|
Popular Misconception
|
Informed View
|
|
Dao (Tao)
is a trans-religious and universal name for the sacred, and there are
“Dao-ists” (“Tao-ists”) who transcend the limitations of the Daoist religious
tradition.
|
道,
romanized as dao or tao, is a Chinese character utilized
by Daoists to identify that which they believe is sacred. There are specific,
foundational Daoist views concerning the Dao, which originate in the earliest
Daoist communities of the Warring States period (480–222 bce).
|
|
Daoism
consists of two forms, “philosophical Daoism” and “religious
Daoism.”[1]
|
The
distinction between so-called
“philosophical
Daoism” and so-called “religious Daoism” is a modern Western fiction, which
reflects colonialist and missionary agendas and sensibilities. The use of
such categories, even in scare quotation marks, should be taken, ipso facto, as indicative of ignorance concerning Daoism. From its
beginnings in the Warring States period (480–222 bce),
“Daoism” consisted of religious practitioners and communities. Considered as
a whole, Daoism is a complex and diverse religious tradition. It consists of
various adherents, communities, and movements, which cannot be reduced to a
simplistic bifurcation. Its complexity may be mapped in terms of historical
periodization as well as models of practice and attainment.
|
|
“Philosophical
Daoism” is the original form of Daoism and is best understood as “philosophy”
(disembodied thinking/ way of thought).
|
Outside of
the modern world, there is no form of Daoism that is not “religious.”
Although there are aspects of Daoism that are “philosophical,” the category
“philosophical Daoism” fails to consider the centrality of embodied practice
(way of being), community, and place in
Daoism,
especially in “classical Daoism.” It is based on a systematic
mischaracterization of the inner cultivation lineages of Warring States
Daoism and a misreading of the earliest Daoist texts, namely, the Laozi (Lao-tzu; a.k.a. Daode jing) and
Zhuangzi (Chuang-tzu), among others.
|
|
Daojia 道家
and daojiao 道教
correspond to the Western categories of “philosophical Daoism” and “religious
Daoism,” respectively.
|
Daojia 道家,
literally “Family of the Dao,” and daojiao
道教, literally “Teachings of the
Dao,” are indigenous Chinese categories with no correspondence to the Western
constructs of so-called “philosophical Daoism” and so-called “religious
Daoism”. Each term has a complex history, with its meaning changing in
different contexts. For example, in the fifth century, daojia referred to the Daoist religious community in general and
the Daoist priesthood in particular.
|
|
Laozi 老子(Lao-tzu;
Master Lao/Old
Master/Old
Child) is the founder of Daoism.
|
Laozi,
a.k.a. Lao Dan 老聃 and Li Er 李耳,
is a pseudo-historical figure. His received “biography,” as contained in Sima
Tan’s 司馬談 (ca. 165–110 bce) and
Sima Qian’s 司馬遷 (ca. 145–86 bce) Shiji 史記
(Records of the Historian), combines information about a variety of people
from various sources. If Laozi existed, we do not know anything about him.
There is, in turn, no “founder” of Daoism; “Laozi,” translatable as
“venerable masters,” is best understood as a place-holder for the early inner
cultivation lineages. Daoism, in turn, has multiple source-points. A variety
of figures, both human and divine, are identified as important with respect
to the formation of the Daoist tradition.
|
|
Laozi
wrote the Daode jing 道德經
(Tao-te ching; Scripture on the Dao and Inner Power).
|
The
Daode jing, a.k.a. Laozi 老子
(Book of Venerable Masters), is a composite text. It is a multi-vocal
anthology that contains material from different early Daoist lineages and
historical periods. Some of these historical and textual layers may have come
from the oral teachings of the shadowy figure Lao Dan (see Zhuangzi, Chapters 3, 5, 7, 11, 12,
13, 14, 21, 23, 25, 27, 33).
|
|
The
Daode jing and Zhuangzi are the only Daoist texts that matter because they are
the “essence” and “original teachings” of Daoism.
|
There is
no principal Daoist scripture. Although the Daode jing is probably the most central and influential scripture
in Daoist history, different Daoist adherents, communities and movements
revere different scriptures. The primary textual collection in the Daoist
tradition is called the Daozang 道藏
(Daoist Canon). It is an open textual collection, with new additions having
been made throughout Daoist history. The first version was compiled in the
fifth century ce. The received version was
compiled in the fifteenth century, with a seventeenth century supplement. It
consists of roughly 1,400 texts, texts that come from every major period and
movement of Daoist history.
|
|
Daoism
began with a revelation from
Laojun 老君
(Lord Lao) to Zhang Daoling 張道陵 in 142
CE. This was the beginning of the Tianshi 天師
(Celestial Masters) movement.
|
While the
Tianshi movement was formative in the establishment of Daoism as an organized
religious tradition and represents one of the most important movements in
Daoist history, there were Daoist adherents and communities before the
Celestial Masters. Moreover, not every subsequent Daoist movement recognized
Zhang Daoling and the Celestial Masters as the source of their tradition.
|
|
Daoists,
or Dao-ists, are those who love the Dao and go with the flow.
|
From a
Daoist perspective, there are various types of religious adherence and
affiliation. These involve different degrees of commitment and responsi-
bility.
The Daoist tradition consists, first and foremost, of ordained priests and
monastics and lay supporters. Lineage and ordination are primary dimensions
of Daoist identity and religious affiliation. This requires training under
Daoist teachers and community elders with formal affiliation with the Daoist
religious community and tradition. A distinction may in turn be may between
Daoist adherents and Daoist sympathizers. In the case of Daoism in the West,
one also finds various forms of spiritual appropriation and spiritual
capitalism.
|
|
Correlative
cosmology, based on yin 陰-yang 陽,
the Five Elements (wuxing 五行),
and qi 氣 (ch’i), is Daoist.
|
These
concepts are not Daoist. They are part of what is best understood as
“traditional Chinese cosmology” and a “traditional Chinese worldview.” In
pre-modern China, these concepts formed the foundation of a pan- Chinese
worldview. Like other aspects of
Chinese
culture, they formed part of the foundational Daoist worldview. Thus,
correlative cosmology is not Daoist in origin or in essence.
|
|
Chinese
medicine is Daoist and/or there is some form of Chinese medicine called
“Daoist Medicine.”
|
Chinese
medicine is not Daoist. This misidentification, and the construct of “Daoist
medicine,” most often comes from a conflation of correlative cosmology (see
above) with Daoism. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is, in fact, a modern
form of Chinese medicine created by the Chinese communist government and
influenced by Western biomedicine and a scientific paradigm. In terms of
classical Chinese medicine, there is some overlap between the two traditions,
but little research has been done on this topic. We do know, however, that
Daoists such as Ge Hong, Sun Simiao, and Tao Hongjing made major
contributions to Chinese medicine. They were Daoists and, in the case of Sun
and Tao, Chinese medical practitioners.
|
|
Fengshui
風水(lit., “Wind and Water”), or
Chinese geomancy, is Daoist.
|
Fengshui
is not Daoist. Like correlative cosmology, it is part of what is best
understood as “traditional Chinese culture.” While some Daoists have utilized
Fengshui throughout Chinese history, it is not Daoist in origin or essence.
Using Fengshui thus does not indicate Daoist religious affiliation or
identity.
|
|
Qigong
氣功 (Ch’i-kung; Qi Exercises) is
Daoist.
|
Qigong is
not Daoist. Qigong refers to a modern Chinese health and longevity movement
aimed at national upbuilding. It combines traditional Chinese health and
longevity practices with modern Chinese concerns and a Western scientific
paradigm. Some of these derive from earlier Daoist Yangsheng 養生
(Nourishing Life) practices. There are also many different types of Qigong,
including Buddhist, Daoist, medical, and martial. Most Daoist Qigong
incorporates internal alchemy (neidan 内丹)
methods.
|
|
Sexual
yoga, including the search for multiple orgasms and the practice of sexual
vampirism, is Daoist.
|
The place
of sexuality in Daoism is complex. Most of the practices identified as
“Daoist sexual practices” originated in non-Daoist contexts, in imperial
court circles in particular. While some Daoists have practiced “paired” or
“partnered practice,” often referred to as “dual cultivation,” a different
conception of sexual intercourse was involved. Moreover, such practices
almost always occurred within a larger system of alchemical transformation in
which the sublimation of sexual energy was a preliminary and foundational
step.
|
|
Taiji
quan 太極拳 (Tai-chi ch’uan; Yin-yang
Boxing) is Daoist.
|
Taiji quan
is not Daoist. It is a Chinese martial art. Like Bagua zhang 八卦掌
(Eight Trigram Palm) and Xingyi quan 形意拳
(Form-Intent Boxing), it originated in non-Daoist circles. It was a nativist
response aimed at national upbuilding. While some Daoists practice Taiji
quan, practicing Taiji quan does not make one a Daoist. It is, first and
foremost, a martial art that is not Daoist in origin or essence.
|
|
Taoist Yoga, aka Flow Yoga or Yin
Yoga, is Daoist.
|
“Taoist
Yoga” is a misnomer, a mistaken category with no correlation to indigenous
Chinese categories. Yoga is a Sanskrit technical term related to indigenous
Indian practices aimed at union (yuj)
with the divine. Most so-called “Taoist Yoga” is either modified Hatha Yoga
or derives from Chinese Wushu 武術 (martial
arts) practices. Current research suggests that little if any so-called
“Taoist Yoga” derives from Daoist Daoyin 導 引(lit.,
“guided stretching”) or internal alchemy (neidan
内丹) practices, which are the
indigenous Daoist categories.
|
|
Mount
Wudang 武當 is the birthplace of the soft or
internal martial arts, such as Taiji quan. Zhang Sanfeng, the patron saint of
Mount Wudang, is the creator of Taiji quan.
|
Chinese
“internal style” (neijia 内家)
martial arts are not Daoist and do not originate in a Daoist context. Current
research indicates that Wudangstyle martial arts represent a modern synthesis
of Bagua zhang, Taiji quan, and Xingyi quan. Zhang Sanfeng is
pseudo-historical.
|
|
The Yiing 易經
(I-ching; Book of Changes) is a Daoist text. As the trigrams and hexagrams
derive from it, they also are Daoist symbols.
|
The Yiing 易經
(Book of Changes) is not a Daoist text. It predates distinct, indigenous
cultural traditions like Rujia (“Confucianism”) and Daojia (“Daoism”). From a
traditional Chinese perspective, it is one of the so-called “Five Classics”
of classical Confucianism. Throughout Chinese history, some Daoists have
studied the cosmology of the Yiing and
utilized the trigrams and hexagrams as a symbol system, especially for
external and internal alchemy. However, interest in the Yijing and hexagrams/trigrams does not make one a Daoist.
|
|
Translations
of the Tao-te-ching by Stephen
Mitchell, Ursula LeGuin, and other popularizers are accurate and provide
direct access to the original teachings of Daoism
|
Such
“translations” are not, in fact, translations. For example, Mitchell and
LeGuin do not know classical Chinese. Moreover, such popular Western cultural
productions are popular exactly because
they
expunge all of the culturally specific and religious dimensions of the text.
Daoist scriptures (jing 經)
are sacred texts written in classical Chinese. Moreover, there are various
Daoist views about the origin, nature and meaning of such texts. Many jing are considered to be revealed or
inspired.
|
|
Popular
publications like The Tao of Pooh (Benjamin
Hoff) as well as Change Your Thoughts and
Living the Wisdom of the Tao (Wayne
Dyer) provide accurate glimpses into Daoist
beliefs and concerns.
|
Such works have no place in a
serious inquiry into and an accurate understanding of the Daoism. They are
part of popular Western culture, New Age spirituality, as well as self-help
and pop psychology. They are part of “spiritual capitalism” and a new form of
alternative spirituality best understood as “Popular Western Taoism” (PWT),
with “Taoism” pronounced with a “t” sound. That movement has little to no connection
with the religious tradition which is
Daoism.
|
|
|
|
|
Further reading
Belamide,
Paulino. 2000. “Taoism and Healing in North America: The Healing Tao of Mantak
Chia.” International Review of Chinese
Religion and Philosophy 5: 245–89.
Bokenkamp,
Stephen R. 2005. “Daoism: An Overview.” In Encyclopedia
of Religion, edited by Lindsay Jones, volume 14, 2176–92. New York and
London: MacMillan.
Bradbury, Steve.
1992. “The American Conquest of Philosophical Taoism.” In Cornelia Moore and
Lucy Lower (eds), Translation East and
West: A Cross-cultural Approach, 29–41. Honolulu: East-West Center.
Carrette, J.,
and Richard King. 2004. Selling
Spirituality: The Silent Takeover of Religion. London and New York:
Routledge.
Clarke, J. J. 2000. The Tao of the West: Western Transformations
of Taoist Thought. London and New York: Routledge.
Girardot, Norman. 2002. The Victorian Translation of China: James
Legge’s Oriental Pilgrimage. Berkeley: University of California Press.
—2008. “My Way:
Teaching the Daode jing at the
Beginning of a New Millennium.” In Gary DeAngelis and Warren Frisina (eds), Teaching the Daode jing, 105–30.Oxford
and New York: Oxford University Press.
Graham, A. C.
1998 (1986). “The Origins of the Legend of Lao Tan.” In Livia Kohn and Michael
LaFargue (eds), Lao-tzu and the
Tao-te-ching, 23–40. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hardy, Julia.
1998. “Influential Western Interpretations of the Tao-te-ching.” In Livia Kohn and Michael LaFargue (eds), Lao-tzu and the Tao-te-ching, 165–88.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Irwin, Lee.
2001. “Western Esotericism, Eastern Spirituality, and the Global Future.” Esoterica III: 1–47.
http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeIII/Dao.htm [Accessed January 15, 2010].
—2004.
“Daoist Alchemy in the West: The Esoteric Paradigms.” Esoterica VI: 31–51.
http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeVI/Dao.htm [Accessed January 15,
2010].
Iwamura, Jane.
2005. “The Oriental Monk in American Popular Culture.” In Bruce Forbes and
Jeffrey Mahan (eds), Religion and Popular
Culture in America, 25–43. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kirkland,
Russell. 1997a. “The Historical Contours of Taoism in China: Thoughts on Issues
of Classification and Terminology.” Journal
of Chinese Religions 25: 57–82.
—1997b. “The
Taoism of the Western Imagination and the Taoism of China: De-colonizing the
Exotic Teachings of the East.” http://kirkland.myweb.uga.edu/rk/pdf/pubs/pres/
TENN97.pdf [Accessed July 1, 2007].
—1998.
“Teaching Taoism in the 1990s.” Teaching
Theology and Religion 1.2: 121–29.
—2000.
“Explaining Daoism: Realities, Cultural Constructs, and Emerging Perspectives.”
In Daoism Handbook, edited by Livia
Kohn, xi-xviii. Leiden: Brill.
—2002.
“The History of Taoism: A New Outline.” Journal
of Chinese Religions 30: 177–93. —2004. Taoism:
The Enduring Tradition. London and New York: Routledge.
Kobayashi
Masayoshi. 1995. “The Establishment of the Taoist Religion (Tao-chiao) and Its Structure.” Acta Asiatica: Bulletin of the Institute of
Eastern Culture 68: 19–36.
Kohn,
Livia, (ed.) 2000a. Daoism Handbook.
Leiden: Brill.
—2004.
Daoism and Chinese Culture. Rev edn.
Cambridge, MA: Three Pines Press.
Kohn, Livia, and
Michael LaFargue (eds). 1998. Lao-tzu and
the Tao-te-ching. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Kohn, Livia, and Harold Roth (eds). 2002. Daoist Identity: History, Lineage, and
Ritual. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Komjathy, Louis 康思奇. 2002. “Changing Perspectives on
the Daoist Tradition.” Religious Studies
Review 28.4: 327–34.
—2003a. “Daoist
Texts in Translation.” http://www.daoistcenter.org/advanced.html Posted on
September 15, 2003. [Accessed January 15, 2010].
—2003b. “Daoist
Teachers in North America.” http://www.daoistcenter.org/advanced.html Posted on
September 15, 2003. [Accessed January 15, 2010].
—2003c. “Daoist
Organizations in North America.” <http://www.daoistcenter.org/
advanced.html>. Posted on September 15, 2003. Accessed January 15, 2010.
—2004. “Tracing
the Contours of Daoism in North America.” Nova
Religio 8.2 (November 2004): 5–27.
—2006. “Qigong
in America.” In Daoist Body Cultivation,
edited by Livia Kohn, 203–35. Cambridge, Mass.: Three Pines Press.
—2008
(2003). Handbooks for Daoist Practice.
10 vols. Hong Kong: Yuen Yuen Institute.
—2012a.
“Daoism.” In Encyclopedia of Global
Religion, edited by Mark Juergensmeyer and Wade Clark Roof, 281–6. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
—2012b. “The Daoist
Tradition in China.” In The
Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Chinese Religions, edited by Randall Nadeau,
171–96. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
—2013. The Daoist Tradition: An Introduction.
London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Lau, Kimberly.
2000. New Age Capitalism: Making Money
East of Eden. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Miller,
James. 2003. Daoism: A Short Introduction.
Oxford: Oneworld.
Miller, James,
and Elijah Siegler. 2007. “Of Alchemy and Authenticity: Teaching about Daoism
Today.” Teaching Theology and Religion 10.2:
101–8.
Said,
Edward W. 1979. Orientalism. New
York: Vintage Books.
Schipper,
Kristofer. 2000. “Taoism: The Story of the Way.” In Taoism and the Arts of China, edited by Stephen Little, 33–55.
Berkeley: Art Institute of Chicago/University of California Press.
Seager,
Richard. 1999. Buddhism in America.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Siegler, Elijah.
2003. “The Dao of America: The History and Practice of American Daoism.” Ph.D.
diss., University of California, Santa Barbara, 2003.
Sivin, Nathan.
1978. “On the Word ‘Taoist’ as a Source of Perplexity (With Special Reference
to the Relation of Science and Religion in Traditional China).” History of Religions 17: 303–30.
Strickmann,
Michel. 2002 (posthumous). Chinese
Magical Medicine. Edited by Bernard Faure. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Unschuld, Paul.
1985. Medicine in China: A History of
Ideas. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Wile, Douglas. 1999. T’ai Chi’s Ancestors: The Making of an
Internal Martial Art. New City, NY: Sweet Ch’i Press.
—2007.
“Taijiquan and Daoism: From Religion to Martial Art and Martial Art to
Religion.” Journal of Asian Martial Arts 16.4:
8–45.
다른 뜻에 대해서는 도인 (동음이의) 문서를 참고하십시오.
이 문서에는 다음커뮤니케이션(현 카카오)에서 GFDL 또는 CC-SA 라이선스로 배포한 글로벌 세계대백과사전의 "종교·철학 > 한국의 종교 > 한국의 도교 > 한국도교의 의식·수행 > 도인" 항목을 기초로 작성된 글이 포함되어 있습니다.
