POPULAR MISCONCEPTIONS, INFORMED VIEWS,

AND DAOIST VIEWS ON DAOISM

A response to Daoism Misconceptions (PDF), by Futie zi (Master Copy-Paste)

Popular Misconception

Informed View

Daoist 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

, 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).

Dao (Tao) is a the trans-religious and

universal names for the sacred, and
there are Dao-ists (Tao-ists) who
transcend the limitations of the Daoist
religious tradition.
Warring States period? Our tradition
originated in one of the pre-cosmic
eras.
By the way, we dont believe in the
Dao. We attain the Dao.

Daoism consists of two forms,

philosophical Daoism and
religious Daoism

Philosophical Daoism is the

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

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

We only speak of the house/s,

family/ies, or lineage/s of the Dao
(daojia ) and of the teaching/s
of the Dao (daojiao ).

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

The centrality of embodied

practice? We dont understand what
this means. It must one of those
Western scholars speaking here.

No Daoist text speaks of

philosophy or religion. These
words dont even exist in premodern
Chinese.
Our masters have formulated again
and again the same teaching in
different times and places and have
adapted it to different audiences.
Some of these formulations are
philosophical, others are
religious. For us, they mean the
same thing.

We simply have one doctrine with

several related practices. Are you
implying that we cant or that we
shouldnt think? Some of us like to
think. Some of us know thinking
so well that we even know nonthinking.
In our view, as long as the practices
are connected to the doctrine, they
can lead to the realization of the
doctrine. However, some of these
practices are also transmitted outside
of Daoism. This seems to confuse
many Westerners. Its very easy: The
link between doctrine and practice
may break. When this happens, the
practice loses its connection to with
Daoism. This very often happens
nowadays with Qigong, Taiji quan,
and other similar practices, both in
China and especially in the West.

Daojia and daojiao

correspond to the Western categories
of philosophical Daoism and
religious Daoism, respectively

Laozi (Lao-tzu; Master Lao/

Old Master/Old Child) is the founder
of Daoism

Laozi wrote the Daode jing

(Tao-te ching; Scripture on the Dao
and Inner Power)

Daojia , literally Family of the

Dao, and daojiao , 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

We use daojia and daojiao

interchangeably. For us, beyond the
literal meanings, they are two words
that refer to the same thing. There
cant be teaching without
lineage, and vice versa.

Laozi, a.k.a. Lao Dan and Li Er

, is a pseudo-historical figure.
His received biography, as
contained in Sima Qians (ca.
145-86 BCE) Shiji (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 sourcepoints. A variety of figures, both
human and divine, are identified as
important with respect to the
formation of the Daoist tradition.

Laozi (Lao-tzu; Master Lao/

Old Master/Old Child) is the founder
of Daoism.

The Daode jing, a.k.a. Laozi

(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)

Laozi wrote the Daode jing

(Tao-te ching). Period.

The distinction between daojia and

daojiao, or between philosophy
and religion, was not created by us.
Someone says that it was created in
early times by bibliographers at the
imperial court. Others say that it was
created by later Confucians.

For us, there is no discussion about

this. Anyone who tries to demontrate
the contrary is not a Daoist.
If this may help you, its like saying
that Christ is not the founder of
Christianity, or that Mohammed is
not the founder of Islam.
By the way, this funny theory that
Laozi means "venerable masters"
must be another of those inventions
of a Western scholar. In our tradition
there is only one person called Laozi,
and he is the author of the Daode
jing.

What do you mean by multi-vocal?

He wrote all of it by himself.
By the way, why do you translate
de as inner power? In Chinese,
we have the word nei , which
means precisely inner. If we want
to say inner, we can say it. But this
word is not found in the title of our
main scripture.
De simply means the way in which
the Dao operates (there is no doing,
and yet nothing is not done). It also
means the operation of the person
who takes the Dao as a model.

The Daode jing and Zhuangzi are the

only Daoist texts that matter because
they are the essence and original
teachings of Daoism

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.

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
(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.

There are many principal Daoist

scriptures. For us, the most
important is the Daode jing. For
many of us, immediately after the
Daode jing comes the Zhuangzi.

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.

The Dao has no origin or beginning,

therefore Daoism also has no origin
or beginning. Laozi was simply the
first one to reveal the Daoist teaching
to humanity in a written form. Thus
we take him as the founder of our
teaching. According to us, this
happened maybe around 600 BCE.
The precise date is not important. In
fact, we just dont care about precise
dates. We only care about lineages
and transmission.

Then every Daoist branch or lineage

has its own principal scripture or
scriptures. Nevertheless, it would
impossible to find a Daoist
throughout all of our history who
denies that our tradition derives from
the Daode jing. There is no
principal Daoist scripture? Only a
misinformed Western scholar could
say this.
One could read only the Daode jing;
in our view, this text contains both
the essence and the original
teachings of Daoism. But for many
people the Daode jing is not
sufficient, or is too difficult. This is
why our masters have written ten
thousand more scrolls of texts.

Several centuries later, Laozi came

back to earth and gave a revelation to
Zhang Daoling. This is how the
Tianshi dao (Way of the Celestial
Masters) began. But dont forget that
for us, Laozi is also at the beginning
of Quanzhen.
By the way, Laozi also wrote many
other texts in later times: for
example, the Huangting jing (Book
of the Yellow Court), the Neiguan
jing (Book of Inner Contemplation)
and the Qingjing jing (Book of
Clarity and Quiescence), to name just
a few.

Daoists, or Dao-ists, are those who

love the Dao and go with the flow.

Correlative cosmology, based on yin

-yang , the Five Elements
(wuxing ), and qi (chi), is
Daoist.

Chinese medicine is Daoist and/or

there is some form of Chinese
medicine called Daoist medicine

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

We love the Dao and go with the

flow (shun ). We also invert the
flow (ni ). We go with the flow
to follow the Dao, and we invert the
flow to return to the Dao. Isnt that
clear?

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 panChinese 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

Correlative cosmology, based on

Yin-Yang , the Five Agents
(wuxing ), and qi (chi), is
Daoist.

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

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM

whats that?) existed long before the
Chinese communist government
and any influence by Western
biomedicine and a scientific
paradigm. I dont even understand
what you mean. This must be
Western academic jargon to sound
cool.

Our tradition consists, first of all, of

initiated masters who in turn grant
initiation to those who are qualified
to receive it. These masters may or
may not be ordained priest: being a
Daoist priest is not a requirement for
being a Daoist master (and vice
versa).
If you ask what gives a master the
right of granting initiation, you
must be one of those post-modern
Westerners. We are pre-modern
Chinese. You can ask as many
questions as you like, and never
understand what we mean.

However, unlike ordinary

cosmologists and other people, we do
not use traditional Chinese
cosmology just to explain how the
cosmos functions. We use it
especially to explain how the Dao
gives birth to and operates within the
cosmos.

For us, there is no precise rule about

whether traditional Chinese medicine
is or is not Daoist. It depends on who
practices it, and especially on why
and how they practice it.
Ive often heard that Western
scholars claim to cross boundaries
in their research projects. But as soon
as they see a Daoist actually
crossing boundaries, they set their
own boundaries. Only this allows
them to analyze their subject
according to their own criteria.
Zhuangzi says that there are no
boundaries between the Dao and the
10,000 things. We are actually those
who cross boundaries: we are just
beyond any boundaries.

Fengshui (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 Fenshui
[sic] throughout Chinese history, it is
not Daoist in origin or essence. Using
Fengshui thus does not indicate
Daoist religious affiliation or identity.

According to Daoist masters and

Daoist monks that I have personally
met, Fengshui is part of Daoism. If
this was not true, I would not say it.
Of course, by Fengshui we mean
something different from what you
mean in the decadent Far West.
I suggest that instead of saying that
something is not Daoist, you should
understand why we say that it is
Daoist.
You know, you should let us decide
what is and what is not Daoist.

Qigong (Chi-kung; Qi
Exercises) is Daoist

Sexual yoga, including the search for

multiple orgasms and the practice of
sexual vampirism, is Daoist.

Taiji quan (Tai-chi chan;

Yin-yang Boxing) 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
(Nourishing Life) practices.
There are also many different types
of Qigong, including Buddhist,
Daoist, medical, and martial. Most
Daoist Qigong incorporates internal
alchemy (neidan ) methods.

A qualified Daoist master, monk, or

disciple may or may not practice
Qigong.

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.

Sexual Yoga? Sorry, we Daoists

have never heard this term. Its not a
Chinese word. It must be another of
those cool Western terms.

Taiji quan is not Daoist. It is a

Chinese martial art. Like Bagua
zhang (Eight Trigram Palm)
and Xingyi quan (FormIntent Boxing), it originated in nonDaoist 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

See above about Qigong. The Daoist

view of Taiji quan is the same.

There is no precise rule, but its very

simple. If you do Qigong, then
Qigong is part of your Daoist
practice. But doing Qigong does not
qualify you as a Daoist.

Oh, do you mean the arts of the

bedroom (fangzhong shu)? We have
spoken against them since the
beginning.
And whats all that stuff about
semen retention? Let me tell you
something. If the Dao had retained
its own semen (jing), this world
would not even exist. Have you read
Daode jing, chapter 21?

Taoist Yoga, aka Flow Yoga or Yin

Yoga, is Daoist.

Mount Wudang 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

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 (martial arts) practices.
Current research suggests that little if
any so-called Taoist Yoga derives
from Daoist Daoyin (lit.,
guided stretching) or internal
alchemy (neidan ) practices,
which are the indigenous Daoist
categories.

Taoist Yoga? Sorry, we have never

heard this term. We dont have it in
our language. Im not even sure what
you are talking about.

Chinese internal style (neijia )

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.

Some of us think that Mount Wudang

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.

Modified Hatha Yoga? Try to

prove it.
We have nothing against Indians
doing Yoga. Some of our Indian
brethren do Yoga. But just like they
dont say Hinduist Daoyin, we
dont say Taoist Yoga.
Each traditions has its own forms.

Some qualified Daoists practice this

or other varieties of martial arts.
Others dont. You can be a Daoist
without practicing them. And you
can practice them without being a
Daoist.
Anyway, dont in addition to the
martial (wu ) arts, you are also
expected to practice the civil (wen
) arts. You westerners are typically
fixated on the body and forget this
point.

The Yiing (I-ching; Book of

Changes) is a Daoist text. As the
trigrams and hexagrams derive from
it, they also are Daoist symbols

The Yiing [sic] (Book of

Changes) is not a Daoist text. It predates 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.

The Yijing (I-ching; Book of

Changes) is a Daoist text. As the
trigrams and hexagrams derive from
it, they also are Daoist symbols.
By Yijing we dont mean
divination, in which we are interested
only marginally. We use especially
the so-called appendixes and in
particular the Great
Treatise (Dazhuan , also
known as Appended Sayings,
Xici ) of the Yijing. For us,
this and other appendixes contain
one of the main means of explaining,
by means of lines, trigrams, and
hexagrams, how the Dao gives birth
to the cosmos, and how we can invert
this process and return to the
Dao (fandao , huandao ).

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

We are sorry, we cannot comment on

those translations. We just dont read
them. We have no time to waste.

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 selfhelp 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.

We are sorry, we cannot comnent on

those books. We have plenty of
authentic Taoist texts to read. Even
too many, for that matter.
Oh yes, and then theres this
difference between Taoism and
Daoism, and between the T
sound and the D sound. These
western Daoist scholars are real fun!
They want to tell us Daoists what is
real Daoism and false Daoism. But
for them the difference only consists
in a letter of their alphabet...

d
e
nt
i
Pr

o
Pr

i
w

er

t
ri
W

th

us

is
N

o
em

of

of

o
em

i
N

s
u
s

ri
W

r
e
t

it
w

o
Pr

d
te
in
Pr