Komjathy, Daoist Tradition:
An Introduction 2013
by Louis Komjathy
by Louis Komjathy
Table of Contents
Part 1: Historical Overview
1. Approaching Daoism
2. The Daoist Tradition
Part 2: The Daoist Worldview
3. Ways to Affiliation
4. Community and Social Organization
5. Informing Views and Foundational Concerns
6. Cosmogony, Cosmology, and Theology
7. Virtue, Ethics and Conduct Guidelines
Part 3: Daoist Practice
8. Dietetics
9. Health and Longevity Practice
10. Meditation
11. Scriptures and Scripture Study
12. Ritual
Part 4: Place, Sacred Space and Material Culture
13. Temples and Sacred Sites
14. Material Culture
Part 5: Daoism in the Modern World
15. Daoism in the Modern World
===
2 The Daoist tradition
- Classical Daoism
- e Early organized Daoism
- e Later organized Daoism
- e Modern Daoism
The Chinese term for tradition is chuantong, which literally means “to transmit and gather together”. The character chuan \'7b& consists of the ren A (“person”) radical and the phonetic zhuan 21 (“special”).
Tradition is a transmission, something that passes between human beings. It is what is preserved and handed down over time. The character tong # consists of the mi # (“silk”) radical and the phonetic chong Æ (“to fill”). Like the character for scripture (see Chapter 12), tong suggests strands and threads of connection. By extension, the Daoist tradition is a community of practitioners connected to each other as a historical and energetic continuum. As mentioned in Chapter 1, Chinese Daoists have tended to speak of their tradition in terms of a “family” (jia) and “teachings” (jiao), with the assumption of teachers and scriptures as major sources of those teachings. The traditions of the Dao, the specific communities, movements, and lineages that comprise Daoism, also receive other designations. “Movements” tend to be referred to as dao (“ways”) or as liu (“streams”). “Lineages,” usually sub-divisions of larger movements, tend to be referred to as pai (“tributaries”). That is, movements are paths or ways to the Dao, to the Way. These are the major expressions of the Daoist tradition; some important movements include Tianshi dao (Way of the Celestial Masters), Shangqing dao (Way of Highest Clarity), Quanzhen dao (Way of Complete Perfection), and so forth. These are usually associated with particular “founders,” revelations, scriptures, and often places. Such movements are streams flowing into and out of the larger tradition, with the latter comparable to a river flowing towards the ocean of the Dao. Lineages are the tributaries that flow into and out of the streams of the Daoist movements. These are usually associated with major teachers or systems of practice.
As Daoism 1s a religious tradition with about 2,400 years of history, its substance and parameters have obviously varied. For members of the inner cultivation lineages of the Warring States period and Early Han, the Daoist tradition consisted of their own master-disciple communities, often in contrast to other religio-cultural and intellectual tendencies (“schools”) at the time (e.g. Confucianism, Legalism, etc.). For the Tianshi (Celestial Masters) of the Early Han dynasty, the Daoist tradition primarily designated Laozi and the Daode jing as well as their regional movement. Influential medieval Daoists like Ge Hong and Lu Xiujing viewed the Daoist tradition differently. Ge Hong saw it as a tradition of immortality with roots in the Warring States period and earlier, including major figures from the Zhuangzi. Lu Xiujing, one of the principal architects of Daoism as such, included most of the major Daoist movements of his time, namely, Tianshi, Sanhuang (Three Sovereigns), Shangqing (Highest Clarity), and Lingbao (Numinous Treasure). In the process, he distinguished Daoism from Buddhism. These details reveal the degree to which the Daoist tradition was an ever-changing and relatively inclusive tradition. With each subsequent historical period, new movements, revelations, and scriptures were included. This is especially apparent when one studies the history of Daoist textual collections (see Chapter 12). One connective strand among Daoists and throughout the diverse Daoist movements is an orientation towards the Dao (see Chapter 6). This includes communities and systems of practice with recognizable qualities and discernable results, manifesting in numinous presence and attunement with the Dao. It includes reverence for the external Three Treasures (wai sanbao) of the Dao, the scriptures, and the teachers, as well as for the Daoist tradition as such.
This chapter attempts to provide some initial orientation points to the religious tradition which is Daoism. Utilizing the two primary interpretive frameworks advocated in the previous chapter, namely, historical periodization and models of Daoist practice and attainment, the chapter provides an overview of Daoist history. Emphasizing key movements, figures, events, and scriptures, it covers classical Daoism, early organized Daoism, later organized Daoism, and modern Daoism. This chapter thus
provides the necessary historical foundation for the subsequent thematic chapters that will deepen our understanding of Daoist movements.
Classical Daoism
“Classical Daoism” refers to Daoism during the classical period, specifically during the Warring States (480—222 BCE), Qin (221—206 BCE), and Early Han (202 BcE-9 cE) dynasty. Following Harold Roth (e.g. 1996, 1999a), I will refer to the earliest Daoist religious community as the “inner cultivation lineages.” “Classical Daoism” thus replaces or should replace the outdated and inaccurate category of so-called “philosophical Daoism” and daojia, although the latter may be helpful as a designation for the entire Daoist tradition as the “Family of the Dao” (see Chapter 1). Classical Daoism is distinguished by loosely related master-disciple communities and the composition, compilation, and transmission of some of the most important Daoist texts. It is the beginning of the Daoist tradition and one of the primary source-points for the later movements of organized Daoism. The most commonly discussed (and translated) texts associated with classical Daoism are the Laozi (Lao-tzu; Book of Venerable Masters; abbr. LZ), more commonly known as the Daode jing (Tao-te ching; Scripture on the Dao and Inner Power; abbr. DDJ), and Zhuangzi (Chuang-tzu; Book of Master Zhuang; abbr. ZZ). The former is associated with the pseudohistorical Laozi (Lao-tzu; Master Lao), whose name may be understood as the “old master” or “old child.” The latter text is attributed to Zhuang Zhou (Chuang Chou).' In terms of traditional attribution and biographical material, the standard source is Chapter 63 of the Shiji (Records of the Historian), which was at least partially compiled by Sima Tan (ca. 165—110 BCE), Grand Astrologer of the Han court during the early years of Emperor Wu’s reign (r. 141-87 BCE), and completed by his son Sima Qian (ca. 145- 86 BCE).
Laozi was a person of Quren village in the Lai district of Hu province in Chu. His surname was Li. He had the given name Er, personal name Boyang, and posthumous name Dan. He was a historiographer in charge of the archives of Zhou.
Kongzi [Confucius] once traveled to Zhou because he desired to ask Laozi about ritual (/i ). Laozi said, “The sages you speak about have long withered along with their bones. Moreover, when a superior person is in accord with the times, he rides in a carriage; when his time has not yet arrived, he wanders with the wind. I have heard that a good merchant fills his storehouses but appears to have nothing; an authentic superior person is overflowing with inner power (de) but looks like a fool. Abandon your prideful airs and various desires; get rid of your rigid posturing and lascivious thoughts. Each of these contains no benefit. I have nothing more to say.”
Kongzi left and later addressed his disciples, “Birds, I know, can fly; fish, I know, can swim; animals, I know, can run. For the running, one can make a net; for the swimming, one can make a line; for the flying, one can make an arrow. But when it comes to a dragon, I have no way of knowing how it rides the wind and clouds and ascends into the heavens. Today I have met Laozi who is really like a dragon.”
Laozi cultivated the Dao (xiudao) and inner power. He taught that one should efface oneself and be without fame in the world. After he had lived in Zhou for a long time, he saw that the Zhou was in decline. Then he departed. When he reached the pass [Hangu Pass; near Lingbao, Henan], the keeper of the pass, Yin Xj, said, “We will see no more of you. I request that you write a book for us.” Laozi then wrote a book in two parts, discussing the Dao and inner power in 5,000
words. Thereupon, he departed. No one knows where he ended his life. (Shiji, Chapter 63)
The Shiji tells us that Laozi was a person of Chu (southeast China) with the surname Li, given name Er, personal name Boyang, and posthumous name Dan. Thus, Laozi is sometimes known as Li Er, Li Boyang, or Lao Dan. In this account, Laozi is said to have been an archivist of the Eastern Zhou dynasty (770-256 BCE) and a senior contemporary and teacher of Kongzi (“Confucius”; ca. 551-479 BcE). The same chapter of the Shiji explains that Zhuangzi (Master Zhuang; ca. 370-290 BCE) was a person from Meng with the family name Zhuang and given name Zhou. Concerning these personages, there is general agreement in modern scholarship: Laozi was a composite figure, and is thus pseudo-historical (Lau 1963; Graham 1998), while Zhuang Zhou was probably an actual historical figure (cf. Kirkland 2004: 33-9). Relating these personages to their related texts, modern scholarship divides the received version of the Zhuangzi into a number of distinct historical and textual layers (see Chapter 3); for our purposes, we may note that the so-called “inner chapters” (1—7) are associated with Zhuang Zhou. The Laozi or Daode jing is seen as an “anthology,” with no identifiable author and containing a wide variety of textual layers. This is partially a result of its varied content and partially a result of recent archaeological finds. Considered as a whole, both texts are anonymous multi-vocal anthologies with various textual and historical layers (see Chapters 3 and 12). While the Daode jing and Zhuangzi are frequently elevated as the most representative texts of “classical Daoism,” recent revisionist scholarship by Harold Roth of Brown University and others would include parts of other important texts as well, including the Guanzi (Book of Master Guan), Huainanzi (Book of the Huainan Masters), and Lushi chungiu (Spring and Autumn Annals of Mister Lü) (see, e.g. Roth 1996, 1999a). Firstly, these texts document specific Daoist views and practices. Moreover, as discussed in Chapter 3, evidence of the classical inner cultivation lineages is found in
the history of the texts themselves. Here we must recognize that much of the primary layers was based on oral teachings and transmissions. At that time, “texts” were primarily hand-written manuscripts on bamboo and silk. They were not widely disseminated through mass reproduction, such as wood-block printing. There was no equivalent to modern mechanical reproductions or electronic editions. Rather, teachings and compilations of teachings (manuscripts) had to be consciously preserved and transmitted. Here one might see the beginning of Daoist traditions related to texts, including access to teachers, requirements for transmission, and processes of dissemination. While familiarity with these various texts is important for gaining a fuller appreciation of classical Daoism, it should also be pointed out that in the later Daoist tradition the Daode jing occupied a central position (see Chapter 12). Over one hundred extant commentaries are housed in the Ming-dynasty Daoist Canon alone (see Robinet 1977, 1998, 1999). Of these, the commentaries of Heshang gong (2nd c. CE?) and Wang Bi (22649) have been most influential (see Chan 1991a). In addition, there is the Dunhuang manuscript of the Laozi xiang’er zhu (Commentary Thinking Through the Laozi; DH 56; S. 6825), which is an early Tianshi (Celestial Masters) commentary (see below; also Chapters 5, 8, and 12). Within the classical period, we may identify a variety of Daoist models of practice and attainment (see Chapter 1), including cosmological, meditative, and quietistic approaches. While it appears that there were various master-disciple communities, the primary approach was solitary self-cultivation. We might thus describe certain strains of classical Daoism as quasi-ascetic or eremitic (see Chapter 4). Within this context, the cosmological model involved aligning oneself with the Dao as cosmological process. The texts of classical Daoism place a strong emphasis on following the seasons, observing natural cycles, and being attentive to cosmological influences, especially as manifesting through place and self (see also Chapters 6 and 7). The meditative model of classical Daoism was apophatic. This form of Daoist meditation is contentless, non-conceptual, and non-dualistic. It emphasizes stilling and emptying the heart-mind until one enters a state of stillness and emptiness. This is one’s innate nature and original connection to the Dao (see Chapter 11). Finally, the quietistic model involves minimal activity and involvement. It is most often associated with “non-action” (wuwei ), which is frequently misunderstood as “doing nothing” or following one’s own habituated desires. In the case of the quietistic model, one observes noninterference and non-intervention. One remains committed to effortless activity. The texts use the corresponding language of “decreasing,” “diminishing,” “releasing,” and so forth. It is about conservation, simplicity, and minimalism (see Chapter 5). During the classical period a number of religious movements emerged that would influence the first organized Daoist movements (see Harper 1998; Csikszentmihalyi 2000, 2002; Puett 2002). Such historical precedents included a variety of models: therapeutic or medical, magico-religious, and self-divinization. Perhaps most importantly for the emergence of organized Daoism, the Early Han witnessed an increase in the authority of longevity practitioners, Fangshi (“formula masters”), and immortality seekers. The search for “immortality” or “transcendence” centered on two paradisiacal, terrestrial realms called Penglai Island (in the east) and Mount Kunlun (in the west). The latter was overseen by Xiwangmu (Queen Mother of the West), who occupies a central place in the larger Daoist tradition as well (see Chapter 6). Mythically speaking, the Queen Mother of the West was believed to oversee a celestial park, which contained the famed Turquoise Pond (yvaochi ) and orchard where the “peaches of immortality” (xiantao) were grown. These peaches came to fruition every thousand years or so, during which time a huge feast would be held and anyone who acquired one of the blessed fruit instantly became an immortal. In some sense, in the Early Han we see the major patterns of religious activity that would come to dominate the organized Daoist tradition more generally: personal health and healing, magical control of the cosmos, and the search for self-divinization. Revisionist scholarship on the Zhuangzi suggests that there are various lineages or “schools” documented in the text. Here a “school” refers to particular teachers and their disciples, specifically as a community of religious practice (see Roth 1999a: 173-203). These include the Primitivists, | Individualists § (“Hedonists’/“Yangists’’), Syncretists, Zhuangists, and Anthologists (see Chapter 3). In the Early Han, the Syncretist tendency, specifically in the form of Huang-Lao dao (Way of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi), became especially prominent and politically influential. This was so much the case that the Huang-Lao approach to
governing was adopted by ruling elite of the Early Han, although it was eventually replaced by Confucianism as state orthodoxy. Huang-Lao draws its name from Huangdi (Yellow Emperor), who here represents the ideal political leader and good governance, and Laozi, the attributed author of the Daode jing and important elder of classical Daoism who apparently emphasized self-cultivation and a society ruled by a sage-king. Huang-Lao was a syncretic political movement, which sought a well-ordered and harmonious society based on classical Daoist principles (see Chapter 5) and Legalist governmental structures and political organization. For present purposes, a number of points stand out. First, it appears that Sima Tan (ca. 165-110 BcE), the earliest Chinese historiographer to use the phrase daojia (Family of the Dao) to designate classical Daoism, may have been a HuangLao adherent. According to Harold Roth, Huang-Lao was a form of Syncretic Daoism (see Chapter 3), and Chapters 63 and 74 of the Shiji identify members of the Jixia Academy and elsewhere as Huang-Lao adherents. It also appears that members of the classical Daoist inner cultivation lineages actually participated in the intellectual debates and quasi-salon of the Jixia Academy (Roth 1999a: 21—5; Kirkland 2004: 52— 67).
Early organized Daoism
Early organized Daoism refers to the time when Daoism emerged as an organized religious movement, or series of movements during the Later Han (25-220 ce), Period of Disunion (220-581), and Sui (581—618). It is distinguished by the emergence of an organized community and new models for Daoist practice and attainment.” During the Later Han, numerous communal and populace-supported forms of religious activity began to become more viable and widespread. It was also during this time that Laozi became imperially recognized as the deity Laojun (Lao-chün; Lord Lao) (see Chapter 6), and that the Laozi, conventionally rendered as Book of Master Lao but more accurately translated as Book of Venerable Masters, received the honorific title of the Daode jing (Scripture on the Dao and Inner Power) (see Chapter 12). Thus, there is the Laozi ming (Inscription for Laozi), which dates from 165 CE and is the earliest extant textual evidence about the official cult of a deified Laozi. The Later Han period can be characterized as one of popular religiosity and millennial expectations. During this period two Daoist movements were established that proved seminal for a more fully organized and coherent tradition. The first was called Taiping dao (Way of Great Peace), also known as the “Yellow Turbans” in Western literature (see Hendrischke 2000, 2007). Members of the Way of Great Peace wore yellow kerchiefs (huangjin) on their heads as a sign that the “azure” (ging), the color of the Wood phase, of the Han imperial house was becoming overtaken by the “yellow” (huang), the color of the Earth phase, of the Way of Great Peace. Based in northeast China, the Way of Great Peace was led by Zhang Jue (Chang Chiieh; fl. 164-84 cE) and centered on a millenarian conception of the world as found in the Taiping jing (Scripture of Great Peace; partially lost; DZ 1101). It was imagined and taught that the world would be transformed, through violent revolution, into an era of “Great Peace.” The rebellion was planned to commence in 184 ce, the jiazi or first year of the 60-year Chinese calendar, though it actually began slightly earlier due to military exigency. Although this rebellion was defeated in the late second century, it established a model of prophetic world-leaders, cosmological rebellion, and utopian vision. It also contributed to the severe weakening of the power of the Han imperial house to the point that it was eventually overthrown. The Han’s concern for this rebellion impeded its ability to address additional developments in the southwest. Around the same time when the Taiping movement was attempting to gain control, a new movement became organized in Shu (present-day Sichuan). This was Tianshi dao (Way of the Celestial Masters) (see Bokenkamp 1997; Kleeman 1998; Hendrischke 2000), which is frequently elevated to the position of the “first organized Daoist movement.” The name Tianshi (T’ien-shih) refers to the highest leadership position in the movement. According to traditional accounts, in 142 cE Zhang Daoling (Chang Tao-ling; fl. 140s CE) received a revelation from Laojun (Lord Lao), the “deified” form of Laozi and personification of the Dao, on Mount Heming (Crane Cry) (see Chapters 3 and 14). The Tianshi movement is sometimes referred to as Zhengyi (Cheng-1; Orthodox Unity), because of a description of its founding revelation as the “covenant of orthodox unity” (zhengyi mengwei ), or as Wudoumi dao (Way of Five Pecks of Rice), because of its supposed requirement of an annual donation of “five pecks of rice” for religious membership. The latter practice was more likely a food distribution network. A more esoteric reading suggests that these five handfuls of rice were used to demarcate ritual space, specifically the five cardinal directions (see Chapters 6 and 13). During Lord Lao’s revelation, Zhang was appointed as terrestrial representative, the “Celestial Master,’ and given healing powers as a sign of his empowerment. The movement in turn became patrilineal, passing from Zhang Daoling to his son Zhang Heng (d. 179) and then to the latter’s son Zhang Lu (d. 215). The Celestial Masters established “parishes” (zhi ) with hierarchically ranked followers, wherein the so-called libationers (jijiu) were highest (see Chapter 4). The intent was to establish “seed people” (zhongmin) who would populate an earth made ritually and morally pure. If a moral transgression occurred, a purification rite was performed (see Chapter 13). This consisted of an officiating priest utilizing his “registers” (du), which gave him or her power over specific spirits, and submitting “petitions” (biao; zhang) to the so-called Three Bureaus (sanguan) of heaven, earth, and water. This was done through burning, burial, and submersion. In addition, individuals were secluded in “pure rooms” or “chambers of quiescence” (jingshe; jingshi; or gingshi ), where they were supposed to reflect upon their actions and repent. Little original source material survives from this formative phase of the Tianshi movement. We do have the Laozi xiang’er zhu (Commentary Thinking Through the Laozi; DH 56; S. 6825), perhaps composed by Zhang Lu, and its related precepts (jie) as found, for instance, in the first section of the Taishang laojun jinglu (Scriptural Statutes of the Great High Lord Lao; DZ 786) (see Chapters 8 and 12). However, as there is some doubt concerning the date of the Xiang’er commentary and as so little early Tianshi material survives, discussions of this tradition must remain tentative. Within the early period of Daoist history, we may identify a variety of Daoist models of practice and attainment, including cosmological, ethical, and ritualistic approaches (see Chapter 1). These were followed within a larger communal context (see Chapter 4). While the cosmology paralleled that of classical Daoism on some level, the Tianshi cosmology particularly emphasized the Three Powers (sancai ) of heaven, earth, and water, with water later changed to humanity in certain contexts. Similarly, both movements emphasized correlative cosmology (see Chapter 6). One had to maintain harmonious relationships with the larger cosmos, including place (see Chapter 14). Moreover, one’s own morality was centrally important. The Tianshi movement emphasized the connection between morality and health as well as the importance of morality for communal wellbeing. This ethical model centered on precept study and application, on virtuous conduct (see Chapter 8). Both movements also envisioned a morally pure utopia, a Daoist theocracy. Finally, as mentioned above, early Tianshi Daoism in particular practiced ritual (see Chapter 13). The religious program of the early Tianshi movement proved convincing and viable. After the armies of Zhang Lu were defeated by those of the famous general Cao Cao (155-220), the eventual founder to the Wei dynasty (220-265), in 215, the Celestial Masters were forced to migrate to various parts of northern and southern China. This brings us to the “early medieval period.” It was during this period that Buddhism, first introduced by Central Asian missionary-monks and merchants in the first and second centuries CE (see Wright 1959; Chen 1972; Zürcher 1959, 1980), established viable monastic institutions, with alternative models of selfidentity and religious participation. Many Buddhist texts were translated and disseminated, and Buddhism began its transformation from a “barbarian religion” to a fully Sinicized (Chinese) tradition. Parallel to these developments, new types of scriptures, new forms of religious expression, were introduced. These included monastic rules (vinaya) and the Prajnadparamita (Perfection of Wisdom) texts, which emphasized the emptiness (Skt.: séinyata; Chn.: kong/xu) of independent existence. A wide variety of new Daoist movements also emerged during the socalled Period of Disunity (221-581). The most important include Taiqing (T’ai-ch’ing), Shangqing (Shang-ch’ing), and Lingbao (Ling-pao). One could also include Xuanxue (Hstan-hstieh; Profound Learning), which was a literati Daoist movement sometimes identified as “Neo-Daoism” in earlier Western scholarship. First, we know of a southern tradition with its roots in the above-mentioned Han dynasty Fangshi and immortality-seeker movements. This is Taiqing dao (Way of Great Clarity), a tradition of external alchemy (waidan; lit., “outer cinnabar’), also referred to as “laboratory” or “operational alchemy” (see Campany 2002; Pregadio 2006a). The name Taiging refers to the alchemically transformed ontological condition that could be attained through the Taiqing system of external alchemy and to the heaven with which the waidan methods were associated. Taiqing is known to us principally due to the efforts of its most well-known member, namely, Ge Hong (Ko Hung; Baopu [Embracing Simplicity]; 283-343). Ge Hong came from an aristocratic family based near Jiankang (present-day Nanjing), Jiangsu. His granduncle, Ge Xuan (Ko Hsuan; 164-244), was a renowned Fangshi, and his presence would also play a major role in the later Lingbao (Numinous Treasure) tradition (see Chapter 3). Ge Hong wrote two seminal works: the Baopuzi (Book of Master Embracing Simplicity; DZ 1185; DZ 1187) and the Shenxian zhuan (Biographies of Spirit Immortals; JHL 89). The latter is a collection of some 100-odd hagiographies (“biographies of saints’), while the former is a summa of fourth-century religious traditions and related methods, providing information on the production of elixirs (dan) through external alchemy, the highest religious pursuit according to Ge. Taiqing emphasized levels of attainment and involved the concoction of a mineral elixir, which consisted of highly toxic elements such as cinnabar, lead, mercury, and realgar (see Chapter 9). The process of elixir formation also involved complex purificatory practices, cosmological considerations, and ritual procedures. Slightly later, with the forced migration of the Tianshi community, many of its leaders began a gradual movement south. This eventually led to a division, which is sometimes referred to as the “Northern Celestial Masters” and the “Southern Celestial Masters” (see Nickerson 2000; Kohn 2000b) The establishment of the Northern Celestial Masters centers on Kou Qianzhi (K’ou Ch’ien-chih; Fuzhen [Supporting Perfection]; 365—448), who was a member of a Tianshi family in the Chang’an area and received a revelation from Lord Lao in 415. According to this revelation, Kou was empowered to replace the Zhang family lineage as Celestial Master and to reform many of the tradition’s earlier practices. He eventually became recognized by the Toba rulers of the Northern Wei dynasty (386-534), so much so that in 440 the emperor received Daoist initiation and changed his reign title to Taiping zhenjun (Perfected Lord of Great Peace). This moment in Daoist history is often described as a “Daoist theocracy,” as it marked the first time that Daoism became state orthodoxy. Kou also established guidelines for Daoist conduct known as the “new code” (xinke), which is still partially extant in the Laojun yinsong jiejing (Precept Scripture of Lord Lao for Recitation; DZ 785). Simultaneously, the members of Tianshi who had migrated south began their interaction with more established southern traditions, including Taiqing (see Chapter 3). As the Tianshi movement gained a foothold, new revelations emerged. The first was Shangqing dao (Way of Highest Clarity) (see Robinet 1993, 2000; Miller 2008), a movement named after the heaven from which its revelations derived. In the 360s, members of the aristocratic Xu (Hsu) family, Xu Mi (303-76), the younger brother of Xu Mai (300— 48), and the former’s son Xu Hui (341-ca. 370), hired the spirit medium Yang Xi (Yang Hsi; 330-86) to establish contact with Xu Mi’s deceased wife, Tao Kedou (d. 362). Through a series of revelations, Yang Xi described the organization and population of the subtle realms of the cosmos, particularly the heaven of Shangqing (Highest Clarity). Also deserving note is the presence of the deceased female Tianshi libationer Wei Huacun (251-334) as a central figure in the early Shangqing revelations (see Chapters 3 and 4). These various celestial communications included methods for spirit travel, visualizations, and alchemical concoctions (see Chapter 11). A wide variety of texts are important for understanding the religious world of Shangqing, with two of the most important being the Dadong zhenjing (Perfect Scripture of the Great Cavern; DZ 6) and the Huangting jing (Scripture on the Yellow Court; DZ 331; 332). The revelations were, in turn, written down by Yang Xi and the Xu family in a calligraphic style that seemed divine. The texts were eventually inherited by Xu Huangmin (361429) who disseminated them throughout the region. Then, Tao Hongjing (T’ao Hung-ching; Tongming [Pervading Illumination]; 456—536), a descendent of Tao Kedou and an advanced Shangqing adept, came across an original manuscript and became inspired to collect them. Tao Hongjing had established a religious center on Maoshan (Mount Mao; present-day Nanjing, Jiangsu), where he pursued alchemical and pharmacological studies (see Chapters 4 and 14). From there he traveled throughout southern China in search of the original Shangging manuscripts (see Strickmann 1977: 41-62). In the process, he developed a critical analysis of calligraphic styles for determining textual authenticity. His collection efforts resulted in the Zhen ’gao (Declarations of the Perfected; DZ 1016). Partially in response to these Shangqing revelations, in combination with the more pervasive influence of Mahayana Buddhism (including its bodhisattva ideal and vision of universal salvation), Lingbao dao (Way of Numinous Treasure) emerged (see Bokenkamp 1983, 1997; Yamada 2000). The movement’s name refers to a medium or sacred object (bao; “treasure’’) infused with numinosity (Jing), especially the sacred talismans that Lingbao believed created and maintained the cosmos. A more esoteric interpretation understands Jing as the celestial half of a talisman and bao as the terrestrial half. For our purposes, Lingbao refers to the tradition established by Ge Chaofu (Ko Ch’ao-fu; fl. 390s), apparently a Shangqing affiliate and grandnephew of Ge Hong. Lingbao may, in turn, be seen to have connections with each of the three earlier major Daoist movements, namely, Tianshi, Taiqing, and Shangqing (see Chapter 3). Ge Chaofu, who inherited the library of Ge Hong, claimed that the original Lingbao revelation went back to Ge Xuan, and was thus older (= more authoritative) than the Shanggqing revelations. Lingbao centered on a cosmocrat (cosmic ruler) and magical manipulation of the cosmos. This cosmocrat, who resembles Mahavairocana (Cosmic Sun Buddha) of the Buddhist Tantric tradition, was Yuanshi tianzun (Celestial Worthy of Original Beginning). Ge Chaofu emphasized levels of celestial realms, celestial administrators, and a host of divine beings, in combination with Han-dynasty correlative cosmology, Fangshi ideas and practices, and Tianshi ritual (see Chapters 6 and 13). A representative work documenting the magical dimension of Lingbao is the Lingbao wufu xu (Explanations of the Five Numinous Treasure Talismans; DZ 388). These “five talismans” were the foundation for harmony and control, whether personal, communal, socio-political, or cosmological. Lingbao also maintained soteriological aims, namely, the salvation of humanity as a whole. Following Mahayana Buddhism, this is referred to as “universal salvation” (pudu) (see Chapter 13). The scriptures of Lingbao became codified by the Daoist ritualist and bibliographer Lu Xiujing (Lu Hsiu-ching; Yuande [Primordial Virtue]; 406-477) in the so-called “Lingbao Catalogue” (see Bokenkamp 1997: 377-98; 2001; Yamada 2000; also Kirkland 2004; Chapter 12 herein). It was also Lu Xiujing who compiled the earliest known catalogue of Daoist texts, namely, the Sandong jingshu mulu (Catalogue of the Scriptures and Writings of the Three Caverns). As the name suggests, the central organizing principle was (and remains) a tripartite classification system known as the Three Caverns (sandong). As discussed in Chapter 12, Lu Xiujing’s categorization was pivotal in the creation of the Daozang (Daoist Canon) and the Daoist tradition by extension. The early medieval period also witnessed the development of Daoist monasticism (see Kohn 2003a, 2004b), again under the influence of Buddhism. At the end of the Northern Wei dynasty, members of the Northern Celestial Masters congregated in a newly established center in the Zhongnan mountains (near present-day X1’an). This was Louguan (Lookout Tower Monastery; called Louguan tai today; Zhouzhi, Shaanxi), which was founded by Yin Tong (398-499?) and became the first Daoist monastery (see Chapter 14). Yin Tong claimed descent from Yin Xi, the “guardian of the pass” who legend tells us received the Daode jing from Laozi as he left China for his Western travels. Louguan eventually grew significantly and rose to prominence under the leadership of Wang Daoyi (447-510). A number of visions of Lord Lao appeared there, which also helped to solidify the temple’s place of importance in the geo-political landscape. Some representative works from Louguan include the Laojun jiejing (Scriptural Precepts of Lord Lao; DZ 784), Xisheng jing (Scripture on Western Ascension; DZ 666; DZ 726), and Chuanshou jingjie (Scriptures and Precepts for Ordination; DZ 1241). Louguan Daoists also compiled encyclopedias, including the important Wushang biyao (Esoteric Essentials of the Most High; DZ 1138). Within the contours of the early medieval period of Daoist history, we may identify a variety of Daoist models of practice and attainment, including alchemical, ascetic, meditative, monastic, revelatory, and ritualistic. While the so-called Northern and Southern Celestial Masters maintained and developed the earlier Tianshi program, the new Daoist movements proposed and represented alternatives. These included ascetic and eremitic models of community as well as householder approaches (see Chapter 4). Although historically speaking external alchemy predates Taiqing, perhaps going back to the second century CE in seminal form, it became a major Daoist model with that movement. Shangqing traced its origins to new revelations, and in the process advocated apparently new views of self (see Chapter 7) and apparently new forms of meditation, specifically visualization (see Chapter 11). One can also identify protoneidan (internal alchemy) dimensions in the Shangqing practice system, especially as so much later internal alchemy is indebted to that system. Moreover, Shangging began a transition from eremiticism to quasimonasticism, which contributed to the eventual emergence of monasticism proper under Buddhist influences (see Chapter 4). Both Shangging and Lingbao also contributed new theological content to the Daoist tradition (see Chapter 6). In addition, Lingbao helped to establish the standard concerns and structure of Daoist ritual, including a Mahayana Buddhistinspired concern for universal salvation (see Chapter 13).
Later organized Daoism
Later organized Daoism refers to the late medieval and late imperial periods, the time when Daoism became a fully integrated and systemized tradition, with monasticism as dominant. It specifically refers to Daoism during the Tang (618-907), Song (Northern: 960-1126; Southern: 11271279), Yuan (1260-1368), Ming (1368-1644), and Qing (1644-1911) dynasties. Later organized Daoism is distinguished by the emergence of a fully integrated monastic system, complete with ordination ranks (see Chapters 3 and 4), and of semi-centralized religious institutions. It is also pivotal in Daoist history for the ascendance of internal alchemy as the dominant form of Daoist meditation and for the introduction and incorporation of new forms of Daoist ritual. Like the Han dynasty, the Tang dynasty marks a major watershed moment in Chinese history in general and Daoist history in particular (see Barrett 1996; Kohn and Kirkland 2000). During the Tang, Daoism was accepted and sponsored as state orthodoxy (see Chapter 4). Many Tang emperors and their courts showed imperial favor for the Daoist tradition. As noted above, Lord Lao as the deified Laozi became central to the Chinese state as early as the Han dynasty. Similarly, the patterns of millenarian prophecy were also well established. During the beginning of the Tang, the rulers embraced a prophecy centering on a figure with the surname Li (Li Hong) as the future Lord of Great Peace. Interestingly, Li was the surname of both Laozi (Li Er) and the founders of the Tang dynasty. Thus, the Tang rulers became linked with both Laozi, the preeminent figure in the Daoist tradition and now the Tang’s own original ancestor, and the vision of a Daoist utopia. Numerous miracles centering on divine appearances of Lord Lao occurred (see Chapter 3). One such vision took place at Bozhou, Laozi’s supposed birthplace, where Lord Lao caused a withered cypress tree to bloom again. Miraculous material signs were also discovered throughout China and at various Daoist sacred sites (see Chapter 14); these included inscribed stones, divine statues, and images on walls and cliffs. Such discoveries, of course, helped to ensure continued imperial patronage for
places such as Louguan. Tang emperors gave extensive privileges to Daoists, offered lavish gifts to temples and monasteries, established a Daoist track in the imperial bureaucracy, sponsored Daoist collection efforts, honored Lord Lao with the title Xuanyuan huangdi (Sovereign Thearch of Mysterious Origin), and aided the success of the tradition in general. Especially under Xuanzong (r. 713-55), Daoism flourished and membership grew extensively. Imperial princesses were given Daoist initiation in elaborate ceremonies (see Benn 1991). Monasteries (guan) were staffed by Daoist priests and priestesses (daoshi ) (see Chapters 3 and 4), who performed jiao-offering and zhai-purification rituals for integrating society and cosmos (see Chapter 13). The Tang dynasty also established a system of official control, including a state-controlled ordination system and legal codes governing religious behavior. It was in this context that the Laozi was again recognized as a jing (“classic” or “scripture”) (see Chapter 12). In addition, the Daode jing became required reading for the imperial examinations. Also noteworthy is the fact that the Zhuangzi became “canonized” as the Nanhua zhenjing (Perfect Scripture of Perfected Nanhua) by an imperial edict of Emperor Xuanzong in 742. With regard to major figures in Daoist history, two important and representative ones will be discussed here. One such person was Sima Chengzhen (Szu-ma Ch’eng-chen; Zhenyi [Pure Unity]; 647-735), the 12th Patriarch of Shangqing Daoism. Highly respected and supported at the Tang imperial court, Sima Chengzhen is most well known for his systematic discussions of meditation and personal refinement (see Chapter 11). This Tang-dynasty form of Shanging meditation differs considerably from the earlier visualization methods. Sima Chengzhen’s writings place primary emphasis on the mind and evidence a synthesis of Daoist and Buddhist meditation practices. In particular, we find the influence of Buddhist insight meditation (Pali: vipassana; Skt.: vipasyana; Chn.: guan) and a concern for the development of wisdom (Skt.: prajna; Chn.: zhi ). For instance, Sima’s Zuowang lun (Discourse on Sitting-in-Forgetfulness; DZ 1036) maps Daoist meditation in terms of seven stages: (1) Respect and Trust; (2) Interception of Karma; (3) Taming the Mind; (4) Detachment from Affairs; (5) Perfect Observation; (6) Intense Concentration; and (7) Realizing the Dao (see Kohn 1987). Although one notes much Buddhist influence, Sima Chengzhen clearly has a Daoist orientation.
In addition to such models of self-realization, Daoism during the Tang dynasty maintained ritualistic and scholastic concerns (see Chapters 12 and 13). In this respect, Du Guangting (Tu Kuang-t’ing; Guangcheng [Expansive Completion]; 850-933) stands out. Du Guangting lived at the end of the Tang dynasty, a time of radical socio-political upheaval. In the gradual disintegration of a unified Chinese empire that followed from such rebellions as that of An Lushan (755-63), Du set out to preserve and systematize earlier Daoist traditions. He compiled ritual compendia that became the basis for later forms of Daoist liturgy and hagiographies of outstanding Daoists (see Chapter 13), including the first hagiographical collection on female Daoists (see Chapter 4). In addition, Du Guangting had a profound interest in the Daode jing and its commentarial tradition. He reviewed and collated more than sixty previous commentaries, and became the leading codifier of the Chongxuan (Twofold Mystery) hermeneutical school. Drawing inspiration from the Buddhist Madhyamika or Sanlun (Three Treatises) school, Chongxuan emphasized the realization of an ontological condition where neither being nor non-being exists. This is the state of “oneness,” and Chongxuan adherents such as Du Guangting equated this with realization of the Dao. This is evident in the name “Twofold Mystery,” which is a reference to Chapter 1 of the Daode jing. Du’s commentary appears in the received Daoist Canon as the Daode zhenjing guangsheng yi (Expansive and Sacred Meaning of the Perfect Scripture on the Dao and Inner Power; DZ 725). With the fall of the Tang dynasty, China eventually came to be divided into three distinct states: the Khitan state of Liao (907-1125) in the northeast, the Tangut state of Xixia (990-1227) in the northwest, and the Chinese state of Song (Northern: 960—1126; Southern: 1127-1279) in the middle and south. Under the Northern Song, Daoism continued to receive imperial support (see Skar 2000). The Song emperors in general viewed their mandate as a reflection of a larger Daoist dispensation, with legitimacy partly based on Daoist revelations at Louguan. The ideal of Great Peace (taiping) also formed the basis of Emperor Taizong’s (r. 976-97) consolidation of the empire. A number of Northern Song emperors also initiated and supported the compilation of Daoist textual collections (see Chapter 12). Moreover, Emperor Huizong (r. 1100-26) recognized two Daoist sacred sites in southern China: Maoshan, associated with Shanggqing,
and Longhu shan (Dragon-Tiger Mountain), associated with Tianshi, now known as Zhengyi (Orthodox Unity) (see Chapter 14). Towards the end of the Tang and beginning of the Song, traditions of internal alchemy (neidan) became systematized (see Boltz 1987a: 173-88; Pregadio and Skar 2000; see also Schiper and Verellen 2004). The roots of these movements can be found in a number of earlier Daoist expressions such as “inner observation” (neiguan) meditation practices, longevity techniques (yangsheng), external alchemy (waidan), and Yijing (Classic of Changes) symbolism. Internal alchemy, alternatively referred to as the “Golden Elixir” (jindan), uses a highly symbolic language to describe a process of psychosomatic refinement, a shift in ontological condition from ordinary human being to a more cosmological being (see Chapter 11). The goal was the attainment of “immortality” or “transcendence” as a form of ecstatic otherworldly existence through a series of energetic mutations of the body, which would transform it into a spiritual entity known as the “immortal embryo” (xiantai ) and “yang-spirit” (vangshen). Generally speaking, internal alchemy traditions emphasize the so-called internal Three Treasures (nei sanbao), namely, vital essence (jing), subtle breath (gi ), and spirit (shen) (see Chapter 7). These psychosomatic “substances” are utilized in a three-stage process of self-transformation: (1) Refining vital essence to become qi (lianjing huaqi ); (2) Refining qi to become spirit (dianqi huashen); and (3) Refining spirit to return to Emptiness (dianshen huanxu) (see Chapter 11). The earliest known tradition of internal alchemy is referred to as the “Zhong-Lu tradition.” This is a textual tradition associated with Zhongli Quan (Zhengyang [Aligned Yang]; 2nd c. CE?) and Lu Dongbin (Chunyang [Pure Yang]; b. 798?), with the latter eventually becoming the patriarch of internal alchemy traditions in general. The related texts center on dialogues between these two immortals, with two representative works being the Chuandao ji (Anthology on the Transmission of the Dao; DZ 1309) and Baiwen pian (Treatise in One Hundred Questions; DZ 1017, j. 5). The Zhong-Lu textual tradition provided much of the foundations for later, more socially confirmable movements. Conventionally speaking, a distinction, which follows Chan (Jpn.: Zen) Buddhism, is made between the so-called Beizong (Northern School) and Nanzong (Southern School). The Northern School refers to the Quanzhen (Complete Perfection) movement, founded by Wang Zhe (Chongyang [Redoubled Yang]; 1113-70), while the Southern School refers to a textual tradition (but this time with historically identifiable persons) that revolves around “Five Patriarchs.” Both of these internal alchemy lineages owe a great deal to the slightly earlier Zhong-Lü textual tradition. Although traditional Chinese historiography and Western Sinological history often excludes “non-Chinese” states from “Chinese history,” Daoist history in general and the late medieval period in particular cannot be understood without such inclusion. The Khitan-Liao was eventually conquered by the Jurchens, a semi-nomadic people from an area in the far northeast (formerly called Manchuria) and ancestors of the later Manchus. The Jurchens established the Jin dynasty (1115—1234) and in the process conquered the Northern Song, forcing the court elite to flee south and establish the Southern Song dynasty (1127—1279). It was under the JurchenJin dynasty that one of the most important movements in Daoist history emerged. This was Quanzhen dao (Way of Complete Perfection) (see Eskildsen 2003; Komjathy 2007a, forthcoming). The name of this movement refers to the alchemically transformed ontological condition that could be attained through the Quanzhen system of internal alchemy (see Chapter 11). Other names for early Quanzhen included Jinlian (Golden Lotus) and Xuanfeng (Mysterious Movement). Quanzhen was founded by Wang Zhe (Wang Che; Chongyang [Redoubled Yang]; 1113—70), a solitary ascetic and mystic who had a number of mystical experiences with immortals and who, after years of intensive seclusion, began accepting disciples (see Chapter 4). The most well known of these disciples are the so-called Seven Perfected (qizhen): 1 Hao Datong (Taigu [Grand Antiquity]/Guangning [Expansive Serenity]; 1140-1212) 2 Liu Chuxuan (Changsheng [Perpetual Life]; 1147—1203) Ma Yu (Danyang [Elixir Yang]; 1123—83) 4 Qiu Chuji (Changchun [Perpetual Spring]; 1148—1227)
5 Sun Buer (Qingjing [Clear Stillness]; 1119-82), the only female member Tan Chuduan (Changzhen [Perpetual Perfection]; 1123—85) 7 Wang Chuyi (Yuyang [Jade Yang]; 1142-1217) Over time, Quanzhen attracted more and more followers and eventually established “associations” or “meeting halls” (hui/she/tang), sometimes rendered as “congregations,” throughout northern China. In the year 1222, Qiu Chuji met Chinggis Qan (Genghis Khan; ca. 1162—1227; r. 1206-27) and received de facto control of the whole of north China’s organized religious communities. This period was followed by Quanzhen’s rise in status and membership to become a fully established and widely disseminated form of monastic Daoism. This privileged status was shortlived and a number of anti-Daoist edicts were issued under Qubilai Qan (Khubilai Khan; Emperor Shizu; 1215—94; r. 1260—94), a warlord of the Mongol Yuan dynasty, which was the first non-Chinese dynasty to control the whole of China. The anti-Daoist edicts culminated in the burning and destruction of Daoist texts, textual collections, and printing blocks in 1281. The Song and Yuan dynasties also saw the emergence of more popular forms of religiosity. In particular, deity cults and new ritual lineages became established (see Boltz 1987a: 23—53; Skar 2000). As noted, Lü Dongbin received much veneration and devotion, with different patrons and believers characterizing him differently depending on their socio-economic position (see Katz 1999). In terms of ritual lineages and deity cults, five in particular are currently known: (1) Qingwei (Pure Tenuity), associated with Zu Shu (fl. 889—904) and Huang Shunshen (Leiyuan [Thunder Abyss]; 1224-ca. 1286); (2) Tianxin (Celestial Heart), associated with Tan Zixiao (fl. 935) and Rao Dongtian (fl. 994); (3) Shenxiao (Divine Empyrean), associated with Lin Lingsu (1076-1120); (4) Tongchu (Youthful Incipience), associated with Yang Xizhen (1101-24); and (5) Jingming (Pure Brightness), also known as Zhongxiao dao (Way of Loyalty and Filtality), associated with Xu Xun (292-374) and Liu Yu (Yuzhen [Jade Perfection]; 1257-1308) (see Boltz 1987a; Kohn 2000a; Skar 2000; Pregadio 2008a). Generally speaking, these lineages emphasized ethical rectification and
ritual intervention as efficacious for communal wellbeing. They tended to concentrate on securing good fortune and healing disease (including exorcism). It was also in the context of such ritual lineages that “thunder magic” (leifa) developed. This type of atmospheric magic involved harnessing and channeling the power of thunder and lightning for selftransformation and healing. There was also a new celestial Leibu (Department of Thunder), to which petitions and memorials were submitted by the ritual master (fashi ). These new ritual movements contributed many elements to a new standardization of Daoist ritual (see Chapter 13). Within the late medieval period of Daoist history, we may identify a variety of Daoist models of practice and attainment (see Chapter 1), including alchemical, ascetic, meditative, monastic, and ritualistic. In this period, we find the emergence of fully systematized internal alchemy movements. Quanzhen also advocated a renunciant orientation, with corresponding ascetic practices such as seclusion, celibacy, sleep deprivation, voluntary poverty, and so forth. This ascetic and alchemical movement eventually became a major monastic order, which endures to the present day. Quanzhen also emphasized a meditative model, especially the practice of apophatic meditation and internal alchemy. Finally, the Song and Yuan dynasty ritual movements developed new forms of ritual, including thunder magic. In terms of the late imperial period of Daoist history, the Mongol Yuan dynasty was eventually conquered by a native Chinese nationalist rebellion, which resulted in the founding of the Ming dynasty (1368-1644) (see de Bruyn 2000). Unfortunately, research on Daoism in the periods following the late medieval period is just beginning. Thus, this section and the subsequent ones must be understood as provisional. The cultural trend of “syncretism,” fully established during the late medieval period, continued during the late imperial period. Syncretism, an approximation of the Chinese sanjiao heyi (“the three teachings made one’), refers to the tendency of distinct religious traditions to adopt and adapt aspects from other distinct traditions. In the case of Daoism, this meant borrowing and transforming various beliefs and practices from Buddhism and Confucianism in particular. Two characteristics of the late imperial period in turn deserve note: simplification and popularization. For example, during this historical
period, internal alchemy became simplified, with much of its esoteric language either systematically defined or discarded. Similarly, Daoist beliefs and practices became mingled with folk religious traditions and involved a greater attention to the needs of the common people. Thus, a number of local and popular deities became incorporated into the Daoist pantheon. In addition, new and powerful gods entered the scene. Some of these included Bixia yuanjun (Primordial Goddess of Cerulean Mists); Doumu (Dipper Mother); Tianfei (Celestial Consort), also known as Mazu (Mother Matriarch); Wenchang (God of Literature); and Xuanwu (Mysterious Warrior), also known as Zhenwu (Perfect Warrior) (see Chapter 6). Also deserving note is the fact that the Daoist mountain Wudang shan (Wu Tang) achieved national prominence during the Ming (see Chapter 14). This was partially a result of its association with the efficacious god Zhenwu. The increased popularization of Daoism is also evident in the expanded practice of “spirit-writing” as well as in the production of “precious scroll” (Saojuan) literature and morality books (shanshu). Other significant developments also occurred during the Ming dynasty. Of particular note is the imperial sponsorship of the Zhengtong daozang (Daoist Canon of the Zhengtong Reign), the earliest surviving Daoist textual collection and the basis for the development of modern Daoist Studies. Containing over 1,400 texts, this “canon” was overseen by Zhengyi priests and was completed in 1445 (see Chapter 12). The final imperial dynasty was the Manchu Qing (1644-1911), a time of non-Chinese rulers who were the descendants of the Jurchens. The Qing dynasty saw the Longmen (Dragon Gate) lineage of Quanzhen rise to national prominence (see Esposito 2000, 2001, 2004). This lineage is named after Longmen dong (Dragon Gate Grotto; near Longxian, Shaanxi), the place where Qiu Chuji engaged in intensive training. Although conventionally associated with Qiu, the official, “orthodox” Longmen lineage was established by Wang Changyue (Kunyang [Paradisiacal Yang]; 1622?—1680), who was abbot of Batyun guan (White Cloud Temple; Beying) during the late 1600s. In the Qing, a variety of energetic and charismatic leaders helped to secure recognition for Longmen. These included such figures as Min Yide (Lanyun [Lazy Cloud]; 1758-1836), an eleventh-generation (according to Dragon Gate lineage formulation) lineage holder and compiler of major textual collections, and Liu Yiming (Wuyuan [Awakening to the Origin]; 1734-1821), another eleventh-generation lineage holder and author of the Daoshu shier zhong (Twelve Daoist Books). The Daoshu shier zhong has become highly influential in the West through Thomas Cleary’s (b. 1949) various translations of texts contained therein. As mentioned, Quanzhen, dominated by its Longmen lineage, and Zhengyi, most likely reestablished on Mount Longhu in the eleventh century, are the only two distinct traditional Daoist movements in name that survive into the modern and contemporary periods (see below).
Modern Daoism
Modern Daoism refers the early modern and late modern periods, including contemporary developments. Here “modern” indicates the end of dynastic rule in China, with the Manchu Qing (1644-1911) being the last dynasty. This was and is the time when Western values and ideologies came to dominate Chinese society. Although the process began at least as early as the Qing dynasty, during the early and mid-twentieth century, traditional Chinese culture, including Daoism, was severely undermined. The early modern period of Daoist history corresponds to the Republican (1912-49; 1949-present) and early Communist (1949-78) periods, while the late modern period refers to the late Communist period (1978—). 1912 is used as the beginning of modern Daoism because it marks the end of dynastic rule. 1978 is used as the end of early modern Daoism and the beginning of late modern Daoism because this marks a time of major economic reforms, social liberalization, and religious revitalization.
In terms of the overall religious context and Daoism in particular, the modern period was a time of dramatic change. Monastic life was attacked as a form of escape from a country in need of workers and soldiers, while religious worldviews and lifeways were condemned as superstitious and wasteful. Such critiques were partially rooted in Marxist and Stalinist political ideologies, including the famous view that “religion is the opiate of the masses.” Although the Marxist leadership of the PRC did not believe in the validity of religion, they did include “freedom of religious belief’ in their new constitution (see MacInnis 1989; also Pas 1989; Overmyer 2003; Miller 2006). However, “religion” (zongjiao) was very different from “feudal superstition” (mixin). Daoism often fell into the latter, especially as it had no diplomatic significance. Traditional myths and stories were rejected, gods denounced, and organizations disbanded. Simultaneously, smaller-scale and more regional forms of “religious” practice were more difficult to control; spirit-writing cults as well as longevity and martial arts societies flourished. The latter was also employed as a form of nationalistic up-building: the atrophied bodies of older Chinese imperial courts, perhaps
most clearly represented by eunuch culture and the practice of foot-binding, would become replaced by a nation of soldiers with high-level martial arts prowess. Such changes manifested in two important ways for the Daoist tradition. First, Daoism was effectively banned in mainland China as feudal superstition, with its monks sent out to work, marry, or be “reeducated;” its monasteries destroyed, closed, or used for military installations; and its priests forbidden to conduct rituals. Second, such persecution and suppression initiated an exodus from the “Central Kingdom” (Zhongguo). More and more Daoists fled to other East Asian countries such as Hong Kong (then an independent British territory; 1841-1997), Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand. Simultaneously, Chinese Daoists began a slow immigration to European and North American countries. That is, the Chinese Communist revolution had the unintended consequence of disseminating Chinese religious culture throughout the world and helping to make Daoism a “world religion.”
In the years of the Republic, Daoists attempted to establish Daoist organizations (see Wang 2006; Goossaert 2007). In 1912, a Central Association of Daoism was founded, but it was principally a local (Beijing) and sectarian (Longmen) organization. During the same year, Zhengyi Daoists created their own General Daoist Assembly of the Republic of China. Then, in 1932, another group came to the fore: the Chinese Daoist Association (Zhongguo daojiao xiehui). After World War II, Daoists in Shanghai planned the revival of Daoism. In 1947, they set up the Shanghai Municipal Daoist Association, with Zhang Enpu (1904-69), the 63rd Celestial Master, and Chen Yingning (1880-1969), a lay Daoist, as leaders. After the establishment of the PRC, Zhang Enpu fled to Taiwan and established Taiwan as the de facto headquarters of the Zhengyi tradition, although Longhu shan would later return to prominence. It was also during the early years of the PRC (1957) that the national Daoist Association was founded. In 1961, they defined their objectives as follows: to study the history of Daoism, publish journals, and set up training programs for young candidates. However, the so-called “Cultural Revolution” (1966-76), also referred to as the “Ten Years of Chaos,” with its socially engineered and fanatical youth brigade known as the Red Guards, stopped all efforts. All religious organizations suffered immensely, with monasteries and temples destroyed or closed and Daoist monks and priests forced into dominant ideological patterns. The degree of destruction is still evident in contemporary temples. Only since 1978 has there been a comeback. This began with the death of Mao Zedong (1893-1976) and the new leadership of Deng Xiaoping (1904-97), who initiated the Four Modernizations, opened the country economically and politically, and paved the way for massive development. Since 1980, religious organizations and practices, as well as the academic study of religion, have undergone a revival. Religious associations have reopened, such as the Chinese Daoist Association based at Baiyun guan (White Cloud Monastery; Beijing). By 1986, twenty-one key monasteries were returned to the Daoists, and since 1990 training programs for new candidates have been initiated in Beijing, Shanghai, and Chengdu.
By way of conclusion, I will content myself to make a few general observations regarding the globalization of Daoism, or the transmission, adaptation, and appropriation of Daoism in the modern world. In our time, Daoism has become a global religious tradition characterized by cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity. While the global dissemination of Daoism increased dramatically in the twentieth century, especially from 1949 to the present, the process of globalization began to occur much earlier. It is tied to earlier migration patterns from north to south China, including from south China (e.g. Fujian and Guangdong) into Hong Kong and Taiwan. This is not to mention the earlier conversion of “non-Han” ethnic groups such as the Ba (see Kleeman 1998) and Yao (see Lemoine 1982; Pourett 2002; Alberts 2006). While much academic attention has been given to contemporary Taiwanese Zhengyi ritual, little research has been done on the actual history of Daoism in Taiwan or in Hong Kong (see Tsui 1991; Saso 1970, 1972a, 1978). This is even more the case with respect to Daoism in the larger Chinese cultural sphere, including in Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam (see Chapter 16). It is also noteworthy that most accounts of Daoism fail to take the existence of Daoism beyond the Chinese cultural sphere seriously. For example, the Daoism Handbook (Kohn 2000a) and The Encyclopedia of Taoism (Pregadio 2008a) contain information on “Daoism in Japan” and “Daoism in Korea,” but nothing on “Daoism in Europe,” “Daoism in North America,” and so forth. In terms of understanding the contemporary Daoist tradition, it is imperative to recognize the ways in which Daoism remains rooted in and transcends its Chinese cultural origins (see Chapter 16).
FURTHER READING
Bokenkamp, Stephen. 2005. “Daoism: An Overview.” In Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Lindsay Jones, volume 14, 2176—92. New York and London: Macmillan. Kirkland, Russell. 2004. Taoism: The Enduring Tradition. London and New York: Routledge. Kohn, Livia, (ed.) 2000. Daoism Handbook. Leiden: Brill. —2004 (2001). Daoism and Chinese Culture. Cambridge, MA: Three Pines Press. —2009. Introducing Daoism. London and New York: Routledge. Komyathy, Louis. 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. Miller, James. 2003. Daoism: A Short Introduction. Oxford: Oneworld. Pregadio, Fabrizio, (ed.) 2008. The Encyclopedia of Taoism. 2 vols. London and New York: Routledge. Schipper, Kristofer. 1993. The Taoist Body. Translated by Karen C. Duval. Berkeley: University of California Press. —2000. “Taoism: The Story of the Way.” In Taoism and the Arts of China, by Stephen Little with Shawn Eichman, 33-55. Chicago/Berkeley: Art Institute of Chicago/ University of California Press. Seidel, Anna. 1997 (1990). “Taoism: The Unofficial High Religion of China.” Translated by Phyllis Brooks (Schafer). Taoist Resources 7.2: 39-72. Wang Yi’e. 2006 (2004). Daoism in China: An Introduction. Warren, CT: Floating World Editions.
===
Historical overview
1
Approaching Daoism
The study of Daoism can be perplexing. The sheer diversity and complexity of the Daoist tradition often subverts attempts at definition and characterization. One’s perplexity may increase dramatically when one encounters the types of questions and issues that emerge through careful study. However, a theoretically sophisticated approach is part of gaining an accurate and informed understanding of the religious tradition which is Daoism. While we may assume that understanding Daoism is simply a matter of learning the “facts,” this is not the case. Those “facts” are themselves conditioned by one’s theoretical approach, interpretive framework, and guiding concerns. Every presentation is an interpretation, and every interpretation has specific commitments, whether recognized or not. Specifically, the study of Daoism is conditioned by various interpretive legacies, and by claims regarding the accuracy of designating something “Daoist.” In seeking to understand Daoism, we must thus be aware of our own unquestioned assumptions, ingrained opinions, and interpretive legacies.
Daoism (Taoism), the “tradition of the Dao” (Tao), is an indigenous Chinese religion rooted in traditional Chinese culture.1 Daoism is a religious tradition in which the Dao, translatable as “the Way” and “a way,” is the sacred or ultimate concern (see Chapter 6). “Daoism” is shorthand for Daoist adherents, communities, and their religious expressions (see Chapter 2; passim). The emphasis on Daoism as a Chinese religion draws our attention to the importance of Chinese history, culture, and society in the historical development of Daoism. The most influential Daoist communities have been in mainland China and primarily of Han ethnicity. Many of the informing views of Daoism derive from or parallel those of traditional Chinese culture (see Chapters 5 and 6; passim). In addition, all of the key scriptures have been written in classical Chinese (see Chapter 12), and the ability to read and write Chinese is required for the performance of Daoist ritual (see Chapter 13). The most important Daoist sacred sites also are located in China (see Chapter 14). Moreover, the Daoist emphasis on ancestors, harmony, lineage, naturalistic cosmology, tradition, and so forth parallel and often derive from pan-Chinese concerns and traditions.
At the same time, Daoism is now a global, transnational religion characterized by cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity. The Daoist community now consists of adherents from a wide variety of cultural and ethnic backgrounds (see Chapter 16). Such a development begs the question of the relationship among ethnicity, culture, and religion. Briefly stated and traditionally speaking, Daoism cannot be separated from Chinese culture and Chinese language. While Daoism has tended to be characterized by diversity and inclusivity, it is not universalistic in the ways that many people imagine. This does not exclude the possibility of the conversion and participation of “non-Chinese” people. Rather, it challenges the construction of Daoism so prevalent in Europe and North America, interpretations that are rooted in colonialist, missionary, and Orientalist legacies (see Chapter 16).
Indigenous names, historical origins, and definitional parameters
Much ink—probably too much ink—has been spilt on the question of “What is Daoism?,” and particularly on the origin and parameters of the term. My characterization of Daoism as an indigenous Chinese religion is supported by Daoist Studies, that is, the specialized academic field dedicated to studying and understanding Daoism, but we should familiarize ourselves with some critical issues related to gaining a nuanced and accurate understanding of Daoism.
To begin, there is one representation of Daoism that is wholly inaccurate and untenable. This is the claim that there are “two Daoisms,” namely, socalled “philosophical Daoism” and so-called “religious Daoism.” We may label this interpretation as the “Victorian” or “Leggean view” of Daoism, as the Protestant missionary and Victorian James Legge (1815–97) was one of its most influential advocates (see Girardot 2002). This view of Daoism as a “bifurcated tradition” is the dominant received view of Daoism. Rooted in colonialist legacies, such an interpretive framework is epidemic among nonspecialist accounts of Daoism, including among non-specialist educators and world religion textbooks (see Dippmann 2001), not to mention various popular constructions (see Chapter 16). The conventional presentation suggests that so-called “philosophical Daoism,” associated with the Daode jing and Zhuangzi, is “original” or “pure Daoism,” while so-called “religious Daoism” is a “degenerate” and “superstitious” adjunct to the former, undeserving of serious attention. In popular accounts, it is the latter so-called
“religious Daoism” that has also supposedly lost the original teachings of Daoism. Such a bifurcated interpretation of Daoism is flawed and inaccurate. It involves a systematic misunderstanding and misinterpretation of classical Daoism (see Chapters 2 and 3), usually through selective readings of inaccurate translations of classical Daoist texts (see Chapters 12 and 16). Reference to so-called “philosophical Daoism” and/or “religious Daoism” should be taken ipso facto as inaccuracy and misunderstanding with respect to the Daoist tradition. In contrast to this construction, classical Daoism, referred to as so-called “philosophical Daoism” in outdated accounts of Daoism, consisted of inner cultivation lineages that expressed religious commitments (see Roth 1999a; also LaFargue 1992). The lineages had distinctive cosmological and theological views (Dao), emphasized specific practices (apophatic meditation), and aimed at specific experiences (mystical union with the Dao). Here we find at least four of Ninian Smart’s (1999) seven dimensions of religion, namely, doctrinal, practical, experiential, and social. All of these are encompassed by the Daoist theological concern with the Dao (see Chapters 5 and 6). The so-called “philosophical/religious Daoism”, or so-called “elite/folk Daoism” bifurcation, also essentializes Daoism as corresponding to only two texts. This is problematic not only in terms of the relative importance of those texts in the Daoist tradition (see Chapter 12), but also with respect to the larger contours of Daoist history (see Chapter 2; passim). It denigrates almost 2,200 years of Daoist history that consists of numerous adherents, communities and movements, scriptures, sacred sites, and so forth.
While the sheer complexity of the Daoist tradition may be a source of perplexity, the so-called “philosophical/religious Daoism” bifurcation is not a viable way to resolve that perplexity. Although it is clear that there are “philosophical dimensions” of Daoism, these are almost always rooted in a religious worldview as well as in religious experience. In addition to philosophy, a nuanced understanding of Daoism must address cosmology, soteriology, theology, and so forth (see Glossary).
More “sophisticated” attempts to justify the bifurcation of Daoism draw upon two, and only two, indigenous terms used to designate Daoism, namely, daojia (tao-chia) and daojiao (tao-chiao). This primarily involves a terminological approach to understanding Daoism. In conventional accounts, these terms are said to refer to so-called “philosophical Daoism” and socalled “religious Daoism,” respectively. Outside of contemporary contexts, this is simply false. First, on the level of meaning, daojia means “Family of the Dao,” and could also be rendered as “Lineage of the Way,” or “Daoist school”; similarly, daojiao means “Teachings of the Dao.” Both emphasize the Dao, a Daoist cosmological and theological concept (see Chapter 6), as primary. The former suggests that lineage, whether biological or spiritual, is primary (see Chapter 3), while the latter suggests that teachings (and teachers by implication) are primary (see also Yao and Zhao 2010: 24–44). That is, the terms themselves do not lend credence to the distinction. Second, each term has a complex history. Briefly stated, it seems that the earliest uses of daojia appear in Early Han dynasty historical sources as a way to categorize texts. However, into the early medieval period and later, daojia was used to designate ordained Daoist priests and the Daoist religious community as a whole. It meant something like “the Daoist community” or “Daoist tradition,” which consisted of various key figures, texts, and movements, including the inner cultivation lineages of classical Daoism. With respect to daojiao, the term was early on coined by Lu Xiujing (406– 477), a key figure in the early Lingbao movement and architect of the early Daoist tradition (see Chapter 2), in order to distinguish Daoism from Buddhism (fojiao) (Kobayashi 1995; Kirkland 1997a: 2004). Throughout much of Chinese history, both terms were used interchangeably by Daoists to refer to their religious tradition.
As one can see, the question of the historical origins of Daoism is complex and multifaceted. Although most scholars of Daoism, and traditionbased Daoists, reject an interpretive framework that utilizes the distinction between so-called “philosophical Daoism” and so-called “religious Daoism,” or so-called daojia and so-called daojiao, there are different perspectives on when and how to locate the beginnings of Daoism. The corresponding responses tend to be based in assumptions about the defining characteristics of religion as well as the nature of tradition, including singularity/plurality and degree of self-consciousness. Within Daoist Studies, one of the primary debates centers on the historical origins of Daoism. In this respect, it is important to recognize that there are a variety of viable revisionist views of Daoism. The dominant revisionist view among Sinological scholars holds that Daoism as a religion begins in the Later Han dynasty, principally with Zhang Daoling (fl. 140s CE) and the Tianshi movement (see Chapter 2). This view was the first revisionist account of Daoism, and largely began as a corrective to the earlier emphasis on so-called “philosophical Daoism” and neglect of so-called “religious Daoism.” We may label this the “Strickmannian view” of Daoism, as the late Michel Strickmann (1942–94), who primarily taught at the University of California, Berkeley, was one of the principal early advocates (see Strickmann 1979) and as his students and intellectual heirs have become highly influential in the dominant specialist account of Daoism in North America. If one prefers a more impersonal characterization, we may refer to this interpretation as the “truncated tradition” view, as it privileges the Tianshi (Celestial Masters) movement in terms of both the origins and defining characteristics of Daoism. This approach was helpful for correcting certain early problematic constructions of Daoism, but it has outlived its usefulness. It is deficient on multiple grounds (see, e.g. Kirkland 1997a). It implicitly assumes the bifurcation of Daoism, accepting the notion that “Daoism” before the Tianshi movement is best understood as “philosophy” or “thought” with little to no social reality or connection to Daoism as such. In this account, actual Daoism only refers to “religious Daoism” (“daojiao”), specifically to one or more organized movements during the Later Han dynasty. It also essentializes and reifies “Daoism” as largely synonymous with the Tianshi movement and its religious affiliates; it is a Tianshi-centered (Taiwanese Zhengyi-centered?) view of Daoist history. It often neglects connections and continuities between classical Daoism and early Daoism. Finally, it ignores the actual complexity and diversity of early Daoism itself (see Hendrischke 2000, 2007) as well as the relative importance of the earliest Daoist movements in Daoist history considered as a whole (see Chapter 2).
While there are a variety of other revisionist views (see, e.g. Schipper 2000; Kirkland 2002, 2004; Campany 2003), here I will concentrate on the one embraced and advocated in the present book. This perspective, which we might label the “lineal” (in the sense of lineage) or “continuous tradition” view, suggests that there was an actual Daoist religious community during the Warring States period and Early Han dynasty (see LaFargue 1992; Roth 1996, 1999a; Schipper 2000, 2008). Under this interpretative framework, Daoism as a Chinese religious tradition began, at least in seminal form and as a series of master-disciple communities, during the Warring States period and Early Han dynasty. Following Harold Roth of Brown University, we may reasonably label this “movement” as the “inner cultivation lineages” of classical Daoism.
With respect to the existence of an actual Daoist religious community during the fourth to second centuries BCE, there is a great deal of evidence for the social reality of the proposed inner cultivation lineages. The Zhuangzi (Book of Master Zhuang), in particular, documents a variety of teachers and disciples (see Chapter 3). In addition, texts do not exist independently of socio-historical contexts and anthropological realities. The compilation, preservation, and transmission of the texts of classical Daoism hint at a selfconscious religious community (see Chapters 2 and 12; also Schipper 2000; Komjathy 2008a). The Warring States and Early Han periods were a time of bamboo and silk manuscripts, of rare and precious hand-written texts (see Chapter 12); on some level, it is amazing that any texts from this period have been transmitted to the present time. From my perspective, that process suggests an early Daoist community and emerging tradition. Furthermore, the most significant evidence comes from the Zhuangzi itself. Revisionist scholarship on the text, like that on other texts of classical Daoism, suggests multiple source-points, and distinct Daoist lineages. Each and every text associated with classical Daoism is a multi-vocal anthology with diverse textual layers. Some passages indicate that members of that community distinguished their religious practice from their contemporaries; they thought of themselves as “practitioners of the Way.” Some evidence for these claims is found in Chapter 23 of the Zhuangzi, which is named after Gengsang Chu, the chapter’s central figure who is identified as a disciple of Lao Dan (Laozi).
THE FAMILY OF THE WAY
“The understanding of people of antiquity went a long way. How far did it go? To the point where some of them believed that things have never existed—so far, to the end, where nothing can be added. Those at the next stage thought that things exist. They looked upon life as a loss, upon death as a return—thus they had already entered the state of dividedness. Those at the next stage said, ‘In the beginning there was nonbeing. Later there was life, and when there was life suddenly there was death. We look upon nonbeing as the head, on life as the body, on death as the rump. Who knows that being and nonbeing, life and death are a single way? I will be his friend!’
“These three groups, while differing in their viewpoint, belong to the same royal clan; though, as in the case of the Zhao and Jing families, whose names indicate their line of succession, and that of the Qu family, whose name derives from its fief, they are not identical.” (Zhuangzi, Chapter 23; adapted from Watson 1968: 257)
This chapter alludes to various other chapters in the Zhuangzi. Without providing a specific name for the “movement,” it speaks of three groups of adherents being part of the same “royal clan” (gongzu), a “line of succession” (dai), a “fief” (feng), and something like a “family” (shi). That is, “Daoists” are located in specific families and lineages, some of which are identified by actual biological ancestry and others of which are identified by geographical and social location. Similarly, along with Chapter 33, Chapter 15 distinguishes “Daoist” practice from five lower-level forms of selfcultivation (see Chapter 10 herein). In contrast to these, “Daoist” practitioners (shi) are committed to apophatic meditation with the goal of mystical union with the Dao (see Chapter 11 herein). These various details point towards a self-conscious early Daoist religious community that can reasonably be labeled the “inner cultivation lineages.” Such is the beginning of the Daoist tradition, and such is one of the key source-points for the later movements of organized Daoism.
Although members of the inner cultivation lineages did not explicitly use daojia as a self-reference, there is evidence to take that name, like “Daoism,” as adequately exact. The texts themselves suggest a movement that might be called the “Family of the Dao.” Moreover, although daojia does not appear in the relevant texts, daoshu (techniques of the Way) does (Roth 1999a: 181–5). That is, members of the inner cultivation lineages saw themselves as practitioners of the “techniques of the Way.” For example, in Chapter 33 of the Zhuangzi, the authors contrast the techniques of the Way with limited “techniques of one-corner” (fangshu). The presentation proceeds to demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of each of the six groups of teachers, concluding that only the models of Lao Dan (Laozi), Zhuang Zhou (Zhuangzi), and their disciples are completely worthy. Such techniques of the Way are aimed at developing “inner sageliness and outer kingliness” and so contain an important element of inner cultivation (Roth 1999a: 182–3; see also idem. 1996).
I would thus suggest that we might reasonably use daojia, only in the sense of the “family of the Dao,” as a viable indigenous designation for the earliest Daoist religious community and for the Daoist tradition as a whole. This designation is helpful for drawing our attention to the way in which religious communities are viewed along ancestral lines and lines of transmission from a traditional Chinese perspective (see, e.g. Yao and Zhao 2010: 24–44). Moreover, as discussed in Chapter 3, the term directs us to study both actual Daoist families and spiritual lineages. Here we must also recall that later Daoists used the term to refer to a greatly expanded Daoist community and tradition.
The final interpretive issue related to the view that there was a Daoist religious community from the fourth to second century BCE must address the connection between so-called classical Daoism and the emergence of organized Daoism during the Later Han dynasty. If there were actual inner cultivation lineages, what became of such lineages in subsequent periods? Did they exert any influence on the later Daoist tradition? What are the connections between classical Daoism and early organized Daoism? At present, we do not know of any specific lineage connections, although I provide some conjecture in Chapter 3. More research is required on what I would label “Daoism-between-Daoism,” namely, historical developments between the compilation of the Huainanzi (139 BCE) and the emergence of the Taiping and Tianshi movements in the mid-second century CE. We await research on potential continuities and departures, divergences and convergences within the Daoist tradition and among distinct Daoist movements. At present, we do know that the history of Daoism is a history of continual reconfiguration. It is a history of the emergence, mingling, dissolution, and revitalization of distinct movements. Some movements emerged, and seemingly disappeared, only to reemerge in a new form decades or centuries later. The Daoist tradition is also characterized by diversity, inclusivity, and adaptation, including the incorporation of new cultural influences such as Buddhism from at least the fourth century CE forward. Research on continuities and departures is only just beginning.
In summary, Daoism is a diverse and complex religious tradition composed of Daoist adherents, communities, and their religious expressions. Our understanding of Daoism is complicated by a number of factors, including a scarcity of historically informed and nuanced studies, including accurate translations, as well as a “conspiracy of ignorance.” The latter consists of inaccurate representations, such as the distinction between socalled “philosophical Daoism” (equated with daojia) and so-called “religious Daoism” (equated with daojiao), popular translations, primarily of the Daode jing and Zhuangzi, as well as various New Age appropriations (see Chapter 16; Komjathy 2011b). Thus, what most have come to know as “Daoism” in the modern West is either a popular construction rooted in various Orientalist legacies, or a reified entity reconstructed through texts associated with early and early medieval Daoism. The former view is found among various “Daoist sympathizers,” hybrid spiritualities, and forms of spiritual capitalism. It is found in most non-specialist studies and world religion textbooks. The latter view is the dominant position in specialist discourse, especially among those who overemphasize the importance of the Tianshi movement and problematically interpret Daoism through the indigenous Chinese category of daojiao.
A more comprehensive understanding would recognize that Daoism is an indigenous Chinese religious tradition rooted in traditional Chinese culture. This religious tradition has multiple source-points, but begins with the inner cultivation lineages of the Warring States period and the Early Han dynasty. From this perspective, Daoism is the “tradition of the Dao,” which is made up of various “families” and “communities of practice.” Generally speaking, the Daoist tradition is characterized by diversity and plurality, especially with respect to setting parameters of inclusion and participation. The study of Daoism will always thwart neat categorization because the tradition itself embodies a resistance to hegemony, homogeneity, and monolithic structure. Daoism has multiple source-points, including various “founders,” foundational movements and lineages, key scriptures, and so forth. We must understand Daoism as both a tradition and a set of traditions, as both Daoism and Daoisms. It is simultaneously singular and plural, varied and unified. The complexity of Daoism, and the consistent willingness of Daoists to include new revelations and religious paths into their tradition, subverts attempts to establish unambiguous demarcation. For the study of Daoism, intellectual humility, interpretive openness, and sustained inquiry, with the commitment to discovery and surprise, are helpful attributes.
Historical periodization
Until the establishment of the Republic of China (1912), Chinese history was organized according to dynasties and the reign periods of specific emperors. What we refer to today as “China,” a unified geo-political “country” and nation-state, first came into being following the Warring States period, with the final victory of the state of Qin and the establishment of their Qin dynasty (221 BCE). Until the end of dynastic rule following the Manchu Qing, the subsequent dynasties were ruled by emperors or imperial families, and their bureaucratic hierarchies. On the culturally elite level, there was both an aristocratic land-holding class and a merit-based bureaucracy, with the latter characterized by relative social mobility based on education and success in examination systems.
Developing the work of Russell Kirkland (1997a, 2002; see also Kohn 1998: 164–7; 2000; Miller 2003), I would propose the historical periodization of Daoism based on seven major periods and four basic divisions.
The seven periods would roughly correspond to major watersheds for
Daoism in Chinese dynastic and post-dynastic history: (1) Warring States
(480–222 BCE), Qin (221–206 BCE), and Early Han (202 BCE–9 CE); (2) Later Han (25–220 CE); (3) Period of Disunion (220–589) and Sui (581–618); (4) Tang (618–907), Song (Northern: 960–1127; Southern: 1127–1279), and
Yuan (1260–1368); (5) Ming (1368–1644) and Qing (1644– 1911); and (6) Republican (1912–49; 1949–) and early Communist (1949–78). I would, in turn, divide the modern period into “early modern Daoism” (1912–78) and “late modern Daoism” (1978-present), with the latter including contemporary expressions and developments. In terms of Chinese history, 1978 is used as the key date because that was when Deng Xiaoping (1904– 97) initiated the so-called Four Modernizations, socio-economic reforms that also led to an increase in religious freedom and eventually to the “revitalization” of Daoism. In concert with the Chinese Communist revolution (1949) and the subsequent flight of the Nationalists/Republicans to Taiwan, this was also a decisive factor in the globalization of Daoism (see Chapter 16). Period seven, in turn, encompasses more contemporary developments in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. It also includes the transmission and transformation of Daoism in other Asian, European, and North American contexts, as well as the establishment of the field of Daoist Studies throughout the world. While helpful, such periods should not lull one into believing that they encompass the dramatic changes that occurred between, for instance, the Tang and Song dynasties.
CHART 1 Seven Periods and Four Divisions of Daoist History
As discussed in Chapter 2, each of these periods saw the emergence of specific communities and movements. Briefly stated, classical Daoism encompasses the diverse communities and “school” of the inner cultivation lineages as well as Huang-Lao dao (Way of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi). Major movements associated with early Daoism include Taiping (Great Peace) and Tianshi (Celestial Masters). Early medieval Daoism consisted of such important movements as Taiqing (Great Clarity), Shangqing (Highest Clarity), and Lingbao (Numinous Treasure). Late medieval Daoism included a variety of internal alchemy lineages, including Quanzhen (Complete
Perfection) and so-called Nanzong (Southern School), as well as new deity cults and ritual movements. Late imperial and modern Daoism was dominated by Zhengyi (Orthodox Unity; a.k.a. Tianshi) and Quanzhen, though it also saw the emergence of major lineages of the latter as well as new lineages of internal alchemy. The constituents of global Daoism are a highly complex topic, which will be partially addressed in Chapter 16. Briefly stated, from a tradition-based and institutional perspective, global Daoism remains primarily a Zhengyi-Quanzhen tradition. However, there are also dynamic (and problematic) recent developments, including mediumistic cult influences, obscure family lineages, and diverse organizations. The student of Daoism is, in turn, faced with many perplexities and challenges when studying the contemporary landscape of things identified as “Daoist.”
For simplicity’s sake, we might further speak of four basic divisions of Daoism: (1) classical Daoism; (2) early organized Daoism; (3) later organized Daoism; (4) modern Daoism. The rationale for this grouping is to distinguish historical developments (see Chapter 2), types of community (see Chapter 4), and distinctive models of practice (see below). It draws our attention to the ways in which the inner cultivation lineages of classical Daoism differ from the householder, ascetic, and eremitic communities of early organized Daoism, as the Later Han dynasty witnessed the emergence of Daoism as an organized religious tradition with enduring institutions. Early organized Daoism may be distinguished from later organized Daoism based on the ascendance of a monastic model in the latter (see Chapter 4) and the emergence of new models of practice, especially internal alchemy. Modern Daoism corresponds to the end of dynastic rule in China and the increasing influence of Western values and political ideologies. In its more contemporary form, it directs our attention towards Daoism as a global religious tradition.
The seven periods and four divisions in turn provide a relatively simple and nuanced interpretive framework for discussing Daoism from a historical perspective, including attentiveness to larger cultural and social developments. In the following chapter I provide a concise overview of Daoist history based on this periodization model. It will also be utilized as one of the primary interpretive frameworks throughout the subsequent thematic and topical chapters.
Models of practice and attainment
While it may seem self-evident that “realization of the Dao” or “attunement with the Way” is both the origin and culmination of a Daoist training regimen, one cannot deny that Daoists have developed and advocated different and perhaps competing models for such realization or attunement. Some traditional models of Daoist praxis include the following:
1 Alchemical: Transformation of self through ingestion of various substances (external) and/or through complex physiological practices (internal).
2 Ascetic: Renunciation, perhaps even body-negation. May involve psychological purification (internal) or practices such as fasting, sleep deprivation, voluntary poverty, etc. (external).
3 Cosmological: Emphasis on cosmological integration and seasonal attunement.
4 Dietetic: Attentiveness to consumption patterns and influences.
5 Ethical: Emphasis on morality and ethics, including precept study and application.
6 Hermeneutical: Emphasis on scripture study and interpretation, often resulting in the production of commentaries.
7 Meditative: Meditation as central, with the recognition of diverse types of meditation.
8 Quietistic: “Non-action” (wuwei), involving non-interference, nonintervention, and effortless activity, as central.
9 Ritualistic: Ritual as central, with the recognition of diverse types of ritual expression and activity.
As discussed in more detail in the following chapter, these models emerge in specific contexts and may be associated with particular Daoist movements (see Komjathy 2008b), but most Daoists employed and recommended a combination.
An interpretative framework based on models of Daoist practice helps one understand the diverse expressions of Daoist religiosity and “paths to the Dao.” This interpretative framework will, in turn, be used throughout the present book. In concert with insights derived from Religious Studies (see, e.g. Smart 1999), it supplies at least one of the organizational structures of our inquiry: cosmology and theology (Chapter 6), ethics (Chapter 8), dietetics (Chapter 9), health and longevity practice (Chapter 10), meditation (Chapter 11), hermeneutics (Chapter 12), ritual (Chapter 13), and material culture (Chapter 15).
Towards a postmodern and postcolonial approach
The aim of a postmodern and postcolonial approach to the study of Daoism would be to move beyond solely Western frameworks and concerns, especially Western academic accounts of Daoism. It would consider indigenous Chinese and Daoist views, especially through conversations and direct experience with Chinese Daoist adherents and communities, but it would not privilege those. It would attempt to avoid any ethnocentric bias. It would be neither Sinocentric nor Eurocentric, neither Orientalist nor Occidentalist. At the same time, the academic study of Daoism must be Sinocentric on some level. Pre-modern China is the source-culture of
Daoism, and Daoism has deep connections with traditional Chinese culture. This includes language and informing worldviews. Any informed perspective must acknowledge “Chinese Daoism” as the source-tradition of contemporary “global Daoism.”
The postcolonial approach would specifically include voices from the Chinese Daoist tradition itself. It would attempt to understand Daoism from Daoist perspectives. Historically speaking, one would understand the ways in which Daoists have defined and understood their tradition. This would include contemporary Daoist perspectives as well. Here we must recognize that Daoists are adherents of Daoism, with ordained and lineage-based priests and monastics being the primary representatives (see Chapter 3). To allow one’s understanding of Daoism to be informed by Daoist perspectives presupposes religious literacy concerning Daoism and Daoist religious affiliation, identity, and adherence. It requires that one actually has access to Daoists. Such an approach faces a number of challenges in the modern world, not the least of which is widespread misunderstanding and misrepresentation (see Chapter 16; Komjathy 2011b). Most self-identified “Daoists” in the West, most visible through various “virtual communities,” unreliable electronic sources, and popular publications, have fabricated their identities from the various colonialist, missionary, and Orientalist legacies already mentioned. Metaphorically speaking, they are primarily tourists or miners in the sacred site of Daoism.
In a postcolonial approach, ordained Daoists and adherents with formal standing in the religious community, actual committed Daoists and representatives of Daoism, would be empowered to speak for their tradition. This would especially include indigenous Chinese Daoist perspectives. It would recognize and respect individuals with formal commitments to and participation in the Daoist religious community. One interpretive benefit from the postcolonial approach is that it guides us to study the tradition through the tradition. It allows us to understand the ways in which Daoists have established and developed their tradition. We may then avoid some of the abovementioned interpretive issues, although the question of historical viability remains. For example, most modern Daoists view the contours of Daoist history in a way parallel to the present book. They see so-called daojia as part of so-called daojiao. In such a context, daojia functions something like “classical Daoism,” while daojiao functions something like “organized Daoism.” That is, Daoism is a diverse, but unified religious tradition. This tradition begins with classical Daoism, and includes the Daode jing and Nanhua zhenjing (Zhuangzi) as Daoist scriptures, as sacred texts and manifestations of the Dao (see Chapter 12). Moreover, many modern Daoists read those texts as practice manuals, as guidebooks for Daoist cultivation.
Allowing Daoist views and perspectives to inform one’s understanding of Daoism is thus both challenging and enlightening. With respect to the former, it requires that one find actual Daoist adherents as conversation partners and actual Daoist communities and places as educational locales. This is especially challenging outside of China. Few “connoisseurs of Daoism” have actually met tradition-based Daoists, specifically ordained priests and monastics. To understand Daoism thus requires vigilance in terms of establishing parameters of inclusion and identifying legitimate sources of interpretive authority. It requires one to avoid, or at least to critically investigate, popular appropriations and distortions. It might involve avoiding the internet altogether as a viable source of information (see Chapter 16). In contrast, actual conversations with Daoists, whether through historical sources or modern clergy, reveal unexpected insights. These might include the importance of community, connection, cultivation, embodiment, energetic awareness, place, ritual, sacred presence, tradition, virtue, and so forth. For educators, a postcolonial approach that includes actual Daoist views might lead to alternative questions and new interpretations. One might in turn wonder whether or not a Daoist-inspired or actual Daoist type of scholarship is possible.
As this book attempts to demonstrate, there is an academic model of scholarship that may be simultaneously historical, theoretical, ethnographic, and postcolonial. Metaphorically speaking, such an approach would attempt to overcome approaching Daoism as historical artifact, museum piece, and/or mining site. Such an approach might understand Daoism as an old growth forest, intact culture, and/or sacred site. The present book in turn aims to be a field-guide and a map to the landscape of Daoism as a Chinese and now global religious tradition.
FIGURE 1 Map of Chongyang gong (Palace of Chongyang; Huxian,
Shaanxi) during the Yuan Dynasty
Source: Photo by author (Louis Komjathy)
FURTHER READING
Bokenkamp, Stephen. 2005. “Daoism: An Overview.” In Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Lindsay Jones, volume 14, 2176–92. New York and London: Macmillan.
Campany, Robert. 2003. “On the Very Idea of Religions (In the Modern West and in Early Medieval China).” History of Religions 42: 287–319.
Kirkland, Russell. 1997. “The Historical Contours of Taoism in China: Thoughts on Issues of Classification and Terminology.” Journal of Chinese Religions 25: 57–82.
—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.
Komjathy, Louis. 2011a. “Basic Information Sheet on Daoism.” Center for Daoist Studies. www.daoistcenter.org/basic [Accessed on June 1, 2012].
—2011b. “Common Misconceptions concerning Daoism.” Center for Daoist Studies. www.daoistcenter.org/basic [Accessed on June 1, 2012].
Roth, Harold. 1999. Original Tao: Inward Training (Nei-yeh) and the Foundations of Taoist Mysticism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sivin, Nathan. 1978. “On the Word ‘Taoist’ as a Source of Perplexity.” History of Religions 17: 303–30.
