2023/08/13

Common misconceptions about Daoist tradition

9781441168733_commonmisconceptions_daoisttradition.pdf

Common misconceptions concerning Daoism (Taoism)

Popular misconceptions concerning Daoism are numerous and increasingly influential in the modern world. All of these perspectives fail to understand the religious tradition which is Daoism, a religious tradition that is complex, multifaceted, and rooted in traditional Chinese culture. 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” sound. The current state of Daoism in America may thus be compared to that of Zen Buddhism in the 1950s and 1960s (cf. Dharma Bums and Alan Watts with the Mountains and Rivers Order), although some have suggested that it more closely resembles the Euro-American understanding of Buddhism in the 1890s. In terms of the Western encounter with Daoism, this was the time of the World’s Parliament of Religions (1893) and James Legge’s (1815–97) contributions to the Sacred Books of the East (Max Muller [ed]).

Popular Misconception	Informed View
Dao (Tao) is a trans-religious and universal name for the sacred, and there are “Dao-ists” (“Tao-ists”) who transcend the limitations of the Daoist religious tradition.	道, romanized as dao or tao, is a Chinese character utilized by Daoists to identify that which they believe is sacred. There are specific, foundational Daoist views concerning the Dao, which originate in the earliest Daoist communities of the Warring States period (480–222 bce).

Daoism consists of two forms, “philosophical Daoism” and “religious

Daoism.”^{^[1]}

The distinction between so-called

“philosophical Daoism” and so-called “religious Daoism” is a modern Western fiction, which reflects colonialist and missionary agendas and sensibilities. The use of such categories, even in scare quotation marks, should be taken, ipso facto, as indicative of ignorance concerning Daoism. From its beginnings in the Warring States period (480–222 bce), “Daoism” consisted of religious practitioners and communities. Considered as a whole, Daoism is a complex and diverse religious tradition. It consists of various adherents, communities, and movements, which cannot be reduced to a simplistic bifurcation. Its complexity may be mapped in terms of historical periodization as well as models of practice and attainment.

“Philosophical Daoism” is the original form of Daoism and is best understood as “philosophy” (disembodied thinking/ way of thought).

Outside of the modern world, there is no form of Daoism that is not “religious.” Although there are aspects of Daoism that are “philosophical,” the category “philosophical Daoism” fails to consider the centrality of embodied practice (way of being), community, and place in

Daoism, especially in “classical Daoism.” It is based on a systematic mischaracterization of the inner cultivation lineages of Warring States Daoism and a misreading of the earliest Daoist texts, namely, the Laozi (Lao-tzu; a.k.a. Daode jing) and

Zhuangzi (Chuang-tzu), among others.

Daojia 道家 and daojiao 道教 correspond to the Western categories of “philosophical Daoism” and “religious Daoism,” respectively.

Daojia 道家, literally “Family of the Dao,” and daojiao 道教, literally “Teachings of the Dao,” are indigenous Chinese categories with no correspondence to the Western constructs of so-called “philosophical Daoism” and so-called “religious Daoism”. Each term has a complex history, with its meaning changing in different contexts. For example, in the fifth century, daojia referred to the Daoist religious community in general and the Daoist priesthood in particular.

Laozi 老子(Lao-tzu; Master Lao/Old

Master/Old Child) is the founder of Daoism.

Laozi, a.k.a. Lao Dan 老聃 and Li Er 李耳, is a pseudo-historical figure. His received “biography,” as contained in Sima Tan’s 司馬談 (ca. 165–110 _bce) and Sima Qian’s 司馬遷 (ca. 145–86 _bce) Shiji 史記 (Records of the Historian), combines information about a variety of people from various sources. If Laozi existed, we do not know anything about him. There is, in turn, no “founder” of Daoism; “Laozi,” translatable as “venerable masters,” is best understood as a place-holder for the early inner cultivation lineages. Daoism, in turn, has multiple source-points. A variety of figures, both human and divine, are identified as important with respect to the formation of the Daoist tradition.

Laozi wrote the Daode jing 道德經 (Tao-te ching; Scripture on the Dao and Inner Power).

The Daode jing, a.k.a. Laozi 老子 (Book of Venerable Masters), is a composite text. It is a multi-vocal anthology that contains material from different early Daoist lineages and historical periods. Some of these historical and textual layers may have come from the oral teachings of the shadowy figure Lao Dan (see Zhuangzi, Chapters 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21, 23, 25, 27, 33).

The Daode jing and Zhuangzi are the only Daoist texts that matter because they are the “essence” and “original teachings” of Daoism.

There is no principal Daoist scripture. Although the Daode jing is probably the most central and influential scripture in Daoist history, different Daoist adherents, communities and movements revere different scriptures. The primary textual collection in the Daoist tradition is called the Daozang 道藏 (Daoist Canon). It is an open textual collection, with new additions having been made throughout Daoist history. The first version was compiled in the fifth century ce. The received version was compiled in the fifteenth century, with a seventeenth century supplement. It consists of roughly 1,400 texts, texts that come from every major period and movement of Daoist history.

Daoism began with a revelation from

Laojun 老君 (Lord Lao) to Zhang Daoling 張道陵 in 142 CE. This was the beginning of the Tianshi 天師 (Celestial Masters) movement.

While the Tianshi movement was formative in the establishment of Daoism as an organized religious tradition and represents one of the most important movements in Daoist history, there were Daoist adherents and communities before the Celestial Masters. Moreover, not every subsequent Daoist movement recognized Zhang Daoling and the Celestial Masters as the source of their tradition.

Daoists, or Dao-ists, are those who love the Dao and go with the flow.

From a Daoist perspective, there are various types of religious adherence and affiliation. These involve different degrees of commitment and responsi-

bility. The Daoist tradition consists, first and foremost, of ordained priests and monastics and lay supporters. Lineage and ordination are primary dimensions of Daoist identity and religious affiliation. This requires training under Daoist teachers and community elders with formal affiliation with the Daoist religious community and tradition. A distinction may in turn be may between Daoist adherents and Daoist sympathizers. In the case of Daoism in the West, one also finds various forms of spiritual appropriation and spiritual capitalism.

Correlative cosmology, based on yin 陰-yang 陽, the Five Elements (wuxing 五行), and qi 氣 (ch’i), is Daoist.

These concepts are not Daoist. They are part of what is best understood as “traditional Chinese cosmology” and a “traditional Chinese worldview.” In pre-modern China, these concepts formed the foundation of a pan- Chinese worldview. Like other aspects of

Chinese culture, they formed part of the foundational Daoist worldview. Thus, correlative cosmology is not Daoist in origin or in essence.

Chinese medicine is Daoist and/or there is some form of Chinese medicine called “Daoist Medicine.”

Chinese medicine is not Daoist. This misidentification, and the construct of “Daoist medicine,” most often comes from a conflation of correlative cosmology (see above) with Daoism. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is, in fact, a modern form of Chinese medicine created by the Chinese communist government and influenced by Western biomedicine and a scientific paradigm. In terms of classical Chinese medicine, there is some overlap between the two traditions, but little research has been done on this topic. We do know, however, that Daoists such as Ge Hong, Sun Simiao, and Tao Hongjing made major contributions to Chinese medicine. They were Daoists and, in the case of Sun and Tao, Chinese medical practitioners.

Fengshui 風水(lit., “Wind and Water”), or Chinese geomancy, is Daoist.

Fengshui is not Daoist. Like correlative cosmology, it is part of what is best understood as “traditional Chinese culture.” While some Daoists have utilized Fengshui throughout Chinese history, it is not Daoist in origin or essence. Using Fengshui thus does not indicate Daoist religious affiliation or identity.

Qigong 氣功 (Ch’i-kung; Qi Exercises) is Daoist.	Qigong is not Daoist. Qigong refers to a modern Chinese health and longevity movement aimed at national upbuilding. It combines traditional Chinese health and longevity practices with modern Chinese concerns and a Western scientific paradigm. Some of these derive from earlier Daoist Yangsheng 養生 (Nourishing Life) practices. There are also many different types of Qigong, including Buddhist, Daoist, medical, and martial. Most Daoist Qigong incorporates internal alchemy (neidan 内丹) methods.
Sexual yoga, including the search for multiple orgasms and the practice of sexual vampirism, is Daoist.	The place of sexuality in Daoism is complex. Most of the practices identified as “Daoist sexual practices” originated in non-Daoist contexts, in imperial court circles in particular. While some Daoists have practiced “paired” or “partnered practice,” often referred to as “dual cultivation,” a different conception of sexual intercourse was involved. Moreover, such practices almost always occurred within a larger system of alchemical transformation in which the sublimation of sexual energy was a preliminary and foundational step.
Taiji quan 太極拳 (Tai-chi ch’uan; Yin-yang Boxing) is Daoist.	Taiji quan is not Daoist. It is a Chinese martial art. Like Bagua zhang 八卦掌 (Eight Trigram Palm) and Xingyi quan 形意拳 (Form-Intent Boxing), it originated in non-Daoist circles. It was a nativist response aimed at national upbuilding. While some Daoists practice Taiji quan, practicing Taiji quan does not make one a Daoist. It is, first and foremost, a martial art that is not Daoist in origin or essence.

	Taoist Yoga, aka Flow Yoga or Yin Yoga, is Daoist.		“Taoist Yoga” is a misnomer, a mistaken category with no correlation to indigenous Chinese categories. Yoga is a Sanskrit technical term related to indigenous Indian practices aimed at union (yuj) with the divine. Most so-called “Taoist Yoga” is either modified Hatha Yoga or derives from Chinese Wushu 武術 (martial arts) practices. Current research suggests that little if any so-called “Taoist Yoga” derives from Daoist Daoyin 導引(lit., “guided stretching”) or internal alchemy (neidan 内丹) practices, which are the indigenous Daoist categories.
	Mount Wudang 武當 is the birthplace of the soft or internal martial arts, such as Taiji quan. Zhang Sanfeng, the patron saint of Mount Wudang, is the creator of Taiji quan.		Chinese “internal style” (neijia 内家) martial arts are not Daoist and do not originate in a Daoist context. Current research indicates that Wudangstyle martial arts represent a modern synthesis of Bagua zhang, Taiji quan, and Xingyi quan. Zhang Sanfeng is pseudo-historical.
	The Yiing 易經 (I-ching; Book of Changes) is a Daoist text. As the trigrams and hexagrams derive from it, they also are Daoist symbols.		The Yiing 易經 (Book of Changes) is not a Daoist text. It predates distinct, indigenous cultural traditions like Rujia (“Confucianism”) and Daojia (“Daoism”). From a traditional Chinese perspective, it is one of the so-called “Five Classics” of classical Confucianism. Throughout Chinese history, some Daoists have studied the cosmology of the Yiing and utilized the trigrams and hexagrams as a symbol system, especially for external and internal alchemy. However, interest in the Yijing and hexagrams/trigrams does not make one a Daoist.
Translations of the Tao-te-ching by Stephen Mitchell, Ursula LeGuin, and other popularizers are accurate and provide direct access to the original teachings of Daoism		Such “translations” are not, in fact, translations. For example, Mitchell and LeGuin do not know classical Chinese. Moreover, such popular Western cultural productions are popular exactly because they expunge all of the culturally specific and religious dimensions of the text. Daoist scriptures (jing 經) are sacred texts written in classical Chinese. Moreover, there are various Daoist views about the origin, nature and meaning of such texts. Many jing are considered to be revealed or inspired.
Popular publications like The Tao of Pooh (Benjamin Hoff) as well as Change Your Thoughts and Living the Wisdom of the Tao (Wayne Dyer) provide accurate glimpses into Daoist beliefs and concerns.		Such works have no place in a serious inquiry into and an accurate understanding of the Daoism. They are part of popular Western culture, New Age spirituality, as well as self-help and pop psychology. They are part of “spiritual capitalism” and a new form of alternative spirituality best understood as “Popular Western Taoism” (PWT), with “Taoism” pronounced with a “t” sound. That movement has little to no connection with the religious tradition which is Daoism.

2023/08/13

Common misconceptions about Daoist tradition

Further reading