Journal of Daoist Studies, Volume 13, 2020, pp. 106-135 (Article)
Published by University of Hawai'i Press
========
A False Dao?
Popular Daoism in America
CAI JUEMIN
Abstract
Quite a few popular books that explain Dao, such as certain translations of the Daode jing and The Tao of Pooh, have been heavily criticized by Western scholars as colonialist appropriations of Chinese culture, and thus as examples of a “false” Dao. However, such critiques are presented without considering the view in China, after all the birthplace of the concept of Dao. This paper aims to add a Chinese perspective to this discussion.
First, I analyze the high-frequency words and contents of these popular texts, showing that Dao in these books not only possesses similarities with its Chinese counterpart, but also does not conflict with the serious Dao as defined in Western academics. Next, I suggest that Western scholars declare popular Dao as false, because they judge it based on their own ideas and Western religious conceptions. They ignore the special manifestations of Dao in China, such as its infiltration into daily life, where it does not necessarily manifest as religious practices or rites. Last, combining the manifestation of Dao in the Chinese tradition and its contemporary Chinese understanding with the American Dao, I conclude that the popular Dao is in fact worthy of recognition as Dao and deserves to be studied further. After all, Dao by definition has no rigid form or fixed boundaries and must be inclusive.
During the second half of the last century, the Chinese notion of Dao or Tao spread from academic circles to the Western public, and a special form of Western popular Daoism formed. For example, in the United States, besides spiritual seekers who travel to Chinese sacred mountains, there are also Daoists who practice in America having never been to
106
China. Both groups have already been studied in Western academic circles (Palmer and Siegler 2017; Miller 2007; Siegler 2003; Siegler 2010). Beyond this, there is what Russell Kirkland (1997) calls “Pooh Tao,” generally more popular than the works of actual Daoists and evident from the broad engagement with Daode jing translations. According to Lucas Carmichael, since 2010 an average eighteen translated versions have been published each year (2017, 5-7). But Daoism already penetrated many Western societies before that. Books like The Tao of Physics (Capra 1975) and The Tao of Pooh (Hoff 1982) gave rise to a flourishing culture, expressed in many books with titles like The Tao of . . ., Tao or Dao at that point became a term for living wisdom among ordinary people.
What is Popular Daoism?
To understand the nature of popular Daoism in the West, we must consider the basic viewpoints of this community’s most popular books, such as Stephen Mitchell’s Tao Te Ching, Wayne W. Dyer’s Change Your Thoughts, Change Your Life, and John Heider’s The Tao of Leadership, all bestsellers in the United States.
A bestselling spiritual writer, Stephen Mitchell was asked to translate the Daode jing by the American Times Publishing House in 1984. Without any training in Chinese, he drew inspiration from previous English translations and managed to create a thoughtful vision of Daoism. For example, he differentiates between Dao and God, “Although Dao is the basis for all things, it is not a dominator: All things are born from it, yet it does not create them” (1999, ch. 34). The manner, in which Dao creates things, is different from that of artisans who shape form according to their own subjective will. Dao creates things as a mother would a child. It is the origin, but not the explicit cause of every aspect of that child or its life. Everything created by Dao, therefore, has its own way and its own vitality instead of being entirely dependent on God.
According to Mitchell, this vitality should be freely released. He says, “Can you deal with the most vital matters by letting events take their course?” (ch. 10); “See the world as your self. Have faith in the way things are.” (ch.13). He asserts that Laozi teaches how everything in the universe is in harmony as a whole, and how the person who pursues Dao becomes one with his opponents instead of conquering them. As he notes, “The master has mastered nature; not in the sense of conquering it, but of becoming it.” He also cites a variety of lifestyles that “follow the Dao,” emphasizing a holistic view of the universe and the practice of nonaction as the core nature of Daoism (see also Cai 2014).
Similar ideas also appear in Wayne W. Dyer’s rendition and commentary, Change Your Thoughts, Change Your Life. Having also gained his understanding of the Daode jing from previous translations, he focuses on the core of Dao as a spiritual power. To him, “being born from nonbeing” means that the invisible nonbeing of the spirit of being is the root of all beings with visible shape and color (2009, 197). He also says, “Commentaries on the Daode jing generally interpret Dao as ‘the Way’ and de as ‘shape and power’” (2009, xiii). For him, Dao is characterized by naturalness, which allows things to naturally exist instead of operating compulsively under the domination of God. As Dao is the origin and basis of human beings, they should not deviate from Dao to satisfy material desire. Even people who have fallen into materialism can still be happy if they return to the root of Dao. This interpretation is reminiscent of the notion of clarity and stillness (qingjing 清静) in the Chinese tradition.
Both books emphasize overall harmony, naturalness, and nonaction. Is their idea of Dao representative of other popular books? To answer this question, I compare the frequency of certain key words in Change Your Thoughts, Change Your Life (Dyer 2009), The Tao of Leadership (Heider 1985), and 365 Tao: Daily Meditations (Deng 1992). Although The Tao of Leadership is not a professional academic book, it has been cited in more than 400 articles. The author says
There are tens of thousands of Daoist saying and beliefs that extend to practically all areas of live itself. A list includes the practice of moderation, yielding, following, reflection, facilitation, silence, non-intervention, organizing, simplicity, inclusion, awareness, integrity, encounters, opportunities, rigidity, helpfulness and letting go. (1986, 197)
Change Your Thoughts, Change Your Life, in its table of contents that presents all eighty-one chapters of the Daode jing, has a number of key catch phrases expressing ideas of “whole” or “balanced,” including paradoxical unity, contentment, impartially, wholeness, without excess, creatively, in the flow, oneness, cooperating, and without enemies. It also uses terms indicating “calm” or “harmony,” like harmony with constancy, calmly, melting into harmony, and without resentments. It refers variously to “nature” by mentioning concepts such as natural law, own nature, without rules, knowing when to stop, letting go, and without difficulties. Further words indicate an emphasis on “compliance,” like without striving, flexibility, without force, humility, returning and yielding, peaceful, remaining low, awe and acceptance, and bending.
Beyond that, the table of contents has expressions indicating personal independence, such as beyond ego, by your inner light, beyond life, enlightened leader, independent mind, without attachment, with inner conviction, and our own utopia. It also uses various terms for lessening judgment, including decreasing, being here now, staying simple-hearted, without authoritarianism, as well as untroubled by good or bad fortune. Other phrases go beyond different categories, such as elusive paradox, greatness, virtuously, simplicity, beyond appearances, and more. The table of contents in The Tao of Leadership similarly uses terms meaning whole and balance, including unity, integrity, and equity; expressions relating to calmness and harmony, like fight, helping, and inclusion; words meaning natural, such as natural, flow, flowing, letting go, non-intervention, simplicity, slow down, intervention, selfishness, and water; phrases indicating compliance, for example, progress, process, soft, understanding, push, resistance, rigidity, and yielding; words relating to personal independence, such as being oneself, selfishness, and ego; and phrases beyond specific categories, like answer, argument, awareness, discerning, efficiency, encounters, leadership, and so on.
The connection between the two books is obvious. They both emphasize ideas relating to holistic, harmonious, natural, non-active, and compliant, along with balance, unity, flow, ego, and yielding. Counting the high frequency words in other books of a similar ilk, it emerges that they also emphasize the same ideas. Many even have them right in their titles, such as Everyday Tao: Living with Balance and Harmony (Deng 1996), The Tao of Stress: How to Calm, Balance, and Simplify Your Life (Smith 2013), and The Tao of Relationships: A Balancing of Man and Woman (Grigg 2011). The same also holds true for other popular books in this area that have reached a high sales volume over the past several years. Here, too, certain high-frequency words such as harmony, love, balance, whole, and yin-yang occur frequently as they emphasize nonaction and the removal of self-ego. Below is a chart of the high frequency words in two other books, where I list the number of times these words appeared.
|
Book |
Love/ Harmony |
Balance/ Oneness |
Self / Ego |
Accept / Nonaction |
God |
Way / Wisdom |
|
Lin 2007 |
13 / 12 |
3 / 8 |
11 / 14 |
14 / 3 |
6 |
13 / 32 |
|
Dyer 2009 |
75 / 84 |
13 / 46 |
81 / 68 |
9 / 11 |
43 |
75 / 131 |
|
Deng 1992 |
25 / 20 |
18 / 26 |
28/ 21 |
42 / 1 |
10 |
24 / 114 |
Beyond
these, there are many other terms used frequently that are essentially
synonymous. For example, “cooperation,” another way to express harmony and
balance, appears most frequently in The
Tao of Leadership, emphasizing that companies should pay attention to the
internal collaboration of the group. In The
Tao of Pooh, “knowledge” is commonly used, as the author articulates the
non-rational concept of intuition and favors wisdom (Hoff 1982).
Since popular books are not academically
precise, their presentation of Dao is not fully standardized and tends to match
to common understanding, obviously relating it closely to Western culture.
Thus, the word God appears quite often in certain books, such as Change Your Thoughts, Change Your Life.
Does all this mean that popular Western
readings of Dao are entirely arbitrary? To me, the Daoism they articulate and
that found in academic research are not very different. For example, the
outstanding sinologist Roger T. Ames and the contemporary comparative philosopher
David L Hall in their translation of the Daode
jing emphasize correlative cosmology and recognize the complementary
relationship between opposites. According to them, the formation of
complementary and harmonious relations is inseparable from the spontaneous
nature of the universe, as the universe and beings in the world are
spontaneous, natural, and self-so-ing (2003, 23, 39, 68, 211). These are ideas
also presented in popular books, as is the emphasis Ames and Hall place on
change, expressed in terms of progress and flow in popular readings.
Other Western academic works, too, apply Dao
in practical ways and relate it to cooperation, harmony, and balance (see Ely
2009; Du et al. 2011; Flowers 1998). The
reasons why Dao is popular among Westerners in general and in academia are
fundamentally similar. The Dao the author of a best-selling book who does not
know Chinese describes is not as distorted as Western scholars suggest in their
criticism. The public’s understanding of Daoism is the same as that of academic
scholars as regard notions of overall balance, nonaction, harmony between yin
and yang, and the power that flows naturally through the universe. Other scholars, too, share the same views as
popular authors. Although they do not directly affirm and endorse popular
Daoism, their understanding of Dao is quite similar. Why is this?
A Life of Dao
The research undertaken by Roger Ames on
the differences between Eastern and Western philosophy may help to explain it.
Traditional Chinese have a subtle and complex way of thinking in their
worldview and cosmology that applies fruitfully to the ongoing critique of
transcendence as a core notion of European-centered Western philosophy. The
increasingly growing interest in philosophers like Alfred North Whitehead,
especially within American pragmatism, encourages Western philosophers to draw
on Chinese traditions as they mature within their own philosophical culture of
self-criticism (Ames 2006, 6).
The
cosmological articulation of Dao in translations and popular books emphasizes
wholeness and balance, completely in line with Chinese notions of Dao. However,
the emphasis in academic books is on theoretical understanding and
interpretation while popular authors focus on the lifestyle created by
following Dao in actual practice. As books like of Change Your Thoughts, Change Your Life document, it is such a beneficial
lifestyle that their authors become widely popular for many years. Rather than
a fundamental shift in reading, it is this practical focus that has caused
academic scholars to accuse popular authors of removing the “true” tradition of
Dao. The key question remains: Can the way of life expressed in popular works
be called the life of following true Dao? Let us look at certain key
characteristics of this life of Dao.
First, such a life of Dao is “oblivious” (wang 忘)
of the ego as determined by the social value system that only honors the
conquest of the outside world and the pursuit of self as the embodiment of
human power and rationality. However, when this value system is pushed to the
extreme, people will mistake the self polluted by the social as the real self
and try to satisfy that false self’s desire for wealth, reputation, and status,
not knowing how to return to the true self that takes Dao as its root. Facing
such a condition, when the person who follows Dao proposes to be oblivious of
everything, which is not forgetting in the biological sense, but the
transcendence of self-consciousness that elevates one to a higher level. The
most direct embodiment of being oblivious is to be oblivious of all the
aspirations for wealth and fame:
In the process of being oblivious,
we suppress desire, expel selfishness, and cast off bondage. We are oblivious
of the liver and gallbladder, oblivious of time and righteousness, oblivious of
what we receive, oblivious of heaven, oblivious of everything, and thus
oblivious of all unrelated things. This is actually a process of continuously
seeking truth. (Chen 2012, 47)
The
sage following Dao as represented in popular Western works similarly is aware
of his unlimited self and resists the drive for material possessions and fame.
He avoids being corrupted and returns to the root.
The more powerful manifestation of
“self” is the “consciousness of self” The rationalism of “I think, therefore I
am” is indispensable to modernity; however, the human whose mind is completely
occupied by metaphysics or reason can no longer perceive the real, authentic
spirit, or life in the living world. The idea of negating rationalism is
resonant with postmodernism, which manifests as the denial of self-awareness
and the thought that people have been proud of because of our identification of
ourselves with the ego, what we ordinarily call action, or doing, cuts us off
from the complete reception of conscious energy in our bodies and actions.
(Feng
1989, xxii).
This view is also reflected in the emphasis on letting go and being without
attachment in Change Your Thoughts, Change Your Life, indicating a way of
not interfering with the natural development of things, not obsessing over the
self-subjective will. Following Dao, then, means realizing that everything has
its own intrinsic nature and respecting the inherent law of the development of
things.
Other books, too, place acceptance and letting
go side by side, because only by sincerely accepting the way things are can we
successfully let go. In this way, people can lead a life of peace and calm,
that is, a life of Dao, a life of balance and harmony. The proponents of Dao in
this sense in all cases advocate understanding and adapting to the current
situation instead of direct confrontation or domination. As Gia-Fu Feng notes,
Accept what is in front of you
without wanting the situation to be other than it is. Study the natural order
of things and work with it rather than against it, for to try to change what is
only sets up resistance…We will come to appreciate the original meaning of the
word “understand,” which means “stand under.” (1989, ix-x)
Accepting whatever is happening, Dao can lead to inner peace as
Diane Dreher explains,
Peace, Lao Tzu realized, is an
inside job. Only when we find peace within ourselves can we see more clearly,
act more effectively, cooperating with the energies within and around us to
build a more peaceful world…Seeing beyond the shifting tides of circumstance,
we recognize the patterns of ebb and flow underlying all of nature. . . .
If we look beneath the clamor and clutter of
our lives, we recognize our own inner rhythms, which are part of the
overarching rhythms of nature. By following these rhythms, we can find greater
peace for ourselves. (2000, xiv)
Realizing this, people following Dao will
be happy to withdraw from confrontation with the outside world.
Second, the life of Dao destroys the self of
secular society while constructing a true self resting in Dao, positive and
relaxed. Stephen Mitchell interprets this as “satisfying with all of you and
accepting the natural development of things happily” (1989, 47). Being
oblivious of everything, people who follow Dao are not static or dead, but
better understand Dao that lies in the life of the world.
Stephen Mitchell’s wife, Byron Katie, notes
she likes Dao without knowing the ultimate reality. She says, “I don’t
understand concepts like ultimate. For me, reality is simple. There’s nothing
behind it or above it, and it holds no secrets. It’s whatever is in front of
you, whatever is happening. When you argue with it, you lose” (2008, xii).
People transcending the obstacles of thought
resonate harmoniously in their communication with the other in Dao and in
nature; they feel the rhythm of life. As RZA says, “So in that sense, we are
all Wu-Tang. You are Wu-Tang. If you ever stood on a mountain or by an ocean
and felt a deep connection, a vast infinite presence inside you, you felt it:
what Daoists call Oneness” (2010, vii). When experiencing harmony with Dao,
life is a scroll painting that slowly unrolls, full of fascinating vistas.
Following Dao, people draw back from the
pursuit of the transcendent realm of the world to come; instead, they turn to
the life of this world here and now. It is precisely because Dao is not some
distant transcendent God, but exists in the hearts of individuals in the world
that they can and should follow their own unique way, which also adapts to the
needs of postmodern individuals. “A true generation-Xer establishes his or her
self-identity clearly and strongly, knowing exactly who s/he is so that s/he
can stand on his or her own feet without bothering about anyone else’s
opinions.” (Kim 2014, p.5). The Dao’s negation of the self is much the same as
the negation of the new individualism of the modern alienated self. As a new
way of life, being natural and resting in nonaction do not result in negative
regression.
For
the public, the Daode jing does not
contain abstract and impractical ideas, but presents a worldly wisdom and
advocates a specific lifestyle, a way of self-realization. This is clear in The Tao of Leadership and its widespread
popularity among academics. Following Dao is to follow and accept. It means to
never look at the world pessimistically, but to believe that things have their
own inner strength, to accept the natural state of things while maintaining a
keen observation of things, so that the inner energy of all can be fully
released and brought to fruition. Everyone who likes Dao can see the wisdom of
conforming to it.
Many works accordingly affirm the centrality
of wisdom, such as The Wisdom of the Tao (Deng 2018) and The Tao of Teaching (Nagel 1998). As a method
and way of life, Dao—as described in popular books—is in line with the Chinese
understanding, making people turn attention away from the world and focus on
life in the here and now. To live a
life of Dao means to emphasize the organic overall view of the universe,
the balance in yin and yang, the wisdom of life, and the true self. However, in
the academic world, certain scholars have degraded this way of looking at Dao
as inauthentic. Why is this?
The Academic Take
Popular books on Dao and the accompanying
rise of popular Daoism have not escaped the notice of Western scholars. Some
reject this, most importantly Erik Zürcher, Karl-Heinz Pohl, Russell Kirkland,
and Louis Komjathy. Others speak highly of it, including Julia Hardy and J. J.
Clarke. For example, Hardy says that “bad” translations often form the foundation
of “good” religion, meaning the translations of Daoist texts by those without
direct access to the original may be technically bad translations, but produce
a form of worthwhile religion (1998, 171). Clarke thinks this phenomenon
contributes to the transmission of Dao and benefits the development of Western
thought (2000, 194–211). In addition, some scholars hold a more neutral and
objective view, such as Norman Girardot, who engaged in two different stages of
Daoist studies, and David A. Palmer and James Miller who maintain a more
sociological perspective, studying various forms of American Daoism and
translations of the Daode jing.
Why
do scholars oppose popular Daoism? Among Europeans, the well-known Buddhist
scholar Erik Zürcher believes that the most important and essential aspect of
the Daode jing is specialist
religious practice and accordingly does not appreciate its popularity among
ordinary people. He thinks the idea that the sage Laozi’s Dao is practiced by
managers and industrial capitalists is laughable (1992, 302-03).
The
German sinologist Karl-Heinz Pohl thinks that Dao is a panacea for Western
society’s mental illnesses, such as excessive material desire and spiritual
emptiness. For him, popular books on Dao are only vulgarized Daoist teachings
combining a mixture of mysticism, wisdom of life, and ultimate truth with the
ambiguity and openness of the ancient mysterious text. In his view, the spread
of Daoism to the masses is a plaything of the times, and its influence is
developing from the ideological level to religious behavior (2003, 18).
In
spite of many similarities, the difference between the two stances comes from
divergent starting points. As a religious scholar, Zürcher stresses the role of
religious cultivation related to the Daode
jing he thinks is not present in popular books, while Pohl rejects popular
books because of their lack of academic rigor. As a result, Zürcher speaks
highly of popular translations as they often align with religious practice,
while Pohl believes that the “creative misreading” of popular works could be
conducive to the development of Western thought, but Westerners cannot really
understand Dao. Although the specific attitudes of the two scholars differ,
both are consistent in the attitude of refusing to consider popular books as
authentic.
Many scholars in America show little regard
for popular Daoism. For example, Steve Bradbury notes that Dao in the United
States is an “American conquest of philosophical Daoism” for its own use and
believes that Witter Bynner injected the individualism of Ralph Waldo Emerson
into the Daode jing (1992, 35). His
view is mirrored by that of Russell Kirkland, who sharply criticizes the
translations of Stephen Mitchell (1988) and Ursula K. Le Guin (1997) and books
like The Tao of Pooh, arguing that
the American interpretation of Dao is cultural colonization. He describes the
Dao of popular books as “there is no God; there is no true moral authority
outside of myself; truth is whatever I say it is” (1997). Louis Komjathy
similarly compares the popular Dao to the Zen of the
1950s and 60s, claiming that it is full of
misconceptions. He says,
These misconceptions have their
origins in traditional Confucian prejudices, European colonialism, and
Christian missionary sensibilities, especially as expressed by late
nineteenth-century Protestants. Most of these views are located in American
designer hybrid (New Age) spirituality, Orientalism, Perennial Philosophy, and
spiritual capitalism. They domesticate, sterilize, and misrepresent Daoism, and
disempower actual Daoists and Daoist communities. In their most developed
expressions, they may best be understood as part of a new religious movement
(NRM) called popular Western Taoism (PWT), with Taoism pronounced with a hard
“t.” (2014)
His
conclusion about these popular works is that “such works have no place in a
serious inquiry into an accurate understanding of Daoism. They are part of
popular Western culture, New Age spirituality as well as self-help and pop
psychology” (2014, 56). He believes that they are not related to Daoism as a
religious tradition.
Both
Kirkland and Komjathy are professional Daoist scholars, and
Komjathy is also an initiated priest of
the Complete Perfection school. Their research has enabled them to gain a deeper
understanding of Chinese Daoism, but it has also caused them to present their
ideas as the pinnacle of all its forms. Inferring from the fact that early
Western Daoism was rooted in various Orientalist misunderstandings, they assert
that the contemporary perception is also incorrect. They judge Dao in popular
books based on what they consider to be the real and true Dao, and compare the
American Daoism of ordinary people with what they teach as the genuine
tradition, thus denying the pure spiritual and emotional pursuits of Dao found
in popular books. They do not completely deny American Daoism, but they assert
that the Daoism in their own minds is the only authentic and true version.
Other scholars tend to criticize the
particular translations offered in popular books. For example, Paul R. Goldin
criticizes the reading by Thomas H. Miles (1992) because he translates ju 居 as “claim credit” in
keeping with Wing-tsit Chan’s translation (1963). In Goldin’s view, ju should be translated as “dwell” or
“reside,” even though this makes little sense in this context and the term is
best read as “claim credit” and not “dwell.” He is also displeased at their
uncritical adoption of the term and that they they did not notice the usage of ju within the text: “It is evident that
both Miles and Mitchell have read Wing-tsit Chan and helped themselves to his
phrasing as it suits them” (2012, 185). While Goldin’s perspective on the
technique of translation is quite right, he ignores the heavily contextual
characteristics of ancient Chinese and the flexibility needed to do justice to
complex works such as the Daode jing.
Other Views
In contrast, Norman Girardot is more
understanding of popular Daoism. A scholar with two distinct research phases in
his career, he not only emphasizes cultivation and rituals but also pays
attention to philosophical texts that dominated the discussion before Daoist
studies expanded into the Daoist Canon. He first used both The Tao of Pooh and Stephen Mitchell’s translation to get his
students to engage with Dao, then also came to realize the importance of
religious practice (De Angelis and Frisina 2008, 106). He called on everyone to
face up the phenomenon of popular Daoism instead of only denouncing its
representatives. Similarly, Livia Kohn proposes that teachers of the Daode jing “take seriously their
responsibility to help move students from a singular image of the Daode jing as an Americanized version of
the ‘go-with-the-flow philosophy of life’ to an appreciation of the
multifarious history and ongoing reception of this text and the traditions it
has helped spawn” (Kohn 2008, x). Most of
these experts express their views on popular Daoist books without presenting
extensive research on the phenomenon. This is remedied by David A. Palmer,
Elijah Siegler, and James Miller who focus their studies on Americans who love
Dao—some are serious cultivation practitioners while others content themselves
with philosophy and literature. However, many Daoists they investigate are
readers of popular books; they live and work and practice in the context of
American Daoism.
Elijah Siegler specializes in the formation of
popular Daoism. A large portion of his research focuses on Western Daoist
masters who have no training in cultivation. They only have read some Daoist
philosophers or popular books like The
Tao of Pooh before they “claim they follow the Dao.” Although lacking
knowledge of the history and cultivation of Daoism, they self-identify as
people knowing Dao. On the other hand, they do not like the identity of being
Daoist, which they regard as a form of limitation, and reject any association
with religious Daoism.
Elijah Siegler uses the theory of the
sociologist Vad Krakroff that in the past few decades, religion has become more
and more a personal matter, traditional religious organizations have weakened,
and beliefs have become personal choices and individual experiences rather than
communal affairs. This accords with modern identity formation theory, which
explains that people form identities from a series of choices (Siegler 2010,
52). Citing sociologist Anthony Giddens, he notes that selfidentification must
be created and reordered continuously in the context of the transformation of
everyday life experiences and modern institutional divisions (2010, 53).
In
this context, the Daoists of contemporary America present a new kind of
self-identity. Some he interviewed explain how they received natural wisdom
from reading various Daode jing translations,
which closely matches the vision conveyed in popular books. One American Daoist
says, “The Integral Way Society serves the modern world through sharing the natural
wisdom of the tradition of Lao Tzu and the ancient Daoist sages, as transmitted
by Hua-Ching Ni. We cultivate balance, health, harmony and virtue within our
lives and all society” (Siegler 2010, 56).
It
is worth noting that when Kirkland denies the priestly status of these people
for their lack of “religious rites and knowledge,” they actually concur, as
they generally oppose the type of folk or religious Daoism marked by such
activities. As Hua-Ching Ni notes, “I have clearly stated on many occasions
that I do not teach Daoism in the religious sense. If religion is your
interest, then you need a different teacher” (Siegler 2010, 58). It is obvious
that they are opposed to equating themselves with religion, and only think that
they engage with the natural wisdom of the tradition of Laozi and the ancient
Daoist sages.
Michael Winn, the leader of Healing Dao USA
and a senior disciple of Mantak Chia says along the same lines,
[American] Daoism is taking a
different form, not necessarily a religious form, than it is taking in China,
with temples and uniforms, and the state religion and all that stuff, that’s
its history. In the West it’s taking more of the form of personal belief and
identification with Dao and the structures of the Dao, kind of like getting
back to early Daoism, before all that existed in China. (Siegler 2010, 59)
Both these American Daoists specifically
indicate that they do not have a ritualized or religious form and possess
neither temples nor uniforms. They believe that the genuine Dao is lost when
organized Daoism appeared in China, that true Dao spirit disappeared.
Therefore, they are now the real Daoists to restore Dao to the Chinese. At the
same time, many other American Daoists make a similar distinction between
religious (bad) and philosophical or esoteric (good) types. They emphasize that
they are philosophical, so as to distinguish themselves from the bad religion.
It
is worth noting that some scholars reject this view and claim that they do not
fully understand Daoism. Louis Komjathy notes,
In the case of Daoism, North
American popular discourse assumes that the distinction between philosophical
Daoism and religious Daoism is true, as well as that the former is “real”
Daoism. Thus, a greater percentage of Daoists in North America would identify
themselves as Daoists simply because they find certain popular publications
meaningful, and these individuals and groups would, in turn, have very little
historical connection to the larger Chinese Daoist tradition. (Komjathy 2004,
8)
In
his view, readers of popular books have nothing to do with the Chinese Daoist
tradition. Elijah Siegler, whose point of view is similar, concludes:
It owes much to the discourse of
restorationism, . . . a deeply American form of arguing religious
authenticity—used by Puritans, Mormons, and Disciples of Christ, among others.
Historian of American religion Richard Hughes defines restorationism as “the
attempt to recover some important belief or practice from the time of pure
beginnings that believers are convinced has been lost, defiled or corrupted.”
(2010, 59)
The
tendency is that practicing Daoists and certain scholars disagree about what it
means to follow Dao. These scholars believe that only those who follow Dao on
the basis of established lineage transmission or a particular tradition of
religious rites are “true” Daoists and thus qualified to bear this name.
Popular practitioners believe that established and formally sanctioned
religious practices and rites bear the mark of falsehood and reject them as
overly technical and not the real Dao. Although their views are opposite, they
uphold the same distinction. Dao without religious practices and rites and
Daoism as institutionalized tradition are seriously different and even stand in
opposition.
That is to say, one side believes that where
there are “actual teachings and . . . actual practices,” there is Dao, while
the other believes that so-called Daoism with religious practices and rites is
really false. The two sides either scorn Dao without practices and rites,
claiming it has no relation to Daoism, or declare that religious forms destroy
the real Dao and limit the true life. This means that Kirkland’s criticism of
the misconception that “Daoists or Dao-ists are those who love Dao and go with
the flow” is also a misunderstanding (Komjathy 2009)—and
so is the popular believer’s view that religious practices and rites are the
mere shadow of real Dao.
Comparing the views of ordinary people and
scholars, it becomes obvious that there is a hidden underlying opposition
between Dao and Daoism, potentially present in the differences of
exposure.
The potentially productive tension
between popular and academic approaches to the Daode jing thus immediately relates to another, also potentially
productive, tension that is perhaps most neatly captured by Michael LaFargue’s
hermeneutical distinction between the attempt to reconstruct what the text
“meant to its original authors and audience” and what it can mean to a
contemporary reader. (DeAngelis and Frisina 2008. 4)
Certain scholars pursue the original form of
Daoism with Chinese traditional practices and rites, while contemporary readers
aim more for an understanding of their own Dao, cleansed of the ritualized
teachings and practices dictated by authoritative organizations that tend to suppress
individuality. To them, this kind of Dao is truly original.
Philosophers have further additions to offer
to this debate. For example, Paul Fischer believes that “there is no such thing
as Daoism. While the terms ‘Dao’ and ‘ism’ exist in Chinese, there is no such
Word as ‘Daoism’ in Chinese: it is a Western invention” (2018, 2). He believes
that the Chinese categories of daojia 道家 and daojiao 道教 have something in common, such as meditation and health, but “the
differences between philosophical and religious Daoism are far more numerous
than mere longevity” (2018, 17). Besides, he proposes a view different from and
even opposite to that of religious scholars. “Some religious scholars have
sought to delegitimize philosophical Daoism. But the salient facts remain.
Despite the unfortunate matter of the singularity of the Western word ‘Daoism,’
there has always only ever been daojia
and, later, daojiao(s)” (2018, 19).
He denies the claim that the religion of Daoism includes both the thought of
Laozi and Zhuangzi along with later rituals. Instead, he affirms the status of daojia to which the Dao of the popular
books belongs.
J.
J. Clarke similarly praises the Dao of the West. He claims, “what is not always
given full attention is the pervasive impact of this on the Western tradition
and on the multifarious ways in which the Orient, albeit often gravely
misrepresented, has become woven into and helped to shape the fabric of
European thought and culture” (2000, 5). He also points to the special features
of Chinese Daoism, especially the relationship between daojia and daojiao.
Thus for example, the daojia / daojiao distinction we have
just encountered is by no means isomorphic with the Western distinction between
philosophy and religion, and further, as the historian of religions Jordan
Paper points out, the tendency in European studies to mark out a separation
between religion and culture and the terms familiar enough in the West proves
to be artificial and misleading in the Chinese context. . . .Talk of “being” a
Daoist or of “belonging” to one religion to the exclusion of others is a
locution that needs to be used with great caution in the Chinese context.
(2000, 22)
This, to a certain extent, explains just
why American Daoists are not willing to be treated as “Daoists.”
Clark also reveals significant differences
with religious scholars on other issues. For example, in his opinion Daoism
takes on a subversive role since contemporary Daoists are inclined to believe
that Daoists typically acts in opposition to government and authority when they
have in fact been highly cooperative with imperial power and always sought to
gain its approval. Such a disconnect relates to the fact that characteristics
of Dao exist on a spectrum. On one side, there is the ideal of being natural as
found in the thought of Laozi and Zhuangzi, which encourages resistance against
authority and government. On the other side, nonaction and meditation may lead
Daoists to avoid any form of outside oppression. Therefore, among those who
claim to be fond of Dao, some have worked to get far away from imperial power,
such as Kong Rong 孔融, while others
enthusiastically cooperated with the court, such as Kou Qianzhi 寇謙之.
The
views of religious scholars, ordinary people who claim to follow Dao, and
philosophers are in conflict yet intersect closely with each other. Specific
religious teachings, practices, and rites are common concerns: religious
scholars see them as the mark of true Daoism while popular cultivators
understand them as symbols of the false, desiring to relate directly to Dao and
get away from Daoism as a religion. Religious scholars and philosophers also
show contradictions in the relationship between both Laozi and Zhuangzi and
Daoism as a religion. Religious scholars understand Laozi and Zhuangzi as
Daoist but without independent functioning and separate from ritual life. When
defined thus, Dao in popular books has nothing to do with Daoism, nor with true
Dao in Western guise.
In
contrast, philosophers think that Dao in Laozi and Zhuangzi reflects a
particular type of thought, and some even think that Daoism as a religion is
later than daojia, reflecting the
view of early sinologists. Discussing the question of whether American Daoism
is true or not, Elijah Siegler laments that there are no real speakers, because
no one can speak for Dao. Then, how do people view the behavior of readers who
do not follow specific religious teachings, practices, and rites, but only read
popular books? Is Dao free of religious forms fake? Can Dao be transplanted
from Chinese culture?
The Spectrum of Dao Culture
In the eyes of Western scholars, Daoism is
a product of Chinese culture. They emphasize that true Dao is inherently of
China. What, then, is Dao for the Chinese?
To
begin, is Dao without religious practices and rites necessarily fake? The
religious scholar C. K. Yang, notes that China has no religion in the Western
sense and suggests that the ideology and values of the Chinese are different
from those common to Western religions (1961, 2-6). In China, most ideas and
values are not necessarily expressed as specific beliefs, rituals, and forms,
but rather infiltrate daily life. His views aroused great interest within
Chinese academic circles and are generally accepted today.
Next,
is there a Dao with a clear ideological boundary? Can we say what is Dao and
what is not? In fact, Dao in China includes a spectrum, similar to what
Kirkland suspects of Daoism in North America and what Clarke describes when he
says, “Daoism has begun to penetrate Western consciousness. Daoism’s rising
profile in the West is evident across a whole spectrum of domains ranging from
the popular to the scholarly, from the spiritual to the philosophical” (2000,
3).
Consisting of an entire spectrum means that
there is more emphasis on ideas and beliefs at one end of Dao and more emphasis
on religious practices and rites at the other. They share the same
characteristic of being natural and resting in nonaction, even if these
principles are understood and practiced differently. Diverging interpretations
create fundamental differences with regard to the understanding of Dao. As a
result, some people think that desires should be curbed because they cause joy
and sorrow that prevent people from calmly following Dao while others believe
that one should openly release emotions and satisfy desires as they form part
of being human.
This is an age-old division. Already in the
Chinese middle ages, the Buddhist thinker Liu Xie proposed three levels of Dao,
“The superior advocates Laozi, the medium promotes immortality, and the
inferior follows [Zhang] Daoling.”
This reflects the value judgment of his time,
that Dao as represented in the Daode jing
is nobler than that pursued in the self-cultvation of immortality seekers,
which in turn ranks above communal rituals represented by the Celestial Masters
under the leadership of Zhang Daoling. The ritual element in the latter makes
this form of Dao more open to degeneration, because people who are not really
familiar with Dao can declare themselves Daoist just because they can hold
religious ceremonies. This historical record shows that the idea of Dao
declining and appearing on different levels to explain the difference between daojia and daojiao is not in fact due to the depreciation by Confucians as
claimed by scholars like Komjathy, but has deep and age-old cultural reasons.
Practicing Dao in China does not necessarily
require one to engage with religious practices and rites as would be if one
were to practice any of the major Western religions. This is made clear in many
historical sources. For example, the famous Song scholar Su Shi, although not a
Daoist in his early years, wrote a letter to his brother saying that he had a
special affinity for Zhuangzi and thus adopted certain Daoist views. The same
holds true for many other literati, such as the famous poet Xin Qiji or the
novelist Pu Songling. Many Chinese who never engaged in religious practices and
rites still believed in Dao and cultivated it after their own fashion. This
shows that the tangible form of Daoism is not an inevitable configuration of
Dao.
This notion is also reflected in more
organized forms of Daoism. For example, the early Ming-dynasty master Zhang
Sanfeng 張三丰 promoted the Unity the Three Teachings,
placing Daoism first among equals. However, at the core of this kind of
traditional Dao are not rituals, but the classical Confucian virtues of
benevolence and righteousness. According to him, Daoists acting immorally will
fail no matter how powerful his spells or his rites. The spell might have
power, but it is never equal to that of Dao.
According to Zhang Sanfeng’s biography in the Liexian quanzhuan 列仙全傳 (Many Immortals’ Biographies), a certain Mr. Binghu wanted to teach
him spells. Zhang replied with a smile, “I want to give you Dao, why should you
show me spells?” In his essay Daofa
huitong shu 道法会通疏 (Notes on the
Interconnection of Dao and Spells), he says,
Without spells, Dao cannot
manifest; without Dao, spells lose their root. Only when both Dao and spells
simultaneously exist, can you have both, substance and function. . . The
combination of Dao and spells is the best, just like rubber and paint once mixed
can never be separated.
Dao
and spells or methods here are complementary, but differ in importance: “Dao
can incorporate spells, but spells cannot include Dao.” Not only that, but the
author also emphasizes that in the practice of “cultivating and refining,” the
most precious is outcome is the “golden elixir of goodness and morality.”
In
his Xuanji zhijiang 玄機直講 (Explications of the Core Mechanism of the Mystery), Zhang Sanfeng
further states that “the first step in practice is to eliminate attachment to
emotions, eliminate the adoption of chaos, and lay the foundation for
cultivation.” In his Xuanyao pian 玄要篇 (Essentials of the Mystery), he says, “We must cultivate nature
before practicing alchemy, and we must cultivate our state of mind of our own
soul before making the medicine.” And in the Daoyan qianjin shuo 道言淺近說 (Clear and Simple Explanations of Dao), he points out,
The most important step in the
cultivation of Dao is to cultivate the nature. . . When there are no emotions
and desires to disturb people, no thoughts and considerations, then mood and
character will be safe, without troubles. This is the most important practice.
This is the golden elixir.
This elixir, moreover, is based on
eliminating desires and doing good works. In the Dadao lun 大道論 (On the Great
Dao), Zhang further notes, “If you do not cultivate these things, and just work
on your body and breathing techniques or eat herbs to maintain health, although
you can avoid being sick for a while, you cannot escape the fate of becoming
old, and you will only be laughed at.”
This shows that the cultivation of goodness
and morality is far superior to bodily cultivation in traditional Daoism. Yet,
what did cultivation mean in his time? Was it tangible religious practices and
ritual or a set of life values? An answer appears in the vernacular novel Sanyan erpai 三言二拍 (Stories Old and New, vol. 1: A Ming-Dynasty Collection). A work of
popular fiction, it reflects the historical views of the Chinese people more
objectively than scriptures written by Daoists. In the chapter, “Zhuangzi
Completes the Great Dao by Drumming a Basin” (Zhuangzi gupen cheng dadao 莊子鼓盆成大道), the
conclusion avoids condemning the wife’s betrayal, instead revealing that there
is no difference between the butterfly and Zhuangzi, the duke and the old man.
Everything such as love, wealth, and status are just temporary manifestation of
Dao in the world. The love between husband and wife is just an illusion of
instant loss too.
Similarly, the collection Zhang Daoling qishi Zhao Sheng 張道陵七試趙升 (Zhang Daoling’s Seven Tests for Zhao Sheng), documents how Zhao
Sheng has no regard for beautiful women or gold and was not afraid of tigers he
encountered. These document that people truly following Dao would never harm
their bodies by focusing on external things.
While some earlier sources show Daoist
happiness as living in the enjoyment of material goods, such as palaces,
beautiful women, and delicious food obtained through magical spells,
Ming-dynasty fiction emphasizes that people who control their desires and
practice internal alchemy gain inner peace and are overall more appreciated and
highly esteemed.
This shows that in the traditional Chinese
culture the life of Dao contains a whole spectrum, including both the ideal of
giving up fame and fortune and also the practice of spells and rites. Dao in
China is not only transmitted in tangible rituals but also integrated in daily
life as part of a fundamental cultural modality. A farmer who raises pigs may
not have read the philosophical works of Laozi and Zhuangzi, but his life style
may be closer to Dao than that of a professor at the university. Daoist culture
forms a set of special language (in both academic and everyday discourse),
lifestyle, ideal figures, values, and practices; it subtly induces people to
agree with its cultural paradigms. There is no specific tangible trace of this
Dao as it runs through life, but it is everywhere.
Peng Kaiping has demonstrated how proverbs
widely accepted by the Chinese reflect a dialectical mode of thinking (1999).
For example: “Flowers cannot last one hundred days; people cannot remain lucky
for a thousand days;” “The same flowers bloom every year; people are different
every year;” “A man residing on the east bank of the river for thirty years may
spend his last thirty years on the west bank;” and “Flowers can bloom again,
but old men can never return to youth.” All these indicate dialectical thinking
and a feeling for dynamic opposites and ongoing change. They are highly similar
in outlook to Laozi and Zhuangzi.
Ancient Chinese poems, too, frequently contain verses such as, “Go back,
there is no wind and rain and no fine weather,” indicating the soothing of
various frustrations of the outside world. They reflect an attitude of “take it
as it comes,” thus representing a particular cultural spirit. Daoist values and
life conceptions such as these are not embodied in tangible form but form part
and parcel of the national character of the Chinese people. Thus, Daoism
functions as a complementary attitude to that of Confucianism, serving to bring
peace of mind in the midst of a highly chaotic world. The two are like yin and
yang, together offering a dynamic balance in life. Generally, when people are
young they like Confucianism more, while in middle and old age they come to
honor Daoism. They prefer Confucianism when successful and turn to Daoist ideas
for consolation when frustrated. The proverb, “Trying one’s best in worldly
things while also listening to one’s fate” reflects the two sides of this
balance.
A Chinese Approach
Expressed in the subtleties of daily life,
concepts and attitudes of Dao are hard to pinpoint with measurable certainty.
To flush them out, and to forestall the criticism that this amorphous Dao
without religious practices and rites is only in the imagination of scholars
who have studied the ideas and texts of the tradition, I have developed a
survey and conducted it in all mainland Chinese provinces except Qinghai and
Xinjiang. About 1,000 people participated. Since some respondents had different
educational backgrounds and levels of engagement with Daoism, I presented
different sets of questions to different types of people. Here I list the questions plus the resulting
data.
First are questions asked of people with lower
educational levels, who might not understand the meaning of Daoism and
Confucianism.
1. Have
you heard of “Daoism” and “Confucianism”?
A. I
have heard of Daoism, but never of Confucianism. 11.31%
B. I
have heard of Confucianism, but never of Daoism. 2.71%
C. I
have heard of both. 78.28%
D. I
have never heard of either. 7.69%
2. If
you quarrel with someone, what will you do? A. Find out who is right and
apologize. 15.38%
B. We
were both wrong and each will apologize. 23.53%
C. No
need to be so clear, as everyone is good and all can be wrong. 61.09%
3. Which
is most important: prestige, wealth, knowledge, or life?
A. Prestige.
11.76 %
B. Wealth.
5.43%
C. Knowledge.
10.41%
D. Life.
72.40%
4. When
I am doing something, I will:
A. Make
everything develop according to my will. 4.52%
B. Let
everything develop according to its own way. 5.43%
C. First
A. If can’t, then B. 18.55%
D. Observe
the way how things develop then follow it. 71.49%
5. When
things are not going well, I think:
A. Life
is life, and money and stuff do not matter; I can live without much money.
38.46%
B. It’s
not good now, but may get better; everything changes. 33.48%
C. As
the Buddha fights for fragrant incense, I desperately want to be better than
others. 17.19%
D. I
don’t bother to think about it. 10.86%
Second are questions asked of people with
higher education levels (university and above).
1. I
am influenced by:
A. Confucianism.
38.48%
B. Daoism.
5.65%
C. Both.
51.52%
D. Neither.
4.35%
2. Do
you practice Confucianism or Daoism in your life? Is there ritual?
A. I
practice, but there is no ritual. 71.96%
B. I
practice, and there is ritual. 13.48%
C. I
do not practice, and there is no ritual. 11.74%
D. I
do not practice, but there is ritual. 2.83%
3. Do
you think it is possible for foreigners to accept and practice Dao?
A. They
can understand and practice it. 63.91%
B. They
can’t understand, but can practice its rituals. 16.30%
C. They
can understand, but can’t practice it. 10.00%
D. They
can neither understand nor practice it. 9.78%
Third,
for ordained Daoists, there was one additional question that focuses on whether
the behavior of the Western Daoist is part of to Dao.
1. In the United States, there is a group
of people who read English translations of the Daode jing and books that promote Dao, advocate engaging in a free
and natural lifestyle, paying attention to harmony and tranquility, and forming
friendly relationships with others. These people do not know Chinese or
practice Daoist rituals. Concerning this group, you believe:
A. They
are not part of Dao at all; only Chinese can understand Dao. 6%
B. They
are not part of Daoism; only Chinese can understand Daoism. 3% C. Daoism and Dao are both Chinese, but they have no
rigid form. American Daoism can be regarded as Daoism and certainly is part of
Dao. 15% D. Daoism and Dao are both Chinese,
but Daoism in China has its own specific form. American Daoism is not the same
as that, but it can be regarded as a kind of Dao. 24%
E. Although
Daoism and Dao are both Chinese, they can also be popularized in the world.
They are not exclusively Chinese, but can be regarded as Daoism and Dao. 38%
F. Other.
11%
According to the survey results, lesser
educated people for the most part have heard of both Confucianism and Daoism,
but their attitudes toward life reveal that they prefer a life of Dao rather
than that of Confucianism. Among people with higher education over 50 percent
are influenced by both Confucianism and Daoism, but up to 70 percent eschew
rituals. For those who have rituals, further interviews uncovered that what
they mean by that is just daily actions of formal etiquette, such as respecting
the elderly and their leaders. This makes it is obvious that there are not many
religious-type rituals among ordinary Chinese. Among ordained Daoists, fewer
than 10 percent believed that American Daoism is part of neither Dao nor
Daoism, while most thought that it is acceptable as part of the Daoist
community.
In
further interviews, a Daoist priest indicated that there was a mistake in the
language of my question. He pointed out that the wording of the statement,
“Daoism and Dao are both Chinese,” is not appropriate. While we can say that
Daoism originated in China, it is inaccurate to say that Dao is Chinese,
because Dao is the root source of the universe. It cannot possibly have
national boundaries. Following this exchange, I then asked if we could say that
the concept of Dao originated in China and from there can be popularized around
the world. The Daoist liked this fomulation. In his view, Dao and Daoism are
universal, and naturally can exist in other countries and in different forms.
His statement is exactly the opposite of the misconception critique raised
against American Daoists, which says that “Dao is a trans-religious and universal
name for the sacred, and there are “Dao-ists” who transcend the limitations of
the Daoist religious tradition” (Komjathy 2013).
In
other words, the survey revealed that most Chinese believe that religious
ritual in the form of specific teachings, practices, and rites is not necessary
if and when a person today wishes to follow Dao, and Dao and Daoism are not
limited to China. For most people and Daoists in China, American Daoists who
read popular books but do not perform the religious rites of Chinese Daoism are
fully accepted as being of Dao and Daoism, They belong within the overall
spectrum of Dao.
Conclusion
Scholars in both West and East have
changed the traditional view of the dual opposition between Dao and Daoism, but
for different reasons. Some Western scholars believe that the Dao outlined in
the Daode jing also forms an integral
part of Daoism as a religion. As a result, those who believe they follow Dao
are considered false because they do not practice specific religious practices
and rites. However, many in contemporary Chinese academic circles, including
famous scholars such as Liu Xiaogan
(2006; 2007) and Zhan Shichuang (2015),
believe that there is a certain difference between daojia and daojiao, in
terms of specific religious practices and rites but both belong to the culture
of daoxue 道學. The two are neither the same nor opposites, but exist within the
whole spectrum of Dao. This means there is a transitional zone between them
that is neither black nor white but gray.
For
example, some people following Dao as a lifestyle do not practice specific
rites, but they reveal their engagement with Dao in a number of different ways.
Some like seclusion in the mountains, walking beside rivers and lakes; others
may set aside time for meditation; yet others eschew fame and fortune. The life
of Dao and the life of participating in Daoism as a religion are not in
opposition to each other, but belong on the same spectrum of Dao that gradually
runs from one end to the other. Thus, it
may seem to be paradoxical that some American Daoists oppose religious forms
but still “use the trappings of Chinese exoticism to present their teachings:
Hua-Ching Ni, Solala Towler, Al Huang, Liu Ming, Carl Muller and others play
the bamboo flute, dress in traditional Chinese tunics, or both” (Siegler 2010,
58). However, this is easily acceptable from the Chinese perspective. Playing
the bamboo flute is a manifestation of following Dao, and although it is a more
specific form of expression than pure Dao at one end of the spectrum, it is not
as ritualized as a life according to monastic discipline at the other end. It
is part of the gray transitional zone, adapted to fits the individual
needs. Seeing Daoist culture as a
spectrum, we can understand the contradiction between popular books on Dao and
the Daoism as defined by some Western academics. They think of the former as a
false Dao, yet with some points of intersection with Daoism as recognized by
the academic community and the people in China. Dao as spread in popular books
is a common phenomenon in China and has been throughout Chinese history. There
is no question about any of it being true or false, because any type forms part
of the vast spectrum. It is not difficult to find scholars who originally were
only fond of Laozi and Zhuangzi, but became ordained Daoists in later years.
For the Chinese, any point in the spectrum can be described as Dao.
To
sum up, American Daoism as a segment of popular culture actually evolved from
the study of Dao by the elite, but has developed its own independent life in
the popular realm. Noting the internal consistencies between Laozi and Zhuangzi
and Daoism in Chinese traditional culture and recognizing as well as respecting
the diverse manifestations of Dao, we can accept that the Dao of Laozi and
Zhuangzi, too, forms part of Daoism with its own independence and unique
characteristics, however different they may be from the Daoism that centers on
rites and ceremonies. We can acknowledge that Daoists who admire Laozi and
Zhuangzi have their own legitimate identity without having to engage with the
religious practices and rites that some Western scholars misconceive as the
only authentic Dao. Ultimately the true or false Dao is not a question of East
versus West, but of different phenomena within a wide and all-inclusive
spectrum of Dao.
Bibliography
Ames, Roger
T., and David L. Hall. 2003. Daode Jing:
Making This Life Significant. New York: Ballantine Books.
Ames, Roger
T. 2006. Ziwo de yuancheng: Zhong-Xi
hujingxia de gudian ruxue yu daojia 自我的圆成：中西互镜下的古典儒学与道家. Translated
by Peng Guoxiang 彭国翔.
Shijiazhuang：Hebei
renmin chubanshe.
Bebell, D.
J., and S. M. Fera. 2000. “Comparison and Analysis of Selected English
Interpretations of the Tao Te Ching.”
Asian Philosophy 10.2:133-47.
Bradbury,
Steve. 1992. “The American Conquest of Philosophical Taoism.” In Translation
East and West: A Cross-Cultural Approach, edited by Cornelia N. Moore and
Lucy Lower, 29-41. Honolulu: East-West Center.
Capra,
Fritjof. 1975. The Tao of Physics: An
Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism.
Boulder, Col: Shambhala.
Chan,
Wing-tsit. 1963. A Source Book in Chinese
Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chen Xia 陈霞.
2012. “Xiangwang yuzishi: Lun Zhuangzi zhi wang” 相忘与自适: 论庄子之忘.
Zhexue yanjiu 哲学研究 8:44-49.
Clarke, J.
J. 2000. The Tao of the West: Western
Transformation of Taoist Thought. New York: Routledge.
Cohen, Alan.
2018. The Tao Made Easy: Timeless Wisdom
to Navigate a Changing World. Carlsbad, Calif.: Hay House.
DeAngelis,
Gary D., and Warren G. Frisina, eds. 2008. Teaching
the Daode Jing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Deng, Ming-Dao. 1992. 365 Tao: Daily Meditations. New York:
Harper One.
_____. 1996.
Everyday Tao: Living with Balance and
Harmony. San Francisco: Harper.
_____. 2018.
The Wisdom of the Tao: Ancient Stories
that Delight, Inform, and Inspire. Charlottesville: Hampton Roads
Publishing.
Dreher, Diane. 2000. The Tao of Inner Peace. New York:
Penguin Putnam.
Du, Rong, S.
Ai, and C. M. Brugha. 2011. “Integrating
Taoist Yin-Yang Thinking with Western Nomology.” Chinese Management Studies 5.1:55-67.
Dyer, Wayne
W. 2009. Change Your Thoughts, Change
Your Life: Living the Wisdom of the Tao. Carlsbad: Hay House.
Ely, Bonita.
2009. “Change and Continuity: The Influences of Taoist Philosophy and Cultural
Practices on Contemporary Art Practice.” Ph. D. Diss., University of Western
Australia, Sydney.
Feng, Gia-Fu. 1990. Tao Te Ching. New York: Random House.
Fischer, Paul. 2015. The Creation of Daoism.
Journal of Daoist Studies 8:1-23.
Flowers,
Jim. 1998. Problem-Solving in Technology Education: A Taoist Perspective.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goldin, Paul
R. 2002. “Those Who Don’t Know Speak: Translations of the Daode jing by People Who Do Not Know Chinese.” Asian Philosophy 12.3:183-95.
Grigg, Ray.
2011. The Tao of Relationships: A
Balancing of Man and Woman. Atlanta: Humanics Publishing.
Hardy,
Julia. 1998. “Influential Western Interpretations of the Tao-te-ching.” In Lao-tzu and
the Tao-te-ching, edited by Livia Kohn and Michael LaFargue, 165-88.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Heider, John. 1985. The Tao of Leadership: Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching
Adapted for a New Age. Atlanta: Humanics New Age.
Hoff, Benjamin. 1982. The Tao of Pooh. New York: Dutton.
Katie,
Byron, with Stephen Mitchell. 2007. A
Thousand Names for Joy: Living in Harmony with the Way Things Are. New
York: Harmony Books.
Kim,
Sung-hae. 2014. The Gourd and the Cross:
Daoism and Christianity in Dialogue.
Magdalena, NM: Three Pines Press.
Kirkland,
Russell. 1997. “The Taoism of the Western Imagination and the Taoism of China:
Decolonizing the Exotic Teaching.” Paper Presented at the University of
Tennessee.
Kohn, Livia. 2008. Introducing Daoism. London: Routledge.
Komjathy,
Louis. 2004. “Tracing the Contours of Daoism in North America.” Nova Religio 8.2:5-27.
_____.
2014. “Misconceptions Concerning Daoism.“ http://media.bloomsbury.
com/rep/files/9781441168733_commonmisconceptions_daoisttradition.pdf
(3/17/2014)
Le Guin,
Ursula K. 1998. Tao Te Ching: A Book
about the Way and the Power of the Way. Boston: Shambhala.
Lin, Derek.
2007. The Tao of Daily Life: The
Mysteries of the Orient Revealed, the Joys of Inner Harmony Found, the Path to
Enlightenment Illuminated. New York: Penguin.
Liu Xiaogan 刘笑敢.
2006. Laozi gujin 老子古今. Beijing:
Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe.
_____.
2007. “Daojia huakai taxiang” 道家花开他乡. Guangming
ribao 光明日报
2007-01-18(4).
Miles,
Thomas. 1992. Tao Te Ching: About the Way of Nature and Its Powers. NewYork:
Avery.
Miller,
James, and Elijah Siegler. 2010. “Of Alchemy and Authenticity: Teaching about
Daoism Today.” Teaching Theology &
Religion 10.2:101-08.
Mitchell,
Stephen. 1988. Tao Te Ching: A New
English Version. New York: HarperPerennial.
Nagel, Greta
K. The Tao of Teaching: The Ageless
Wisdom of Taoism and the Art of Teaching. New York: Plume.
Palmer,
David A., and Elijah Siegler. 2017. Dream
Trippers: Global Daoism and the Predicament of Modern Spirituality.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Peng,
Kaiping. 1999. “Culture, Dialectics, and Reasoning sbout Contradiction.” American Psychologist 54.9:741-54.
Pohl,
Karl-Heinz. 2003. “Play-Thing of the
Times: Critical Review of the Reception of Daoism in the West.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 30.3-4:18.
RZA.
2010. The Tao of Wu. New York:
Penguin Putnam.
Siegler,
Elijah. 2010. “Back to the Pristine: Identity Formation and Legitimation in
Contemporary American Daoism.” Nova
Religio 14.1:45-66.
Smith,
Thomas E. 2013. The Tao of Stress: How to
Calm, Balance, and Simplify Your Life. New York: Harbinger Publications.
Yang, C. K.
1961. Religion in Chinese Society.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Zhan
Shizhuang 詹石窗.
2015. “Lizu chuantong chuangxin daoxue” 立足传统创新道学. Zhongguo zongjiao 中国宗教 7:28-29
Zürcher,
Erik. 1992. “Lao Tzu in East and West.” Proceedings
of the International Symposium on Chinese Values 1:281-317.
