194 replies to this topic

[Stigweard]

Louis Komjathy 康思奇, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Chinese Religions and Comparative Religious Studies
Department of Theology and Religious Studies
University of San Diego

http://www.daoistcen...conceptions.pdf

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 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. 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 American 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.

----------------

Popular Misconception

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

Informed View

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).

----------------

Popular Misconception

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

Informed View

The distinction between so-called “philosophical Daoism” and “religious Daoism” is a modern Western fiction, which reflects colonialist and missionary agendas and sensibilities. 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

----------------

Popular Misconception

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

Informed View

Outside of the modern world, there is no form of Daoism that is not “religious.” Although there are aspects of Daoism that are “philosophical,” “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

----------------

Popular Misconception

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

Informed View

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 “philosophical Daoism” and “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

----------------

Popular Misconception

Laozi 老子 (Lao-tzu; Master Lao/Old Master/Old Child) is the founder of Daoism

Informed View

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 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.

----------------

Popular Misconception

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

Informed View

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, chs. 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21, 23, 25, 27, 33)

----------------

Popular Misconception

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

Informed View

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.

----------------

Popular Misconception

Daoism began with a revelation from Laojun (Lord Lao) to Zhang Daoling in 142 CE. This was the beginning of the Tianshi (Celestial Masters) movement.

Informed View

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.

----------------

Popular Misconception

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

Informed View

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

----------------

Popular Misconception

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

Informed View

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 essence

----------------

Popular Misconception

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

Informed View

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

----------------

Popular Misconception

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

Informed View

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

----------------

Popular Misconception

Qigong 氣功 (Ch’i-kung; Qi Exercises) is Daoist

Informed View

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.

----------------

Popular Misconception

Sexual yoga, including the search for multiple orgasms and the practice of sexual vampirism, is Daoist.

Informed View

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.

----------------

Popular Misconception

Taiji quan 太極拳 (Tai-chi ch’üan; Yin-yang Boxing) is Daoist

Informed View

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

----------------

Popular Misconception

Taoist Yoga, aka Flow Yoga or Yin Yoga, is Daoist.

Informed View

“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.

----------------

Popular Misconception

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

Informed View

Chinese “internal style” (neijia 内家) martial arts are not Daoist and do not originate in a Daoist text. Current research indicates that Wudang style martial arts represent a modern synthesis of Bagua zhang, Taiji quan, and Xingyi quan. Zhang Sanfeng is pseudo- historical.

----------------

Popular Misconception

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

Informed View

The Yiing 易經 (Book of Changes) is not a Daoist text. It pre-dates distinct, indigenous cultural traditions like Confucianism and 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.

----------------

Popular Misconception

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

Informed View

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 texts written in classical Chinese. Moreover, there are various Daoist views about the origin, nature and meaning of such texts.

----------------

Popular Misconception

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.

Informed View

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.

[Birch]

Very interesting Stig!

"The Yiing 易經 (Book of Changes) is not a Daoist text. It pre-dates distinct, indigenous cultural traditions like Confucianism and Daoism."

Very interesting indeed!

[Nanashi]

How static or plastic is traditional "Daoism" seen from the inside view? If Taoists have been influenced from pre-existing folk animism and shaman rituals, and went on to influence Ch'an philosophy and Shugendo mysticism, what can be called authentic... if only measured by distance or Occidental/Oriental palates?

[RyanO]

While I appreciate the commitment to historical and factual accuracy, I sense a dryness and self-righteousness in this person's writing that I find common in academia. One who observes and studies but does not practice. Additionally, I don't know anyone who pronounces Taoism with a hard "t".

[InfinityTruth]

While I appreciate the commitment to historical and factual accuracy, I sense a dryness and self-righteousness in this person's writing that I find common in academia. One who observes and studies but does not practice. Additionally, I don't know anyone who pronounces Taoism with a hard "t".

I agree.

Edited by InfinityTruth, 12 March 2011 - 11:48 PM.

[The Way Is Virtue]

For those that may be wondering, besides being a professor, Louis Komjathy is also a practicing Taoist.
From his website:
"In 2006, he received ordination into the Huashan lineage of Quanzhen Daoism and lived as a visiting Daoist monk in the Daoist monasteries of Laoshan 嶗山 (Mount Lao; near Qingdao, Shandong) and Huashan 華山 (Mount Hua; Huayin, Shaanxi)."

[Friend]

Edited by Friend, 16 November 2011 - 12:26 PM.

[Mark Saltveit]

Here is a somewhat different academic take, with a longer view of the changes in what is considered "Daoist" or even "Daoism." Very interesting stuff. By Chad Hansen of the University of Hong Kong, who has a strong interest in Chuang Tzu as a philosopher of language. Also, unlike many of the academics of Daoism, he is himself a practicing Daoist.

Taoism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[Mark Saltveit]

One example of Komjathy's brittleness (or sort of, I know more than you naah naah naah attitude):

He puts down people who consider the I Ching to be Daoist as ignorant and cites it as an example of Western misunderstanding of true Chinese Taoism. Except, as Chad Hansen notes, the I Ching was first called Daoist by Wang Bi in the 3rd Century AD, about the same time he was compiling the version of the Dao de Jing that pretty much every one has used since (until the recent discoveries).

[Stigweard]

One example of Komjathy's brittleness (or sort of, I know more than you naah naah naah attitude):

He puts down people who consider the I Ching to be Daoist as ignorant and cites it as an example of Western misunderstanding of true Chinese Taoism. Except, as Chad Hansen notes, the I Ching was first called Daoist by Wang Bi in the 3rd Century AD, about the same time he was compiling the version of the Dao de Jing that pretty much every one has used since (until the recent discoveries).

Re-quoting TWIV:

"In 2006, [Louis Komjathy] received ordination into the Huashan lineage of Quanzhen Daoism and lived as a visiting Daoist monk in the Daoist monasteries of Laoshan 嶗山 (Mount Lao; near Qingdao, Shandong) and Huashan 華山 (Mount Hua; Huayin, Shaanxi)."

So you can let up on the assumptions that Komjathy is merely some sort of externally observing academic.

Also the simple archeological fact is that the I Ching, in the indigenous form of the Lo Shu, predates any formalization of Taoism by around 2000 years or more. Even the current King Wen sequence was said to have been formalized C. 12th century BC. So even if in the 3rd Century AD Wang Bi said that the I Ching is Daoist all he has done, as I have pointed out elsewhere, is incorporated a component of the indigenous world view of ancient China into the formalized body of Taoism.

Does it make the I Ching Daoist? Well perhaps from the perspective that studying the I Ching is a part of Taoist curriculum. But in no way does it make the I Ching exclusively Daoist, because under the same sort of perspective the I Ching could also be called Confucian.

[RyanO]

For those that may be wondering, besides being a professor, Louis Komjathy is also a practicing Taoist.
From his website:
"In 2006, he received ordination into the Huashan lineage of Quanzhen Daoism and lived as a visiting Daoist monk in the Daoist monasteries of Laoshan 嶗山 (Mount Lao; near Qingdao, Shandong) and Huashan 華山 (Mount Hua; Huayin, Shaanxi)."

ah...well then <cough>

So he does practice, that's cool. It's still an interesting issue. Again, I appreciate the effort to preserve the authenticity of "Daoism". But I wonder how useful such an effort is outside of academic knowledge. It seems to me that such efforts may alienate some people who resonate with Daoist teachings. I suspect this problem is common in many religions, do you water it down for the masses or stick to your guns and risk excluding others?

Personally, I tend to be more of a universalist, and think that whatever is true in one religion is true in another, and that religions that hold steadfastly to dogma are inevitably holding on to falsehoods. So while I appreciate the effort from an historical and cultural perspective, I don't from a spiritual one.

And I still don't get the Taoism with a "t" thing haha.

[Mark Saltveit]

"In 2006, [Louis Komjathy] received ordination into the Huashan lineage of Quanzhen Daoism and lived as a visiting Daoist monk in the Daoist monasteries of Laoshan 嶗山 (Mount Lao; near Qingdao, Shandong) and Huashan 華山 (Mount Hua; Huayin, Shaanxi)."

So you can let up on the assumptions that Komjathy is merely some sort of externally observing academic.

Did I make that assumption? I don't remember doing so. (I said that Chad Hansen is Daoist, unlike some Western academics. I can see how you might think I meant Komjathy, but I did not. As you might have gathered, if I want to say something, I don't hem and haw about it a lot. :-) )

Actually my concern, based on this web article that you posted, is more about a sense of superiority and exclusivity, which his initiation may well have made worse.

As for the I Ching (Yijing), I know that it long predates Daoism. My point is that he throws it in his "Common Misconceptions of Daoism" article as another example of Western ignorance about Daoism; and in reality it's a piece of ancient Chinese ignorance, only recently corrected both in China and in the West.

That said, I found his article distinguishing sympathizers from adherents, and he distinguishes them in a way that is actually a bit more nuanced that I had thought, so I stand corrected.
Here is the article: Komjathy "Tracing the Contours of Daoism in North America"
He writes that "Euro-American Daoist adherents are those Americans of European heritage who identify themselves as Daoists or those for whom other reliable evidence exists that suggests they think of themselves in this way. Those who are attracted to Daoism but do not embrace it fully or exclusively may be referred to as sympathizers." He then goes on, however, to emphasize what he calls "close relations (ordained priests, lineage successors)" who he contrasts with those he calls "Pooh Bear Taoists." So there's (what I perceive to be) some of that superior attitude creeping in again.

Edited by Mark Saltveit, 15 March 2011 - 05:42 AM.

[devoid]

[...]
Popular Misconception

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

Informed View

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

Hi Stig,

As discussed in a different thread, I think this is a great article - thanks for posting.

I do however have a bone to pick with the above quote. As you already know, I am not crazy about the sympathizers vs. adherents classification, but that is not the bone of contention here:

I completely disagree with the following: "The Daoist tradition consists, first and foremost, of ordained priests and monastics and lay supporters.". While clearly the opinion of the author, I believe this statement is unfounded.

[Stigweard]

Hi Stig,

As discussed in a different thread, I think this is a great article - thanks for posting.

I do however have a bone to pick with the above quote. As you already know, I am not crazy about the sympathizers vs. adherents classification, but that is not the bone of contention here:

I completely disagree with the following: "The Daoist tradition consists, first and foremost, of ordained priests and monastics and lay supporters.". While clearly the opinion of the author, I believe this statement is unfounded.

Why do you believe this is unfounded? Within the context of Chinese culture that is exactly what the Daoist tradition is.

What do you believe the Daoist tradition is if you so adamantly disagree?

[Mark Saltveit]

Why do you believe this is unfounded? Within the context of Chinese culture that is exactly what the Daoist tradition is.

What do you believe the Daoist tradition is if you so adamantly disagree?

I don't speak for devoid of course, but the ambiguous phrase is "lay supporters." It sounds like he means unordained followers who accept only the authority of the ordained priests of the sects in question. If so, he is excluding millions of Chinese who treasure the Daoist classics but don't consider themselves part of a particular sect.

It's hard for me to work out his exact meaning though, because in the article I just cited, he adopts Livia Kohn's trifold classification of Daoists into literati Daoists, ritual Daoists and self-cultivation Daoists; but the first and last of these seem to include people who are not initiated into, or lay followers of, given sects. So I may be missing a nuance of his argument here.

Edited by Mark Saltveit, 15 March 2011 - 05:44 AM.

[Stigweard]

Quoting from the above mentioned article, I believe this is a critical consideration in this discussion:

Jan Nattier argues that there are dangers involved in both uncritical inclusiveness and arbitrary (or sectarian) exclusiveness. In my view, the former disrespects the tradition involved; it is political in the sense that it implicitly condones appropriation and commercialization, which often exploit the original tradition as well as disempower and disenfranchise the representatives of that tradition. In addition, this stance can easily lead to an impoverishment of a given religious tradition; the traditional worldviews and practices become so mingled with other agendas that it is impossible to gain a clear historical understanding. However, exclusiveness, whether arbitrary or not, seems more problematic, in that the historian too soon comes to resemble a sectarian spokesperson.

Your stance on this dialogue will depend on where you see yourself standing on the sliding scale between inclusiveness (i.e. I call myself a Daoist therefore I am) or exclusiveness (i.e. you are only a Daoist if you conform to prerequisite conditions, like being ordained etc.)