PART 1
(Part 2 – – – Part 3 – – – Part 4 – – – Part 4.2 – – – Part 4.3 – – – Part 4.4)
Daojia 道家 and Huang-Lao 黃、老
Classical Daoism, Philosophical Daoism, Early Daoism: these terms are increasingly being seen as obsolescent by scholars in the last couple of decades. The general public – those who have heard of Daoism or have read a little bit of it – are largely unaware, despite the fact that for quite awhile writers have admitted that there were no “Daoists” in pre-Han China and that the two most famous “Daoists,” Laozi and Zhuangzi, surely never thought of themselves as Daoists. The more recent interest in what was once called “religious Daoism (Daojiao 道教),” as opposed to “philosophical Daoism (Daojia 道家),” has seen a shift towards using “Daoism” to refer only to the former.
In this series of blog posts I am going to explore this matter. First, I will look at the oldest evidence for a “Daoist school” in the Historical Records (Shiji 史記) and the Han Documents (Hanshu 漢書). Next I will look into both the text and the legendary man Laozi 老子, followed by Zhuangzi 莊子. Texts that will be mentioned along the way will include: the Laozi 老子, Zhuangzi 莊子, Hanfeizi 韓非子 (esp. Jie Lao 解老, Yu Lao 喻老), Lüshi Chunqiu 呂氏春秋, Mengzi 孟子, Xunzi 荀子, Guanzi 管子 (esp. Neiye 內業), Huainanzi 淮南子, Heguanzi 鶡冠子, and the Huangdi Sijing 黃帝四經. I will also survey various scholars’ views on early Chinese “schools of thought.”
Daojia 道家 first appears in the Historical Records written by Sima Tan 司馬談 and his son Sima Qian 司馬遷, both of whom served as the “Grand Scribe” (Taishi 太史) in the early Han Dynasty. In the one hundred and thirtieth chapter of the Historical Records, Sima Qian presented his father’s outlines of the “Six Jia (六家),” commonly thought of as the “ six schools of thought” but probably best understood as the “six areas of expertise” or “six approaches to government.”[1] He lists these as the Yinyang (陰陽), the Ru (儒), the Mo (墨), the Ming (名), the Fa (法), and the Daode (道德; afterwards shortened to Daojia 道家). For Sima Tan, these six categories were methods or techniques of governing (Zhi 治), of which he neither names texts nor exponents of these approaches.[1a] After discussing some pros and cons of the others, Sima Tan discussed the Daojia:
道家使人精神專一，動合無形，贍(=澹)足萬物。其為術也，因陰陽之大順，采儒墨之善，撮名法之要，與時遷移，應物變化，立俗施事，無所不宜，指約而易操，事少而功多。
“The Daojia enable the numinous essence within people to be concentrated and unified. In movement they are joined with the Formless, in tranquility they (provide) sufficiently for all living things. In deriving their techniques, they follow the grand compliances of the Yinyang specialists, select the best of the Ru and Mo specialists, and extract the essentials of the Ming and Fa specialists. They shift (their policies) in accordance with the seasons and respond to the transformations of things. In establishing customs and promulgating policies, they do nothing unsuitable. Their tenets are concise and easy to grasp; their policies are few but their achievements are many.”[2]
Unlike the other Jia, Sima Tan enumerated no shortcomings or defects of Daojia (“Dao-specialists”?), partially, no doubt, because it incorporated the best parts of the others.[3] A bit later some further analysis is offered:
道家無為，又曰無不為，其實易行，其辭難知。其術以虛無為本，以因循為用。無成埶，無常形，故能究萬物之情。不為物先，不為物后，故能為萬物主。有法無法，因時為業；有度無度，因物與合。故曰「聖人不朽(=巧)，時變是守。虛者道之常也，因者君之綱」也。
“The Daojia do nothing, but they also say that nothing is left undone. Their substance is easy to practice, but their words are difficult to understand. Their techniques take emptiness and nothingness as the foundation and adaptation and compliance as the application. They have no set limits, no regular forms, and so are able to penetrate to the genuine basis of living things. Because they neither anticipate things nor linger over them, they are able to become the masters of all living things.
They have methods that are no methods: They take adapting to the seasons as their practice. They have limits that are no limits: They adapt to things by harmonizing with them. Therefore they say: The sage is not clever: The seasonal alternations are what the sage preserves. Emptiness is the constant in the Way. Adaptation is the guiding principle of the ruler.”[4]
On the one hand, going solely on this description, it would seem Daojia has little to do with the Laozi: it is only “doing nothing and yet they say that nothing is left undone” (無為，又曰無不為) which seems to ultimately derive from the Laozi (chapters 37 and 48); although, the “motto” is also found in third century texts such as Zhuangzi chapters 18, 22, 23, and 25, and the Lüshi Chunqiu 25.3. One can also find it in the first chapter of the early Han text, the Huainanzi. On the other hand, this (latter) description fits exactly with how Sima Tan viewed Laozi in his contribution to Laozi’s biography in Shiji 63: “Laozi placed his admiration in Dao, vacant nothingness, and adapting and responding to changes and transformations with Wuwei” (老子所貴道，虛無，因應變化於無為).
One might wonder why he labeled it Dao-Jia, since his descriptions say nothing about Dao.[4.5] We may surmise that he labeled it such because of its comprehensiveness: it was a Dao (way) that included the other Daos (ways). But perhaps it was based on his understanding of Laozi treasuring the Dao, or the Great Dao 大道, as it was often called.
No names of individuals or texts are named by Sima Tan for any of these specialized approaches (Jia). It is fairly clear, however, that the Laozi, (or Lao Dan, the supposed author), was believed by the Simas to be an exemplar of Daojia thought. Their biography of Laozi mentions that Laozi wrote a book in two parts on Dao and De and in a number of places in the Shiji we find Daojia connected to the teachings and practices of “the Yellow Emperor and Laozi (黃帝、老子, or simply Huang-Lao 黃老),”[5] which seem to be synonymous (see below). In the Han Documents’ “Treatise on Literature” (Hanshu Yiwenzhi 漢書 • 藝文志), Ban Gu’s 班固 bibliographical listing[6] for Daojia presumably included the Laozi, as it included four commentaries on it, as well as known texts such as the Zhuangzi 莊子, Wenzi 文子, Liezi 列子, Heguanzi 鶡冠子, and the Yellow Emperor’s Four Classics (Huangdi Sijing 黃帝四經).[7]
The Hanshu, for its part, describes Daojia thusly:
道家者流，蓋出於史官，歷記成敗存亡禍福古今之道，然後知秉要執本，清虛以自守，卑弱以自持，此君人南面之術也。合於堯之克攘，易之嗛嗛，一謙而四益，此其所長也。及放者為之，則欲絕去禮學，兼棄仁義，曰獨任清虛可以為治。
“The current of the Daoists emanated from the Office of the Historian, which in successive generations recorded the various roads leading to success or failure, survival or destruction, and ill or good fortune from antiquity down to the present. By and by they came to understand how grasping the essentials maintains the root, how purity and emptiness preserves oneself, and how humility and pliancy sustains oneself. These became the techniques of the ruler who faces south. They accord with Yao’s capacity to yield and the Changes hexagram “Modesty and Humility,” wherein one instance of humility brings forth four benefits. These are its strengths. Nonetheless, if taken too liberally, one will desire to disregard ritual education and abandon humaneness and righteousness, claiming that one need only employ purity and emptiness to govern.”[8]
Sima Tan’s Daojia represented an approach to governing that centred on responding and adapting (Yin 因)[9] to changes, in the process adopting any “methods” from other ways of governing or ordering society that proved useful, such as those of the Ru, Mo, Fa and Ming. There appears also to be some concern with Jingshen 精神, “essential and spiritual energies,” Wuwei 無為, “non-purposive or non-interfering action” and Xuwu 虛無, “emptiness and nothingness.” Ban Gu’s Daojia was described quite differently, as responding or adapting to changes is not mentioned once, nor adopting the best from other Jia.[10] His Daojia seems to have had more to do with humility and the way to maintain and preserve oneself, based on acquaintance with events of the past. He also regarded the Daojia as entailing a rejection of typical Ru concerns: ritual/etiquette, benevolence and duty (禮、仁、義). This description has more in common with the Laozi than Sima Tan’s.
We turn now to “Huang-Lao 黃老,” the philosophy and/or practices apparently popular in the first half of the Han Dynasty. Huang-Lao refers to the teachings of the legendary Yellow Emperor (Huang Di 黃帝, trad. c. twenty-seventh century B.C.E.) in combination with those of the Laozi. There are many opinions on what texts Huang-Lao applies to, but many of them have connections to the land of Chu 楚. Some suggestions are the four silk texts from Mawangdui, a.k.a. The Yellow Emperor’s Four Classics 黃帝四經, the Huainanzi 淮南子, the Heguanzi 鶡冠子, a number of chapters of the Guanzi 管子,[11] a number of chapters of the Zhuangzi 莊子,[11b] and a number from the Chunqiu Fanlu 春秋繁露.[12] Besides showing the influence of the Laozi, these so-called Huang-Lao texts appear to be anything that is not distinctly Confucian or Mohist and have theories on statecraft.[13] The Yellow Emperor was increasingly being used to give authority to writings in many, many areas of thought,[14] so what his name is supposed to imply is difficult to know. Perhaps, because he had become known to be China’s first (or most significant) ruler, his name was used to signify a “Laoist” philosophy regarding rulership.
Han Emperor Wen’s wife, Empress (Dowager) Dou 竇, is repeatedly proclaimed to have been very fond of the teachings (Yan 言) and methods (Shu 術) of Laozi, or Huangdi and Laozi. For example, in the forty-ninth chapter of the Shiji we read: “Empress Dowager Dou was fond of the teachings of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi. Emperor (Wen), the heir apparent, and the Dou family members were obliged to study them and prize their methods (竇太后好黃帝、老子言，帝及太子諸竇不得不讀黃帝、老子，尊其術。).”[15] In Shiji 107 we read again of Empress Dowager’s fondness for Huang-Lao but also of a number of scholars who competed with her by advancing Rushu 儒術, literally “Classicists’ methods,” perhaps implying Confucianism. These scholars, as Sima reported elsewhere, “disparaged the teachings of Daojia” (貶道家言).[16] This suggests that Huang-Lao and Daojia refer to the same ideology. Once the Empress asked a staunch defender of the Ru and expert on the Odes what he thought of the “book of Laozi” (老子書). Perhaps unwisely, he answered, “these are nothing but the teachings of a menial” (此是家人言耳), after which he received some severe punishment.[17] Once she died (135 B.C.E.), however, the Ru/Confucians repressed the teachings of Huang-Lao and Confucianism began its ascendency relatively unimpeded.[18]
In addition to Empress Dowager Dou and her family, well over a dozen names are mentioned in the Shiji as being adherents of Huang-Lao, such as Ji An 汲黯, Elder Gao 蓋公, Sima Jizhu 司馬季主, Chen Ping 陳平, and Elder Yue Chen 樂臣公.[19] The Prince of Huainan, Liu An 劉安 (c. 180-122 B.C.E.), put together the Huainanzi 淮南子 in this Huang-Lao and Laozi-friendly environment, and it shows throughout the whole text (which also draws heavily from the Zhuangzi). Generally speaking, this text could be considered a Huang-Lao text and Liu a Huang-Lao advocate.[19b]
Some of them lived prior to the Han. In fact, Sima Qian labelled pre-Qin thinkers Shenzi 申子, Hanfei 韓非, and Jixia 稷下 residents Shen Dao 慎到, Tian Pian 田駢, Jiezi 接子, and Huan Yuan 環淵 as being adherents of Huang-Lao.[20] However, these are purely retrospective labels, as it does not appear in any textual sources prior to the Han and these thinkers would not have thought of themselves as following Huang-Lao teachings or practices. His father Sima Tan does not mention Huang-Lao, which may have been a creation of his son.[21] It does not appear, however, that any of these men founded their theories or grounded their views in those of the Laozi. Sima Qian may have, after reading some of their works, saw some doctrines that resembled those of a current Huang-Lao tradition in the Han. He almost certainly did not read all of their writings, so his views of them are probably skewed and not completely representative. Perhaps his connecting Hanfei with Laozi may be attributed to his seeing the two commentaries included in the Hanfeizi.[22] Or perhaps the de-emphasizing or rejecting of beloved Confucian ideals of Ren, Yi and Li (仁、義、禮) in the sayings found in the Laozi and stories about Lao Dan (in the Zhuangzi) that were shared by Hanfei, Shenzi and their followers created a bond in Sima Qian’s mind.
Tae Hyun Kim thinks that the Jie Lao 解老, Yu Lao 喩老, Zhu Dao 主道, Yang Quan 揚權 chapters of the Hanfeizi could justifiably be called Huang-Lao texts but, like Hagop Sarkissian, does not think they were written by Hanfei.[23] Sarkissian does not think the Jie Lao and Yu Lao are Huang-Lao because there is no discussion of law. If these commentaries and related chapters were not written by Hanfei, we do not know why they found their way into the Hanfeizi, though perhaps they were written by “disciples” of Hanfei who also admired the Laozi, and/or perhaps to add prestige to his work in the early Han.
Wang Chong 王充 (c. 30-100 C.E.), in his Lunheng 論衡 occasionally discussed Laozi, Huang-Lao and Daojia. He associated longevity and immortality with Daojia (chapter 24) as well as associating both Daojia and Huang-Lao with a good understanding of the processes of Heaven and Earth, i.e., their naturalness and lack of purposeful activity (chapter 54 and 42 respectively). He identified a Wuwei-style of government to them (chapter 54) and identified quietism (Tiandan 恬澹) as another trait of Huang-Lao and Lao Dan (chapters 54 and 80).[24]
Next: Laozi 老子
[1] Kidder Smith, “Sima Tan and the Invention of Daoism, ‘Legalism,’ ‘et cetera’” in The Journal of Asian Studies 62.1, 2003.
[1a] Sima’s concern with governing approaches is probably one reason he ignores Yang Zhu 楊朱, a popular thinker of the pre-Qin era mentioned in many of the pre-Han texts, (such as the Mengzi, Zhuangzi, and the Lüshi Chunqiu), who appears to have had nothing to contribute to governing. Most modern scholars find it difficult not to mention “Yangism” as an important trend in early China.
[2] “On the Six Lineages of Thought” by Sarah Queen and Harold Roth in Sources of Chinese Tradition, Vol. I, Columbia University Press, 1999, 279, modified.
[3] The Zajia 雜家, the “Miscellaneous Jia” of the Hanshu’s Yiwenzhi 漢書 • 藝文志 was described very similarly, taking the best of some of the others: 兼儒、墨，合名、法, though surprisingly not from Daojia 道家. Zajia included the Lüshi Chunqiu and Huainanzi, both of which show influence from Daojia.
[4.5] Nor do they mention de 德.
[5] For example, Shiji 56 and 107.
[6] I will refer to the Yiwenzhi chapter of the Hanshu as representing Ban Gu’s view, even though he took this classification from Liu Xin 劉歆 and perhaps his father, Liu Xiang 劉向.
[7] Which may or may not be the Four Texts attached to the Laozi manuscripts found at Mawangdui.
[8] Sarah A Queen, “Inventories of the Past: Rethinking the “School” Affiliation of the Huainanzi,” Asia Major, Volume 14, part 1, 2001, p. 62-3.
[9] Yin 因 appears five times in the two descriptions.
[10] As that was the hallmark of the Zajia 雜家. See note #3.
[11] E.g., the Neiye, Xinshu Shang, Xinshu Xia, Baixin, Zheng, Chi Mi, Zhou He, Shu Yan, Bing Fa, Ba Yan, etc.
[11b] E.g., chapters 12-16 and 33.
[12] Sarah Queen in her From Chronicle to Canon writes that “21 sections from seven chapters 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 77, 78” are Huang-Lao and that these texts pay little attention to Confucian texts. She writes that “these chapters argue that Laozi’s doctrine of non-purposive action, Shen Buhai’s theory of titles and actualities, Hanfei’s advocacy of impartial rewards and punishments, Mozi’s emphasis on elevating the worthy, and Guanzi’s techniques of inner cultivation are indispensible methods of rulership” (Cambridge University Press, 1996, 85-6).
[13] Roger Ames/D.C. Lau wrote, “At this point in time, ‘Huang-Lao’ has become a receptacle for any early Han dynasty text that has a Daoist tincture, and given the syncretism that marks this period, there is little that is excluded by it.” (Yuan Dao, Ballantine, 1998, 12)
[14] See Robin Yates’ Five Lost Classics, Ballantine, 1997, 10-12 and 17-19.
[15] Cf. Shiji 12, 28, 121. Both Emperor Wen and the following Emperor Jing also had a fondness for Xingming 刑名, which by then formed some associations with Daojia/Huang-Lao. In the final comments to Shiji 9 (呂太后本), detailing the life of Empress Dowager Lü and her son Emperor Hui 惠帝, Sima Tan suggests that a central concept of Daoism/Huang-Lao – non-interference, wuwei 無為 – was already gaining in popularity.
[16] Cf. Burton Watson, Records of the Grand Historian, Vol. II, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 93.
[17] Shiji 121, Cf. Watson, Vol. II p. 364.
[19] See Aat Vervoorn’s Men of Cliffs and Caves, The Chinese University Press, 1990, 268 n31 for more names.
[19b] See Harold Roth’s “Psychology and Self-Cultivation in Early Taoistic Thought” in Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 51, No. 2 (1991), 607.
[20] In Laozi’s biography both Shenzi and Hanfei are labelled as adherents of Huang-Lao (and Xingming 刑名). It is no coincidence that scholars who specialized in the teachings of Shenzi and Hanfei (along with a few others) were expelled from the royal court by the Ru-supporter and imperial counsellor Zhao Wan 趙綰. (Hanshu 6; see Griet Vankeerberghen, The Huainanzi and Liu An’s Claim to Moral Authority, SUNY Press, 2001, 11). For Shen Dao 慎到, Tian Pian 田駢, Jiezi 接子, and Huan Yuan 環淵 being learned in Huang-Lao methods see Shiji 74.
[22] These are different enough to suggest that they were not even written by him; see below.
[23] “Other Laozi Parallels in the Hanfeizi” in Sino-Platonic Papers 199, March 2010, 17. Hagop Sarkissian, “Laozi: Re-visiting Two Early Commentaries in the Hanfeizi” M.A. Thesis, University of Toronto, 2001. Angus Graham also regarded the Zhu Dao 主道 and Yang Quan 揚權 chapters of the Hanfeizi to be Huang-Lao, though he regarded the Huainanzi and (relevant parts of) the Zhuangzi to be more aptly referred to as “Laozi-centred syncretisim” (Chinese Texts and Philosophical Contexts: Essays Dedicated to Angus C. Graham, edited by Henry Rosemont, Jr., Open Court, 1991, 280-1.
Bao Pu 抱朴 
Any thoughts or questions, please reply/ask!
LikeLike
I’ve been working on these questions myself recently. One thing I keep being reminded of is the paucity of sources for the Hundred Schools period (ca. 350-250 or a little longer), the difficulty of ascribing texts to authors, and the difficulties dating either authors or texts. A lot of authors consist of no more than a name plus one or two sayings or anecdotes; same are just names.
Russell Kirkland’s “Taoism: The Enduring Tradition” discusses these questions in a polemical style. He seems to suggest disengaging Laozi and Zhuangzi from later Daoist traditions, or making them into just one Daoist source among many rather than a founding source.
LikeLike
Yes indeed, there is not alot of information dating from those times. So many wars. So many torched libraries. Still, I’ve read somewhere that the amount of texts we do have from ancient China is astounding, compared to other cultures.
I wish we had more information on the many names mentioned in the Shiji that Sima Qian said were learned in Huang-Lao.
I’m familiar with Kirkland. He flatly states: “‘Classical Taoism’ never existed, either as a social entity or as a set of coherent ideas or values. Even well known texts — such as the Daodejing — can be imagined to have ‘coherence’ only if one does violence to the facts of what is written within them. And all such texts have come down to us in forms that took shape only in Han times, or, in the case of the Zhuangzi, the third or fourth century CE. So an accurate reconstruction of “classical Daoist ideas” is simply not possible, for there was never really any such thing.” (22-3)
Polemical is right. Although he’s a smart fellow, with lots of interesting information to share, I found his book a bit of a tiring tirade. One can find “twentieth-century misconceptions” repeated ad nauseam throughout the book. For him, “Daoism” definitely does mean “religious Daoism,” in which the Neiye is the most “Daoist” of classical-era texts.
LikeLike
From Kirkland, I picked and chose. An advantage of his book for me is that it allows me to detach Laozi from much later traditions of Daoism, starting with the Xiang Er Commentary, the Heshang Gong Commentary, and neo-Daoism. These would have the same relationship to Laozi as The New Testament has to the Old – not unrelated, bu not at all authoritative. There was a long period when Laozi studies were denigrated and the real Daoism was supposed to be the Heavenly Masters Daoism or whatever. If you don’t need to maintain “Daoism” your interpretation of Laozi can be closer to the text, and the tradition just becomes a resource to consult rather than an authority. (Kirkland’s “classical Daoism never existed” is sort of quibbly. As far as I know it just means that Laozi and Zhuangzi were not both part of the same group, and that there was no continuity between any classical “Daoist” group, if there was any, and the later “Daoist” groups.)
So I am trying to interpret Daoism in terms of its contemporaries and key predecessors. But many of them have effectively disappeared. I wrote this recently:
“The 26 philosophers mentioned in Zhuangzi’s Tianxia chapter or Xunzi’s Fei Shi’er Zi chapter presumably were the most pertinent recent or contemporary thinkers those two authors knew, and presumably had some importance. Eleven of them (Qin Guli, Xiangli Qin, Wu Hou, Ku Hou, Ji Chi, Denglingzi, Huan Tuan, Tuo Xiao, Chen Zhong, Shi Qiu, Yin Wen) have left only their names and a few anecdotes behind, and four more (Peng Meng, Tian Pian, Guan Yin, and Deng Xi) are almost that obscure. With a little resourcefulness Sung Xing, Kongsun Long, Hui Shi, Zisi, and Zigong can be discussed at some length, but of the 26 philosophers named only Confucius, Mencius, Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, and Mo Tzu have left a significant body of work. (It might be mentioned that Shen Dao is the only Legalist on the list, even for the purpose of refutation: Shang Yang, Shen Buhai, and the militarist Sunzi were presumably too evil to mention at all). ”
Some of these authors may have been absorbed into Mozi, the Li Ji, etc., but the majority of them are non-Confucian and non-Mohist. Right now I am looking at Laozi in terms of polemics with the Mohists and Confucians and appropriations from Shen Dao, Shen Buhai, and Sunzi, who left works and the School of Names. Conjecturally I might identify themes within Laozi (e.g., the development of the water theme) with some of the obscure figures, and I have speculated about that, but it’s hard to work with so little.
LikeLike
Hi John,
re: “Right now I am looking at Laozi in terms of polemics with the Mohists and Confucians and appropriations from Shen Dao, Shen Buhai, and Sunzi, who left works and the School of Names.”
I look forward to following your work. As it stands right now, I have identified a number of connections between Laozi, Zhuangzi and Yang Zhu. I need to re-read the appropriate sections in Creel’s book on Shen Buhai and go over your findings with Shen Dao.
LikeLike
“The more recent interest in what was once called “religious Daoism (Daojiao 道教),” as opposed to “philosophical Daoism (Daojia 道家),” has seen a shift towards using “Daoism” to refer only to the former.”
Hi, Scott
I had been studying the Tao Te Ching for few years. I had done the translations for all the chapters of the Tao Te Ching based on the interpretations and commentaries of the native knowledgeable scholars.
I had noticed your last post in DIO. Indeed, I do have great interest in sharing the work on Tao Te Ching with you. I just cannot help myself to comment on the quote above.
What I want to point out is that both Daojia (道家) and Daojiao(道教) are two separate subjects and both have equal importance:
1. Daojia(道家) is the study of the principles of Tao in the Tao Te Ching.
2. Daojiao(道教) is a group of religious Taoist interpreted certain chapters of the Tao Te Ching in their favor as dogma for the Taoist religion.
LikeLike
Hi James,
As I’ve written, “Daojia” was first used by Sima Tan to signify an approach that blended the teachings and practices of Confucians, Mohists, logicians, “Legalists” and yin-yang theorists. In addition, they are noted for their ability to adapt to changes. There’s no strong connection to the Daodejing there. Next, it was used by Ban Gu as a way of organizing books in the imperial library, which seems to come close to referring to a “school of thought.” Unfortunately most of the books listed under “Daojia” no longer exist, but it did not refer soley to the Daodejing’s conception of Dao. It was in the 19th and 20th centuries (or perhaps earlier) that scholars began using it to refer to a philosophy perceived to exist in the Daodejing and Zhuangzi. In the past 20 years scholars lean toward taking those two texts on their own terms and setting aside the preconception that Zhuangzi develops Laozi’s philosophy.
As for “Daojiao,” it represents an amorphous Chinese religion that indeed took some inspiration and adopted some terminology from the Laozi and Zhuangzi (and Neiye). Some believe the common thread through the history of “Daoism” is the cultivation of Qi. I’ll be looking into that, though obviously most chapters of the Laozi have nothing to do with this and some other philosophers, namely the Confucian Mencius, also seem to have dabbled in it.
LikeLike
Hi Scott,
As per your request,
in a post to alt.philosophy.taoism
it was written by {:-]))), aka, me:
“I read it through once.
Looks like a great project.
In footnote 20, on the second line
at the end, there’s a than. That might
maybe be supposed to be a that.
The question of whether there was
such a thing as “classical Daoism”
brought to my mind ideas of culture,
sub-cultures, streams and themes.
For me, with me, around me,
growing up, in the States, there was
what was referred to as hippy culture.
Generations later, it might be surmised
that there was a hippy philosophy.
Whatever that philosophy was, if it was,
it might be said of people now, or then,
that they are\were classic hippies or, perhaps,
philosophical hippies.
If hippy-thought were to be seen as a form
of government or political science, that might
be an interesting lens through which to view it,
assuming there was such a thing as hippy thought.
As a way of life,
peace and love transcends government.
It goes beyond politics.
Classical music also comes to my mind.
Historians of music, in an effort to categorize,
alphabetize, and otherwise put things in order,
might lump a batch of composers together.
Now-a-daze there is classic rock.
Whether to include or exclude metal
from heavy metal from classic rock might
be subject to some discussion.
Now it could be said, clearly, Jimi Hendrix
was a hippy. Or was he? Was Joni Mitchell?
Bob Dylan? Were The Beatles?
Water might be muddy or clear.
I think what Zz had to say about words
could be an essential ingredient. The idea
is to get some point across. Once the words
have done that, they’re done.
If I say I’m a philosophical hippy,
but not a real hippy, that might mean something.
There used to be weekend hippies.
A Real Daoist might be more than philosophical
while having at the same time some love of wisdom
found in any of many texts known as Daoist.
Fitting a stereotype may lead to surround sound.
Having only a mono player might be limited.
For me, were I to use the term, classical Daoism
or philosophical Daoism, or Daojia, it would
probably refer to a flavour.
There is something there,
difficult to describe. And yet, perhaps
there is a taste or a sound to it. It smells
or feels a certain way. It rings a bell.
Some may know what I mean.
Others, maybe not a clue.
Thanks for the reflections!”
It’s way cool to see John here.
I’ve appreciated his work in the past.
LikeLike
Thanks for taking the time to read it Jay. I understand what you are saying with your analogies to the hippy movement, classical music, etc. This is the sort of thing I’m going to be exploring further, so I
appreciate your thoughts. I do have to work with the facts, or start from them, so if my piece of writing seems overly concerned with these facts, bare this in mind.
In the past few years I’ve been moving away lumping people into reified groups. Expressions such as “Americans are all …” or “Chinese people are …” and more to the point, “Daoists believe …”
Clearly, the authors of the Laozi and the authors of the Zhuangzi did not agree on everything. It seems to me that the authors of the Laozi did not agree on everything. Still, complete agreement isn’t necessary to belong to some sort of group, or at least it shouldn’t. I plan to look at the reasons we lump Laozi and Zhuangzi together, and I hope to get some feedback from you, Shazi and any others who care to speak up.
You write: “For me, were I to use the term, classical Daoism or philosophical Daoism, or Daojia, it would probably refer to a flavour. There is something there, difficult to describe. And yet, perhaps there is a taste or a sound to it. It smells or feels a certain way. It rings a bell.”
I share your feelings Jay. Though difficult to describe, I am going to give it a try. I am not sure how it will end. Which is probably a good thing!
LikeLike
There are some more comments in these two places:
Warp, Weft and Way
Google Groups: alt.philosophy.taoism
LikeLike
Great essay Scott.
I have a scholastically extremely weak position on the question of what LZ and ZZ have in common. Having had the direct experience of what I consider to be “de”, my report is that it was obviously (to me) the central theme of both authors.
LikeLike
Pingback: Classical Daoism – Is There Really Such a Thing? Part 3 « Bao Pu 抱朴
Pingback: Classical Daoism – Is There Really Such a Thing? Part 2 « Bao Pu 抱朴
Hi Scott, Just curious to know if Henri Maspero’s work, Taoism and Chinese Religion, been taken into account in this overview? (I confess that I am one of those readers that look at the notes and bibliography before deciding to read a piece)
LikeLike
I have read some of Maspero’s work. His religious interpretation, although quite old, has been somewhat helpful, although not on the topic of this blog. If there’s something I should look into, please let me know.
LikeLike
sorry to lambast Scott, but given the opening of daodejing I find it difficult to understand the jump from the list to “On the one hand, going solely on this description, it would seem Daojia has little to do with the Laozi” If there is “method in no method” it is in the opening lines 道可道,非常道。名可名,非常名。refuting to pin down the dao or any name is surely parodied by the
“They have methods that are no methods // They have limits that are no limits”: Dao could be replaced verbatim with method, and names, what are they but names … where is someone who has no name, I’d like to call them…. :–)
LikeLike
No need to apologize: I welcome your comments. Are you suggesting that the Shiji’s 有法無法 … 有度無度 could be emended to 有道無道 … 有名無名? That seems reasonable, if we are interpreting Laozi 1 as saying something like “daos can guide (dao), but they are not constant daos, names can name, but they are not constant names.”
I must admit that I find 有法無法 … 有度無度 to be ambiguous, and am not certain what is being pointed to.
LikeLike
Indeed, I think the latter could be seen as a parody of the former (and let’s not forget that parody and humor often gets bleached out or overlooked when translating across cultures and time) if the 有法無法 … 有度無度 is, as I am suggesting, a tongue-in-cheek reference to the the style of Daodejing/Laozi then Daojia is seen as that family where ambiguity is used as a mode of currency to point out the underlying presuppositions that mar grasping the deeper reality… those regulations (that are commonly held as essential) are not regulatory or there is a method (grounded) in non-mothod
LikeLike
A very nice review of the literature in this three-part post, Scott, but it seems that you didn’t finish it (or perhaps you finished it in subsequent posts but did not link them here) and, more importantly, you didn’t answer the title question. Imo, of course there was ‘such a thing as classical Daoism’–otherwise what were Sima Tan and Liu Xin/Ban Gu referring to? A ‘school of thought’ requires neither bricks and mortar nor a master-student lineage, it only requires a group of people to comment on a set of ideas.
Two points:
1. You said: “Classical Daoism, Philosophical Daoism, Early Daoism: these terms are increasingly being seen as obsolescent by scholars in the last couple of decades.” – Western scholars, yes, but do you know of any Chinese scholars who are saying this? I do not.
2. “…it would seem Daojia has little to do with the Laozi: it is only “doing nothing and yet they say that nothing is left undone” (無為，又曰無不為) which seems to ultimately derive from the Laozi (chapters 37 and 48)” – isn’t this a contradiction?
LikeLike
Hi Paul, thanks for taking the time to read these essays and commenting.
No, I have not finished it. There will be at least two more posts. At the moment, I’m working on what connections we can find between the Laozi and Zhuangzi. Regarding what Daojia refers to, if not a “school of thought,” I have collected a couple dozen passages written by (Western) scholars on this issue. There are a few definitions of what “school of thought” means, though surely you intend “a group of people to comment on a set of ideas who share common characteristics of opinion or outlook“? Otherwise, your definition includes the entire society. My task is to examine what those common characteristics might be, without taking anything for granted. Everyone borrowed from others, as you well know from your work on the Shizi, so what counts as definable school of thought? I have a number of ideas – some hinted at in the “Intellectual Affiliation” section of Part 3 on Zhuangzi – but I am interested in your thoughts.
1: unfortunately, I have no access to what Chinese scholars are saying these days.
2: No, I don’t think there is a contradiction. For one thing, I say Daojia seems to have little to do with the Laozi and not absolutely nothing. Second, this expression (無為，又曰無不為) may only be indirectly derived from the Laozi, as Sima’s description seems more to describe what we find in the Huainanzi. So again, “little (to do with)” seems more appropriate to me.
Being a blog-essay, I can make revisions when and if my mind changes on the issues dealt with. You are not alone in questioning this “conclusion.” I will think more about this. I welcome your thoughts and opinions. 🙂
LikeLike
To give just one example of a treatment of Sima Tan’s and Ban Gu’s “Daojia,” see Sarah Queen’s “Inventories of the Past: Rethinking the ‘School’ Affiliation of the Huainanzi” Asia Major, Volume 14, part 1, 2001.
LikeLike
So much that could be said… why don’t you just come over for a beer and we can talk while I rake the leaves? 😉
Ok, point taken on “school of thought”: those in the school need to share some common opinions. But I, unlike Sarah Queen, don’t mind using the English term “school” for 家 insofar as the English word “school” can be used both loosely and anachronistically, as in, “there is a school of thought in the US that ‘attachment parenting’ is better than ‘free-range parenting.'” Such a school of thought may well have no founder, no lineage, and its “members” may never even congregate; in fact, before the term “attachment parenting” was coined there may have been “members” who didn’t even know they were members. And yet I think it’s ok to retroactively use the phrase “school of thought” that way. Queen (2001) is wrong when she says in footnote 14 that 家 is “misleadingly” translated as “school” and that Sima Tan employed the word “in a highly idiosyncratic, and new, way to designate intellectual tendencies and political practices that are not associated… with any particular master or text….” Her view of both the Chinese and English words are, imo, too narrow. Sima Tan certainly thought his audience would connect his term 道家 with the masters/texts 老子 and 莊子, even if he didn’t mention them. What other masters or texts come to mind when one reads his description? (See below.) She may be right that there may have been no “social entity” called “Daoism”, but on the other hand we just don’t know, so her definitive “Sima Tan invents new groupings of ideas with his usage which do not correspond…to a single social entity….” is overstated. There’s not much evidence either way… but someone wrote those books, and someone transcribed them, and someone asked that they be buried with them, and someone made sure they found their way into the imperial library….
I guess I’ll make two assertions in this post. One, I think 家 can also mean person/expert/author in addition to family/lineage, and the first meaning allows the kind of loose “school of thought” that I referred to in the previous paragraph. Two, I think Sima Tan’s description of 道家 implies *at least* Lao-Zhuang, if not the other 35 Daoist texts in Liu Xin’s list (that Ban Gu used).
I. 家 as person/expert/author
i. 莊子。則陽 (ch.25; c.250): 少知曰：「季真之莫為，接子之或使，二家之議，孰正於其情，孰徧於其理？」(Little Knowledge said, “Jizhen’s ‘no one does it’ and Jiezi’s ‘something causes it’: of these two people’s/expert’s/author’s theories, which is true to his situation and which is [merely] partial in his order [of things]?) Watson (1968), 292; Graham (1981), 152; Mair (1994), 265 all translate 家 as “school”, but they are wrong: these are two people, not two schools.
ii. 韩非子。定法 (ch.43; c.240): 問者曰：『申不害、公孫鞅，此二家之言孰急於國？』(Someone asked: “Shen Buhai and Gongsun Yang: (regarding) the doctrines of these two people/experts/authors, whose is more urgent for the state?) Liao (1959), 212: 家 = “authorities”. I think both of these examples are predecessors of Liu Xin’s use of 家 as “author.”
II. You give Sima Tan’s two descriptions of Daoism above, then say only one thing (無爲) reminds you of Laozi. I see 13 points in his description of Daoism… are you sure only one fits with Laozi?
1. your quintessential spirit [or quintessence and spirit] should come together in unity (精神專一)
2. your actions should harmonize with the formless (動合無形)
3. you should feel sufficient and satisfied with the myriad things (贍足萬物)
4. you should shift and move with the seasons (與時遷移) [~ you should have laws and not have laws and accord with the seasons for accomplishing tasks (有法無法，因時為業)]
5. you should change and transform in response to things (應物變化) [~ you should have measures and not have measures and accord with things and harmonize with them (有度無度，因物與合)]
6. you should act effortlessly, but leave nothing undone (無為… 無不為)
7. you should take emptiness and nonbeing as the root (以虛無為本)
8. you should take accordance and reliance as the means (以因循為用)
9. you should have no fixed position or abiding form so that you can see the actual disposition of the myriad things (無成埶，無常形，故能究萬物之情)
10. you should treat emptiness as the constancy of the way (虛者道之常)
11. when the various ministers arrive, make each one clarify himself (羣臣並至，使各自明也)
12. you should join with the great way (合大道)
13. you should not over-use your spirit or belabor your body (神大用則竭，形大勞則敝)
I have not yet gone and re-read the Laozi to see how many of these 13 can be found there, but I rather think that when I do I will find more than just #6. On the other hand, we don’t *really* know what Sima Tan had in mind when he wrote this definition, but when I read it, I think “hmm, sounds like Lao-Zhuang to me.” Not to you?
You’re right: too cold for a beer; how about mulled wine?
LikeLike
Hi Paul,
There is indeed so much we could talk about. If you wish, we could continue this via email correspondence (I believe you have my address). Though I can’t help you with those Bloomington leaves. 😉
I see what you’re saying about the use of “school of thought.” Though having read Queen’s paper and those by Kidder Smith (“Sima Tan and the Invention of Daoism, ‘Legalism,’ ‘et cetera’” in The Journal of Asian Studies 62.1 , 2003) and Jens Østergaard Petersen (“Which Books Did the First Emperor of Ch’in Burn? On the Meaning of Pai Chia in Early Chinese Sources,” Monumenta Serica Vol. 43, 1995), I am more reluctant to use the term. For one thing, I do not find “school of thought” a very helpful concept if it has “no founder, no lineage, and its “members” may never even congregate.” But that is just me. I do believe, as stated in the 2nd and 3rd installment on Classical Daoism, some sort of lineage(s) existed which preserved and transmitted their written works (and probably self-cultivation practices). So maybe our differences are simply terminological. Or maybe I’ll end up deciding “school of thought” is perfectly okay.
Regarding your 13 points, I’d have to say it does not remind me of Lao-Zhuang, but rather Zhuang-Huainan. Harold Roth has argued that Sima Tan’s Daojia was in fact Huang-Lao, as found in the Mawangdui Boshu, Huainanzi, the syncretist parts of the Zhuangzi and a few sections of the Guanzi. Now, all but perhaps the Guanzi chapters were certainly influenced by the Laozi, but the connection then is more indirect. The Laozi lacks concern with one’s 神, with moving with the seasons (時), with 應物, or with the ministers (臣). (I am still thinking about Harold Roth’s belief that the Laozi’s concept of Wuwei is displayed in the technical terms “ying 應 (‘spontaneous response’), yin因 (‘adaptation’), xunli 循理 (‘compliance with patterns’), and to the principle of assigning tasks which are suitable to the individual (yi 宜).”)
I drink alot of tea, but have never tried “mulled wine.” (I had to Google that, since I did not know what it was).
LikeLike
Pingback: Classical Daoism – Is There Really Such a Thing? Part 4.1 « Bao Pu 抱朴
Pingback: Classical Daoism – Is There Really Such a Thing? Part 4.2 « Bao Pu 抱朴
Pingback: Classical Daoism – Is There Really Such a Thing? Part 4.3 | Bao Pu 抱朴
Pingback: Classical Daoism – Is There Really Such a Thing? Part 4.4 | Bao Pu 抱朴
Reblogged this on The Ratliff Notepad.
LikeLike
Happy we found this blog of yours! We’re anything but scholars, but we do have an abiding interest in Dao. Also, are you at Academia dot edu? Thank you.
Roy Waidler
LikeLike
Greetings Roy. Yes, I do have a page on Academia.edu. Just search for Scott Barnwell.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Philosophy of O Society – O Society
Pingback: Classical Daoism – Is There Really Such a Thing? Part 5.2 | Bao Pu 抱朴
Pingback: Classical Daoism – Is There Really Such a Thing? Part 5.3 | Bao Pu 抱朴