical beliefs.

 

I have listened to Dao De Jing ( I got audio from the site called scribd). And I do believe in Dao. From my experience philosophers( not all, but most these days), try to rationalise to much where reason doesn't apply.

 

However, that's my view and I respect others views too.

 

Thanks

[Ervin]

And by the way, thanks for te guidance the rest of you.

[Michael Sternbach]

In my opinion, Chuang Tzu is basic to any kind of Daoism.

[dust]

Hi dustybeijing, I am generally more interested in religious texts than in philosophical. I have looked into many religions and philosophical beliefs. I have listened to Dao De Jing ( I got audio from the site called scribd). And I do believe in Dao. From my experience philosophers( not all, but most these days), try to rationalise to much where reason doesn't apply.

 

Fair enough. Well, actually I disagree that logic/rationality/reason should ever be replaced with baseless speculation and story-telling. But that's for other threads, I suppose.

 

 

Anyway,

 

I would not classify the Zhuangzi / Chuang Tzu as 'religious Daoism', but as it is certainly one of the great texts -- not only in Daoism or China, but in world history -- I'd say it's very worthy of study.

[Taomeow]

The Taoist Canon, Daozang (Tao Tsang), consists of 1,400 volumes at the latest count (not counting the Supplements).   If you want scriptures, you would have to join a particular school or sect, since their teachings sometimes overlap only slightly, and sometimes, not at all.  "Generic taoism" is popular in the West but never existed in China.  However, the most influential texts that were accepted by all taoist schools and had a profound impact on the whole cultural landscape (and in many cases shaped it) included in the Canon are not scriptures, they are professional literature on particular specific subjects -- books on medicine (beginning with The Yellow Emperor's Classic), feng shui, assorted arts executed the taoist way (from painting and calligraphy to magnificent treatises on culinary, tea, and "diagnosing" the meaning of comets based on their presentation), astronomy and astrology, internal alchemy, demonology, bedchamber arts, divination, biographies of taoist immortals, and so on.  The first text to have been included in the Canon was the I Ching. 

 

For scriptures, you may need to be more specific and decide which school or sect to join before tackling them.  The choice in our time and in our circumstances may be dictated by availability, but taoism has never been "readily available to the masses" -- at least the kind of taoism that involves scriptures.  A few have been translated and you can read them, but without using them the way they were intended to be used, i.e. in conjunction with practices of a particular school, I'm not sure they are all that useful.  However, here's a partial list in case you want to browse:

 

http://www.taoistresource.net/doe_idx.htm

[Geof Nanto]

Thanks for your comprehensive overview Taomeow.  For clarity I'd add that the Daodejing and Nanhua zhenjing (aka Zhuangzi) are foundational Daoist scriptures.

 

“In the Daoist tradition, the Daodejing is read as a scripture and as a manual for self-cultivation. In terms of being a scripture, it is understood to be “sacred” or an emanation of the Dao. Placed in the whole of Daoist history, the Daodejing is probably the most influential text. Evidence for this is found in the numerous Daoist commentaries contained in the Ming-dynasty (1368-1644) Daozang 道藏 (Daoist Canon). There are hundreds of extant Daoist commentaries, both partial and complete, and they continue to be written by contemporary Daoists. The text has received diverse interpretations depending on changing socio-historical contexts and religious concerns.”   - Louis Komjathy

 

(The Chinese character and Daoist religious category here translated as 'scripture' is jing, which is also translated as 'classic' or 'canon'.)

[Taomeow]

Thanks for your comprehensive overview Taomeow.  For clarity I'd add that the Daodejing and Nanhua zhenjing (aka Zhuangzi) are foundational Daoist scriptures.

 

“In the Daoist tradition, the Daodejing is read as a scripture and as a manual for self-cultivation. In terms of being a scripture, it is understood to be “sacred” or an emanation of the Dao. Placed in the whole of Daoist history, the Daodejing is probably the most influential text. Evidence for this is found in the numerous Daoist commentaries contained in the Ming-dynasty (1368-1644) Daozang 道藏 (Daoist Canon). There are hundreds of extant Daoist commentaries, both partial and complete, and they continue to be written by contemporary Daoists. The text has received diverse interpretations depending on changing socio-historical contexts and religious concerns.”   - Louis Komjathy

 

(The Chinese character and Daoist religious category here translated as 'scripture' is jing, which is also translated as 'classic' or 'canon'.)

 

Thank you for your take,  Yueya.   I remember, a few years ago, going to the trouble of debunking Komjathy, whose article about Western "misconceptions" regarding daoism offered his own misconceptions instead, but I don't remember the details.  Suffice it to say that I do not have much use for "researchers of taoism" who are not taoists. 

 

In reality, the TTC is not "the most influential text," it is merely a text that all taoist schools more or less accept.  "More or less" is significant here, since some view this work as profoundly religious, Laozi as the personification of tao who gives birth to himself as his own mother, and deify him -- Lord Laozi he is to them --

while others see this book as a manual for the ruler, for the powerful, a work primarily political --

and still others notice that it follows the Yuandao text very closely (sometimes verbatim)

and still others focus on its cultivational code, from martial to alchemical instructions, and so on. 

The scientific aspects -- the cosmogony described in it -- is likewise not accepted by all schools (however, personally, I happen to consider it absolutely accurate, but it is based on earlier, nonverbal taoist documents, the Hetu and Luoshu, and merely follows the taoist tradition rather than creates or defines it.)  In general, one often hears in the West opinions about taoism that are actually better defined as Laoism.  Komjathy follows this trend.

 

Zhuangzi, to an even greater extent, is a favorite with Western "researchers" and "philosophical taoists," but neither the source of taoist scriptures nor an authority viewed by "all" taoist schools as definitive.  Zhuangzi is, rather, a beloved source, a storyteller whose ideas made it into folk interpretations of taoism and found a home in the hearts of people, but a religious authority he has never been.  

 

My 2 yuan. 

[Geof Nanto]

Thanks for your two yuan's worth, Taomeow but newcomer's corner is not the place to pursue this. (Indeed, it's not a discussion I'd like to pursue at all. I am not an ordained Daoist nor do I have any personal experience of contemporary Chinese Daoism.)

 

However I will add some words of defense for Komjathy.....

 

Louis Komjathy (Kang Siqi 康思奇; Xiujing 修靜; Wanrui 萬瑞; Ph.D.; CSO) is a scholar-practitioner of Daoism and an ordained Daoist priest of the Huashan 華山 (Mount Hua) lineage of Quanzhen (Complete Perfection) Daoism. He received his Ph.D. in Religious Studies (Boston University; 2005) with an emphasis on Daoism and comparative religious studies. Louis has published Title Index to Daoist Collections (Three Pines Press, 2002), Cultivating Perfection: Mysticism and Self-transformation in Early Quanzhen Daoism (Brill, 2007), Handbooks for Daoist Practice (Xiudao shouce 修道手冊; Yuen Yuen Institute [Hong Kong], 2008), The Way of Complete Perfection: A Quanzhen Daoist Anthology  (State University of New York Press, 2013), and The Daoist Tradition: An Introduction  (Bloomsbury Academic, 2013).

 

In 2006, Louis lived and trained as a Daoist recluse in Chengdu, Sichuan, at which time he received ordination into the Huashan lineage. Following his ordination, he lived as a visiting Daoist monk in the monasteries of Laoshan 嶗山 (Mount Lao; near Qingdao, Shandong) and Huashan 華山 (Mount Hua; Huayin, Shaanxi).

 

(from http://daoistfoundation.org/about/ )

[Taomeow]

Thanks for your two yuan's worth, Taomeow but newcomer's corner is not the place to pursue this. (Indeed, it's not a discussion I'd like to pursue at all. I am not an ordained Daoist nor do I have any personal experience of contemporary Chinese Daoism.)

 

However I will add some words of defense for Komjathy.....

 

Louis Komjathy (Kang Siqi 康思奇; Xiujing 修靜; Wanrui 萬瑞; Ph.D.; CSO) is a scholar-practitioner of Daoism and an ordained Daoist priest of the Huashan 華山 (Mount Hua) lineage of Quanzhen (Complete Perfection) Daoism. He received his Ph.D. in Religious Studies (Boston University; 2005) with an emphasis on Daoism and comparative religious studies. Louis has published Title Index to Daoist Collections (Three Pines Press, 2002), Cultivating Perfection: Mysticism and Self-transformation in Early Quanzhen Daoism (Brill, 2007), Handbooks for Daoist Practice (Xiudao shouce 修道手冊; Yuen Yuen Institute [Hong Kong], 2008), The Way of Complete Perfection: A Quanzhen Daoist Anthology  (State University of New York Press, 2013), and The Daoist Tradition: An Introduction  (Bloomsbury Academic, 2013).

 

In 2006, Louis lived and trained as a Daoist recluse in Chengdu, Sichuan, at which time he received ordination into the Huashan lineage. Following his ordination, he lived as a visiting Daoist monk in the monasteries of Laoshan 嶗山 (Mount Lao; near Qingdao, Shandong) and Huashan 華山 (Mount Hua; Huayin, Shaanxi).

 

(from http://daoistfoundation.org/about/ )

 

Ah, yes, I've been there.  Unfortunately, they appointed Communist party members to serve as taoist monks when they decided to "revive" taoism that was utterly destroyed there during the Cultural Revolution.  Gave them a crash course in ritual, and functionaries of the party were hired to head these establishments.  Which may explain some of the things we don't see eye to eye on methinks.   

 

Don't quite see how I'm responsible for "newcomer's corner is not the place to pursue this," given that I merely answered the question to the best of my ability and you intervened to argue against my opinion, but I'll be happy to bow out at this point, with best regards.  

[thelerner]

  However, here's a partial list in case you want to browse:

 

http://www.taoistresource.net/doe_idx.htm

Any books in the list you particularly liked or recommend? 

 

Addon, many of them are pretty short.  May as well peruse through myself. 

Edited March 18, 2016 by thelerner

[doc benway]

I want to order books. The books that I am interested in are the actual Daoist scriptures.

 

So can someone please tell me what are the names of those scriptures. By all means, do tell me the names of good books about Daoism and the names of authors.

 

I know about Dao De Jing and La Tzu(By the way, I can see my self aligning with it),but I am not sure about the names of the other or others.

 

Religious Daoism is the one I am interested in my self.

 

Thanks

The distinction between religious and philosophical Daoism is artificial and gratuitous.

Religion is not in the scripture, it is in your approach to the scripture.

Same for philosophy. 

Here's a useful outline - http://en.daoinfo.org/wiki/The_Daoist_Canon and the Taoist Treasury that Taomeow referenced is excellent. One issue is that translating such scriptures is extremely problematic. If you are not reading them in Chinese or with the guidance of a teacher, it is very easy to go astray.

Good luck!

Edited April 2, 2016 by steve

[dawei]

Thanks for your two yuan's worth, Taomeow but newcomer's corner is not the place to pursue this. 

 

While this area was conceived as a softer place for newcomers to start threads of interest, there is really no restriction on how complex the topic goes if it is on topic.   And in the long run, some of them can be moved to more appropriate areas but the hope is that newcomers simply feel this is an open and welcoming place to post when they otherwise are unsure where to post.

[dust]

Religion is not in the scripture, it is in your approach to the scripture.

 

Well, I like that.

 

But for it to really hit the spot, I think that 'scripture' needs to be replaced with something else --  the definition of 'scripture' is sacred writings of a religion..!

 

Maybe "The text is neither philosophical nor religious, but your approach to it makes it so."   ?

[doc benway]

Well, I like that.

 

But for it to really hit the spot, I think that 'scripture' needs to be replaced with something else --  the definition of 'scripture' is sacred writings of a religion..!

 

Maybe "The text is neither philosophical nor religious, but your approach to it makes it so."   ?

 

Good point. 

We can debate whether Daodejing and Zhuangzi are religious or philosophical texts.

I think we can approach them as we see fit. 

I know and respect people who treat them both ways. 

 

Edit - and even if the word scripture is defined as a sacred writing of a religion, I would still assert that the religion is in the reader, not the document. That's just my point of view.

Edited April 2, 2016 by steve

[Geof Nanto]

While this area was conceived as a softer place for newcomers to start threads of interest, there is really no restriction on how complex the topic goes if it is on topic.   And in the long run, some of them can be moved to more appropriate areas but the hope is that newcomers simply feel this is an open and welcoming place to post when they otherwise are unsure where to post.

 

Thanks Dawei for your clarification. When I wrote…. “Thanks for your comprehensive overview Taomeow.  For clarity I'd add that the Daodejing and Nanhua zhenjing(aka Zhuangzi) are foundational Daoist scriptures.” ….that’s exactly what I meant. My purpose was simply to clarify her overview for the newcomer to Daoism. I didn’t realise until she made her opposition explicit that I was contradicting her implicit point that these scriptures are not central.  And for me that took the discussion somewhere I didn’t want to go. I get no joy from opposition debates whatever the outcome. What I did gain was an appreciation of the validity of her observation using her frame of reference. (However, I stand by my statement that the Daodejing and Zhuangzi are foundational Daoists texts, even though they’re not necessarily primary texts for all lineages.)

 

I thought to myself on reading Taomeow’s post that we are opposites in aspects of our conscious presentation. Though we both value learning and research, whereas I choose for a signature,   “I inquire, I do not assert, I do not here determine anything with final assurance; I conjecture, try, compare, attempt, ask.......” , Taomeow’s signature could well be “I assert, I tell, I state with final assurance.”  However I suspect neither one of these signatures is wholly applicable. 

Edited April 2, 2016 by Yueya

[dust]

In reality, the TTC is not "the most influential text," it is merely a text that all taoist schools more or less accept.

 

Unless there's another Taoist text that all schools 'more or less accept' more than they do the Laozi, I wonder how the (arguably) most famous text that is more or less accepted by all Taoist schools might be said to not be the most influential?

 

I suppose one might suggest the Yijing, and certainly a case can be made that it is the most influential text in the history of China, not just in the history of Taoism... but that would also mean that it does not belong to Taoism alone.

 

 

 

Zhuangzi is, rather, a beloved source, a storyteller whose ideas made it into folk interpretations of taoism and found a home in the hearts of people, but a religious authority he has never been.

 

Thank the gods

[Taomeow]

 

I thought to myself on reading Taomeow’s post that we are opposites in aspects of our conscious presentation. Though we both value learning and research, whereas I choose for a signature,   “I inquire, I do not assert, I do not here determine anything with final assurance; I conjecture, try, compare, attempt, ask.......” , Taomeow’s signature could well be “I assert, I tell, I state with final assurance.”  However I suspect neither one of these signatures is wholly applicable. 

 

Or, in simpler terms, you "thought to yourself" (right before posting what you thought for public enjoyment) that you're a good boy and I'm a bad girl.  That's fine by me, but please don't sign my posts for me if you can help it, I already have a signature.  

[Taomeow]

Unless there's another Taoist text that all schools 'more or less accept' more than they do the Laozi, I wonder how the (arguably) most famous text that is more or less accepted by all Taoist schools might be said to not be the most influential?

 

I suppose one might suggest the Yijing, and certainly a case can be made that it is the most influential text in the history of China, not just in the history of Taoism... but that would also mean that it does not belong to Taoism alone.

 

 

 

 

Thank the gods

 

 

Definitely the I Ching.  And since the founder of taoism, to taoists, is Fuxi, and not Laozi by any stretch of imagination (although laoists might be upset by the news),

and since Fuxi created the Eight Trigrams which the I Ching is based on,

and since the defining nonverbal diagrams expressing taoist cosmology, philosophy, science and religion in one fell swoop, Hetu and Luoshu, have been worked into the fabric of the I Ching (one way to view it is as merely a text adding verbal explanations to a system that was complete and fully operational thousands of years earlier),

and since the I Ching was the first book to be canonized into religious taoism and is without doubt accepted by all schools and sects of taoism,

I don't see why it need be doubted, except for the fact that in the West (and among heavily westernized Chinese) the TTC was popularized far more widely and is easier to misunderstand.  

 

FB is swarming with "quotes from Laozi," 90% of them fake and most of the rest mistranslated -- but not from the I Ching, and that's quite telling in and of itself.  It is not as user-friendly...  but taoism is not about that.  It's not a catering service to the seeker of "philosophy light," decaffeinated...  contrary to a suddenly popular belief.  

 

So losing the cozy pre-tamed idea of what taoism "is because ought to be" to the actual reality of TTC being "one of its pillars" but not the turtle holding the universe on its back (that turtle is the one on whose back the Luoshu was inscribed ) is one of those instances where the taoist admonition to "invest in loss" may indeed pay off. 

[Geof Nanto]

Or, in simpler terms, you "thought to yourself" (right before posting what you thought for public enjoyment) that you're a good boy and I'm a bad girl.  That's fine by me, but please don't sign my posts for me if you can help it, I already have a signature.  

 

You really like to throw spears, don't you. That's nothing like what I thought. I actually appreciated you expanding the topic by mentioning the complex vastness of the Daoist Canon.  I did have reservations about its relevance for newcomers though.

[Taoway]

I thought that there are only 3 main texts Lao tzu Tao te ching. Book of Chuang tzus

And leih tzus book.

 

I read that these are the first know texts of taoism but there's gotta be more

[Marblehead]

There are oh!, so many.  But a lot depends on your interests.

 

For me it is only Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu.