Talk:Taoism/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

To be merged

I took this text on Eastern philosophy because I think this level of detail belongs to [[Taoism] main article:

Taoism's central books are the Tao Te Ching and the Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi). Tradition had it that the Tao Te Ching of Lao Tzu (Laozi) dates to approximately 600 BCE. Recent archeological finds have reinforced the scholarly argument that it was still being shaped around or after the time of Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi). The core concepts themselves may be much more ancient, incorporating elements of mysticism dating back to prehistoric times.

The traditional story: The Tao Te Ching was written by Lao Zi (Wade-Giles, Lao tse), a minor Chinese court official (and, according to Taoist legend, teacher to Confucius) who became tired of the petty intrigues of court life, and set off to leave China by the "Western Pass". He was stopped by a "keeper of the pass" who, noting that valuable wisdom should not be taken away, required Laozi to put his tao into words -- whereupon Laozi quickly jotted down the 5000 characters that make up the Tao Te Ching (which actually contains about twice that).

His Taoism (interpreted by some as a version of quietism) involved a slogan often translated (obscurely) as "action through inaction", wu wei. The "wu" is not problematic -- it's just "lack" or "absence." But "wei" has a cluster of meanings, including "for the sake of", "doing", and "regarding or deeming as." (A cognate wei means "to call or designate", and another works like the linking verb "is.") We can speculate that the whole idea suggests no actions generated by concepts. The closest familiar Western idea would be something like non-deliberative or sub-conscious action. This produces the familiar gloss in interpretations that one should effect changes subtly and without disrupting the natural flow of the universe, rather than by attempting to force change according to some conceptual norms (a for the sake of).

A related core structural feature is the argumentative reliance on the dualism of concepts (names). All terms are discussed as paired with their opposites and rather than a model where names refer to objects, the text hints that the complementary concepts (names) map onto distinctions that we can draw in reality. (Mastery of language consists in correctly being able to distinguish using the names). Laozi links this learned capacity to learned (hence unnatural) desires which, in turn, lead to wei--action informed by names, learned patterns of discrimination, and associated desires.

The most famous example of this dualism is one only briefly hinted at in the text but which becomes dominant in the Han (220 BC-3rd centry AD) is the yin-yang dualism that dominated the cosmology of the traditional China. These symbolize the divisions of light and dark, male and female,hot and cool, dominant and submissive, upper and lower, stiff and yielding, hard and soft, active and passive etc. Where Confucianism "favors" the "good" yang, Daoism sees them as interdependent. One half is no better than the other, and indeed, neither can exist without the other, since each contains a small amount of the other. Ultimately, both are the same thing -- the great ultimate which a tao "carves" into two to guide action in some WAY. (The concrete -- pun intended -- translation of dao is "road".)

Some time after the publication of the Tao Te Ching and another work by Zhuang zi (Wade-Giles, Chuang tse), Taoism developed its religious aspect, especially among the Chinese peasantry. Lao Zi and other famous personas were elevated to deity status among followers, and complex religious rituals involving alchemy, magic spells and symbology began to be practiced.

I will try to merge this in the article. gbog 16:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sacred Sites

Could someone please include a section on the Sacred sites in this religion please. Just a suggestion, but it could be useful.

discrepancies

A: The depiction of the Tai Chi is incorrect, it should be facing so that tha tails of the yin and the yang point with the little end counter clockwise of the big end. (I hope that was descriptive enough). Yin should be on bottom (preferably). Which Way Taichi similar link, only posted in case previous link fails Basically the reasoning can be boiled down to the direction the Chinese compass points (down) and the way the seasons flow. It can be argues that Yin on top is okay in America considering our compasses point up (i.e., away from the viewer). By having the tails point the way they do, however, makes the assumtion that Spring follows after Summer, the dragon is in the West, and that West is the direction of metal (an the dozens of other things mapped onto the Taichi).

B: Additionally I thought I'd comment on the spelling problem. I believe the NPOV clearly states that personal opinion doesn't matter. A simple google search will tell you which is more common (by a landslide). Dustin Asby 23:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I call myself a "Daoist" and consider "Daoism" to be the more accurate term, but at the moment, "Taoism" is better-established and more recognizable. Remember wu-wei -- if "Daoism" is truly the better term (as I think it is), it will eventually exceed "Taoism" in usage on its own, and then we can change the Wiki usage without controversy. Until then, I think we should accept the current usage. A bunch of Daoists/Taoists trying to force change seems kind of silly to me. --Nat 02:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

isn't calling yourself a "taoist" a way of concealing yourself within the mask of a group identity in a way that lao tzu suggests is somewhat counter productive? seems to suggest attachment to concepts rather than experience. Jung said " i'd rather be Jung than a jungian." Or as bronski beat once sang "i'd rather jack...than fleetwood mac...no heavy metal, rock n'roll or music from the back.. i'd rather jack"

Some notes

I was under the impression that wu wei was a Zen concept, but I'm most likely wrong. More important, however, is that we have an article on a religion/philosophy that mentions a belief in God without elaborating on Taoism's apparent theism. Of course, I could be limited by my Western concepts. -- Kizor 22:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean God or god? Isn't the term God restricted to Christianity? If yes, how is the topic of God fit in a taoism article? Kowloonese 00:13, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think God in capitals can be used to refer to anything of the Supreme Being/Alpha and Omega/He That Is variety. -- Kizor 02:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I trust both of you will restrain yourself from making any contribution to the article as a result of this demonstration that you know absolutely nothing about the subject matter. -- Steven Zenith 05:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why isn't it lucky that there's someone to set the record straight in such a wise and insightful way.

Taoism the religion

The biggest problem with this article is that it places the emphasis of Taoism on the philosophy, something the West seems to adore. However, in modern China (PRC, Hong Kong, Taiwan), the expression of Taoism the religion is much, much more prevalent. Unless anyone has any objections, I'm going to update the religion section a bit more and put in a few pictures.

What you are proposing would be a valuable addition to the article, IMO. Sunray 19:36, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

This section is still sorely needed. I see no mention of Zhang Daoling, Lingbao, Shangqing, Sanqing or other important aspects of actual Daoist history. Jiawen 10:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I started work on delineating the religion from the philosophy, but it's going to take a lot more work. Jiawen 17:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nice work but I would state the delineating in one line inside the header and put your developped additions in a dedicated section. gbog 05:27, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

The differences are not easy to sum up. I am going to be writing a section more specifically on Daoist religion, but for now, I think it works as it is. Jiawen 18:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A comprehensive synopsis of Taoist history can be found in my Beginner's Guide to Daoism. James Miller, Jul 26 2005.

Society's artifical values

"Desire created through the influence of society's artificial values hinders one's ability to understand The Way"

This is in the current revision of the article. I am not an expert in Taoism, although I have read quite a bit on it, and I'm not sure why we would locate detrimental desire in society. My impression has always been that desire, per se, clouds one's understanding of the way.

I will plan to change this, unless we can hash this out here. And, of course, I would much prefer to hash it out here. --Enkrates 00:36, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is a central theme of Taoism that Tao is strongly present in nature and obscured in human society. As Paul Halsall puts it: "There is a common disapproval of the unnatural and artificial. Social convention is rejected in favour of the ecstatic and the immediate nature of experience"[1]

What is the origin of desire, if not society? Sunray 08:21, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

After spending some time with the texts, I think I got some buddhism in my Tao. I retract my criticism. :) --Enkrates 20:27, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

The Tao-te Ching advocates detachment. This quote might be helpful.

"A sage can have things without feeling they "own" them. The sage does things without putting an emotional stake into the outcome. The task is accomplished, but the Sage doesn't seek credit or take pride in the accomplishment. Because the Sage is not attached to the accomplishment, the accomplishment lasts forever." Apollomelos 09:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks. Sunray 16:25, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Taoism as state religion

I'm surprised with the recent editions of this article : Taoism was a state religion in China from Tang to Qing ??? Most Chinese are Taoist ??? Please add some references, instead I would see myself in the obligation of removing a lot of those. gbog 04:52, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

"Many Western scholars believe that Daoism is still a strong force among the Chinese people, especially in rural areas." - MSN Encarta

"The end of the Ch'ing dynasty in 1911 brought about the end of state support for Taoism." - University of Virginia

"Taoism started as a combination of psychology and philosophy but evolved into a religious faith in 440 CE when it was adopted as a state religion." - Religious Tolerance

Links to the information are provided on the article's page under references. Hope this helps. Apollomelos 13:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Well erh... I'm still not fully contended with the intro of the article : in reading those few sentences, a reader could believe that 1) Lao-tseu did exist (what is far from proven), 2) Lao-tseu did "found" a religion (what sounds weird), 3) Taoism was the accepted state-religion in China from Tang to Qing (was is obviously false) and 3) that Confucianism is also a religion (was is debatable). I'd try to tune this a bit. gbog 05:04, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

I've revised the lead paragraph. I had also been troubled by the wording "Laozi, a philosopher of Honan, founded it..." I have modified the wording about "state religion" to recognize your point and, also, changed the wording with respect to describing Confucianism as a religion (though I'm not wild about the phrase "religio-philosophic"). Perhaps we can do better than that, but I can't think of anything now. Sunray 05:56, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

It's better like this but I steel feel a kind of disappointement... I worked earlier on another version of article that seems to me to be a little better if not as deeply developped : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taoism&oldid=12190387 . No time for now to compare in details but the intro, while shorter, is closer to what I would expect for an encyclopedia. gbog 07:56, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

I just re-read the earlier version you refer to above. You are right. It is better! Sunray 07:36, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

This article is aweful. Apparently, from the above, none of the contributors so far are in any sense qualified to contribute to this article. Taoism does require a contribution that covers the philosophy, the personalities, the chinese religion and the history of it, the contemporary forms and the new orders. I suggest you invite Chad Hansen at Hong Kong University to contribute (Google him) or invite the Taoist crew in alt.philosophy.taoism to have a go (Matt or Lisa might like to take a stab). In the meantime try a simple statement of the facts and stay away from interpretation. - how hard is that? -- Steven Zenith 05:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Steve: Since this is a wiki, anyone can contribute. People help out as they are inclined. Go ahead and contact the folks you mention above. I think we all agree that the quality can be improved greatly. Sunray 16:45, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Steven Zenith on this. He is actually one of the very few who is qualified to contribute, and his recommendation of Chad Hansen is good.

i love to recommend....i'd recommend it to my friends...it feels so good, you really should...the clarity never ends.

Dates (eras) in this article

Jguk just reverted and changed the dates in this article to BC/AD (they were a mix of BCE/CE and BC/AD previously).

Wikipedia guidelines are clear on the use of Eras in articles:

Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–AD 1 or 1 BCE–1 CE.

It is up to the author(s) of an article to determine the dating system to be used and there must be consistency with each article. In this case, for a non-Christian topic in a non-Christian region of the world, BCE/CE appears to make the most sense. However, it is advisable to get consensus on this talk page before proceeding to make wholesale changes to the dating of eras. Comments? Sunray 16:53, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

I see that an anon editor has changed the dates in the first part of the article back to BCE/CE. To avoid any possibility of a "revert war" over eras (as has happened recently with respect to articles on Persia, believe it or not), it would be great if people who are contributing to this article could establish a consensus on what dating system we will use for this and other articles on Taoism. Note that there is currently a mix of BCE/CE and BC/AD in this article (though other articles on Taoist subjects use BCE/CE exclusively). Sunray 18:59, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

I would prefer BCE/CE. gbog 04:35, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Two weeks have past since I posted this. Only two of us authors have spoken. However, we agree on BCE/CE, so I will change to that to maintain consistency within the article as per the guideline. Sunray 07:18, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

NPOV

There is a clear bias in this article towards popularised Taoism. There is also a strange cultural slant in this article. Pontifexmaximus 17:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm unclear what you mean by "popularised Taoism". Popularized as by Western audiences? Or popularized as by Chinese people? Also, can you be more specific about what kind of slant you see in the article? Jiawen 17:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's been a very interesting development of Taoism in the West. This development has been primarily due to groups like the WRT which used a very specific strain of Taoism and presented that as The Taoism. For that reason, most of the Western concept of Taoism is based on the thinkings of a particular sect and not on Taoism as a whole. This article which I edited to be slightly less sectarian was reverted back to the nonsense I replaced. For example, the Tao Chia vs Tao Chiao distinction isn't held by 90% of Taoist sects. It was a classification developed in the Chinese "Middle Ages" to help order the lists of schools. This distinction is over stressed in this article. There are philosophers who are influenced by Taoism, but there are no Taoist-Philosophers - if that makes sense (cont. there are theists who are influenced by Taoism, but there are no Taoist-Theists). The slant is also towards Taiwanese Taoism. The article was reverted back to the incorrect version. This isn't surprising given the nature of most Western Taoists. Pontifexmaximus 28 June 2005 14:33 (UTC)

I put in an NPOV tag to indicate the problem. Pontifexmaximus 28 June 2005 14:47 (UTC)

My intent was to distinguish what most Westerners think of as Daoism -- namely, the cool philosophies of Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi --from what it actually is. I probably shouldn't have used the terms Daojiao and Daojia, but in my experience, Chinese people tend to use those terms themselves. Basically, we need a one- or two-word term for what Westerners think of as Daoism, and a one- or two-word term for what it really is. "Daoist philosophy" and "Daoist religion" don't really fit the bill; neither does "Lao-Zhuang Thought" and "the Daoist church". What would you suggest? It's almost tempting to call it "Lao-Zhuang thought" and "Real Daoism", but I don't think that would go over very well. :)

It is probably my own ignorance at work (as so often is the case), but why are we warping a subject to fit an audience? Surely the article is correct or it is incorrect? I would question your use of "Chinese people tend...", but that's just me. My edit showed that the Tao Chia and Tao Chiao concept was a popular misconception without dramatically altering the content. By doing this, the article then used the terms in the same way they were originally used - as a guide. The article prior to my edit used the terms misleadingly. Feel free to use the terms, but use them correctly. Pontifexmaximus 28 June 2005 19:17 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be correct, regardless of audience. However, with something as tricky as Daoism, it's very hard to get things completely accurate and objective.

I agree that Daojiao and Daojia are closer in reality than most people assume they are, but I'm not sure if we agree on how... As I see it, Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi's texts are extremely important parts of the Daoist Canon, but they are only parts, not the entirety. There are lots of other important parts of the Canon.

However, the Dao De Jing and Zhuangzi books are often studied and used on their own, without regard to the other books in the Canon, and without regard to temple-based Daoism, lineage transmission, internal alchemy, etc. This is true in both Western countries and Chinese countries.

One could argue that the lineage traditions, internal alchemy, temples, etc. (which I call Daojiao for simplicity, while still searching for a better term) are Daoism's true nature, but there are still people who read and follow Lao-Zhuang thought, without regard to those other aspects of Daoism. Which is the true Daoism here?

I believe the article should give primacy to what I'm calling Daojiao here, with a bit about Lao-Zhuang-only stuff tacked on. How would you like to see the article look?

Oh, and PS: Yes, wikis are supposed to be open to editing by anyone. But that doesn't mean that we should keep reverting the article back and forth. When disputes arise, it's clearly time to discuss the matter and try to reach agreement on where the truth lies. Jiawen 29 June 2005 05:32 (UTC)

Your comment required me to reflect on this issue for a while. I apologise if I don't make sense. Let us ignore Taoism for a moment. Let us consider Christianity. I study early Christian writings, like the Infancy Gospel of St Thomas. I might adapt my lifestyle to be in accordance with with the philosophy of the text. In fact, I might reject everything else but this text. The text guides me and my actions. That doesn't make me an Early Christian, though.

Imagine that a Bible falls into space. It travels thousands of light years through space unharmed until it reaches another planet. Miraculously, it doesn't burn up in the atmosphere and, even more miraculously, the creatures on that planet happen to speak and read English exactly the same way we do. Sort of like Stargate. Now, the people read the Bible and start believing that it is true and imitating the practices in the Bible. Are they now Christian?

That's rather more a thorny problem. I'd like to say, 'No.' A religion is not just the texts, but the tradition. A 15-year old disenchanted with Christianity can't read the Tao Te Ching and then claim themselves to be a Taoist. There seems to be a gap in the process. To most schools of Taoism that survived the Great Leap Forward, Taoism has always been a transmitted religion. I learnt my Taoism from my teachers, who learnt it off their teachers, who learnt it off their teachers and so on and so forth. We can't send a pamphlet with a few quotes because Taoism is much richer than just texts.

When I write about the TTC, the Chuang Tzu or the Lieh Tzu academically, I'm not writing about Taoism. I'm writing about a text. When I write about the text, I'm not being a Taoist. In the same way, when I write about the Bible academically, I'm not writing about Christianity. I'm writing about a text. When I write about the text, I am not being a Christian.

There are schools of Taoism which are distinctly less mystical than the others. That is correct. My school doesn't teach immortality, for example. But that doesn't mean that those branches of Taoism are Tao-No-Religion schools. My Taoism is just as religious as, say, Dragon's Gate or I-Kuan Tao it's just that the focus isn't on that form of mysticism.

When I edited the article, I tried to keep the essential message of the previous version. I didn't want to alienate the people who identified with Taoism (though, strictly, probably aren't). I may have pushed the pendulum too far and I would love to work with whomever that IP address is to find a happy medium that really does express Taoism - both the Western Conception and the transmitted schools - well.

Some people would argue that to be a Christian, all you have to do is follow the Golden Rule. That that is the single, essential core of Jesus' teachings. Someone who follows that dictate is doing what Jesus said, and many would argue that that person is more Christian than a person who goes to church, gets baptized, etc. without fulfilling the moral components of the religion.

In the same way (and just to be clear), someone who follows Lao Zi's teachings is very much a Daoist. Maybe not the same kind as someone who follows the other rituals and practices of Daoism, but a Daoist nonetheless. Someone who writes about and studies Daoism without believing or practicing what it preaches is not a Daoist, you're right, but someone who follows the beliefs without the practices is still Daoist.

You're right, though, that the texts aren't the religion. I tend to think in terms of texts, because I'm interested in ideas rather than practices. But Daoism without its practices is not the full Daoism (無行道非道 :)), that is sure.

So maybe that's what we should focus on: texts vs. practices. Giving a small bit of space to the texts, then explaining the practices (qigong, neidan, spells, etc.) in the majority of the article. How does that sound? Jiawen 29 June 2005 17:18 (UTC)

Given enough time, you can find anybody who'd argue anything. Saying that you could find somebody who'd argue that they were a Christian, is like me saying that I can find somebody who'd argue that The DaVinci Code is 100% accurate in its historical claims. Down below all of this, a member has created a subsection entitled Structure which looks like an excellent solution to this problem. Using that structure, it would be very easy to show the progression from traditional Taoism through to the modern Western concept. Hell, you could even coin the term 'Neo-Taoism' in order to keep everybody happy. That system would be much more accurate than the Chia/Chiao paradigm and it would be difficult to express a bias in the article given that structure.

Purely for the sake of appearing human, I figure I might tell you a story which relates to your comment. I was a part of a group of Taoists online who shared the views of various schools. It was really good and rewarding given that it is so very hard to find the more traditional Taoists on the internets. A person with whom I later became quite good friends stumbled on to the forum by searching for a rather specific word. She thought that our practices were fascinating given that she thought the TTC expressed simplicity and freedom from rituals. Instead of declaring herself a Taoist, after a while she coined the term 'Laoist' to describe her devotion to the Tao Te Ching. It was an excellent solution to the discussion we were having (very Seven Sages-like) about whether or not Taoism was surviving in the West: it had given birth to Laoism. Pontifexmaximus 29 June 2005 17:55 (UTC)

You have curious usage of the phrase "back and forth". After my changes vanished into the ether, I put in a NPOV tag. So far, I haven't heard from the person who reverted the article, which seems to be very odd. Ah, well. This is certainly a very fascinating process. Pontifexmaximus 29 June 2005 15:20 (UTC)

The article wasn't really into a full revert-fest, but I could see the beginnings of one. Jiawen 29 June 2005 17:18 (UTC)

Ah, I see! Pontifexmaximus 29 June 2005 17:55 (UTC)

Eventually, I'd like to have an article that discusses Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi in one section, and then goes into Lingbao, Shangqing, etc. for the majority of the article. Jiawen 28 June 2005 15:49 (UTC)

Pontifexmaximus: The changes you have made to the article, which have been reverted (though not by me) are extensive. Since the article has been stable for sometime now, perhaps you could discuss your proposals at more length on this page. Sunray June 28, 2005 19:02 (UTC)

I didn't mean to cause a fuss. I changed the article because it was incorrect due to an innocent bias. For some reason, I thought that was the point of Wikis but I appear to be mistaken. Should I use the talk page before editing any article? Pontifexmaximus 28 June 2005 19:17 (UTC)

Well, reverts back and forth are usually an indication that there is a need to discuss matters. I thought your changes to the lead paragraph were an interesting way of approaching the subject (my own personal view). However, some of your other changes were problematic. For example, you said:

It is a popular misconception that Taoism itself divides into the philosophical schools and the religious sects (Taochiao). This misconcpetion is based off a later writer who merely used the two terms in order to order the descriptions.

A popular misconception is an important thing to write about, but tricky, so sources would be helpful, (this is an encyclopedia, after all). In the second sentence you refer to a "later writer." Who? Sunray June 28, 2005 19:36 (UTC)

Has there been a revert back and forth? There was a change (mine), it disappeared (revert), so I asked for advice (here). As I said to Jiawen, I haven't heard from the mysterious reverter which makes things very odd.

I changed the first sentence because it wasn't clear or straightforward. I've read it seven times now and each time, I get a completely different meaning, four of which are not strictly accurate. I changed it to a form which I hoped would be recognised by most Taoists and non-Taoists alike. It seems I didn't succeed! Hehehehe.

Are you after sources of the misconception or the original usage? From memory, it was in the writings of Ssu-ma Chien (the "later writer", wrote c. 100 BCE) who was also the source of the story about Lao Tzu. I'd have to search through Shih Chi. Pontifexmaximus 29 June 2005 15:20 (UTC)

I was looking for the source of the notion that it is a popular misconception that Taoism divides into philosophical and religious variants. Otherwise, the statement would constitute original research no? Sunray June 29, 2005 18:20 (UTC)

No, that little factoid has been around since the Penguin edition of the Tao Te Ching. Brute facts aren't interpretations, in the same sense that it is a popular misconception that Frankenstein was the monster and not the creator. You'd be hard pressed to find documentation evidencing that and yet it is a brute fact. What's even more wonderful is that the article as it stands now is testament to the fact that it's a common misconception! Hehehehe. Pontifexmaximus 29 June 2005 18:51 (UTC)

Right, from what you say this "brute fact" vs. "popular misconception" should be no harder to source than the identity of Frankenstein. Or, (novel idea) you might change the way you express this fact. Sunray June 29, 2005 20:59 (UTC)

I seem to be reading your comment as being hostile, which is unfortunate. According to your previous comment (18:20), you wanted the fact that it was a popular misconception sourced. Now, you've changed your statement. Finding a source which shows that Frankenstein is often confused with the monster is very difficult and yet we all know it happens. It is a popular misconception found in many websites. The fact that it is found in many websites and yet it is incorrect given the original usage is evidence that it is a popular misconception. Therefore it isn't original research, it is merely the statement of brute fact. I would be very keen to learn of a way which would express the fact that it is a popular misconception without using the words "popular" and "misconception". Pontifexmaximus 30 June 2005 11:23 (UTC)

I would say "exasperated" rather than "hostile." I made a simple point and you argue it. I respond and you argue that. Meanwhile your tone and "hehehehe's" suggest that you are trolling. Brute facts shouldn't be hard to source. As to Frankenstein, one way to deal with the misconception is simply to quote or paraphrase Shelley, e.g., "This is Victor Frankenstein's creature." It doesn't seem all that hard to me. Sunray June 30, 2005 13:34 (UTC)

Why be exasperated? Your point didn't make sense am I'm merely trying to work out what you mean. It is a popular misconception that it divides into two distinct branches. That is brute fact. What you are saying - if I understand you correctly, which I probably don't given that it seems like you keep changing what you mean - is that you don't want to include that statement which would stop edit wars between people who thought that we'd left it out. My "hehehe"s are merely to try to put some humanity back into this cold text.

Alas, all this seems to be adding to your stress and this entire process seems to be growing foolish. I attempted to correct an article about my religion, it was reverted back to an incorrect version without explanation. Suddenly, I have to play Robot with people who might not even be able to solve the problem anyway (I still have no idea who you are). As I said earlier, I agree with Gbog's idea of restructuring the article to include both ideas. If you'd like to use Gbog's idea as a solution, I'm more than happy to help you with it. If not, then keep the inaccurate article. An incorrect Wikipedia article will not change Taoism! It will but cause some confusion. In the meantime, stress less, my friend. It's only the internet, after all. Pontifexmaximus 30 June 2005 19:59 (UTC)

I don't want to interfere but would you both mind to not speak about Frankestein that extensively here ? The point is to check if Daoism is or not to be analysed into religious and philosophical parts, isn't it ? This question seems a simple one to me : Daoism have both aspects, which are more separated by Westerners because they prefer clean categories, and the distinction is even sometime used to "wash out" certain (religious) practices that doesn't fit well with some modern spiritualism, but, even if one can analyse two (or probably even much more) different sides of Daoism, it remains a globally coherent stream in Chinese thought's history. So Daoism deserves a nicely balanced, informed and structured article, where both analyse and synthesis would be fully developped, possibly in a kind of historic (genealogical) scheme, as I tried below. gbog June 30, 2005 16:19 (UTC)

Hi, Gbog! No, this little conversation is about the Tao Chia and Chiao dichotomy in the article as it stands. The article, like quite a number of other sources, makes it seem like there are two distinct streams of Taoism: the Philosophical and the Religious. This, as you seem to know, is inaccurate and, along with some other things, I tried to change it. That caused the "popular misconception" debate with Sunya. I quite like the look of your idea, but it seems you'll have to get it passed by whomever is in charge around here. Good luck! Pontifexmaximus 30 June 2005 19:59 (UTC)

Thank you Gbog for the reminder about what is important here. I did get hooked into a major sidelight discussion. All I was trying to do was suggest sourcing a statement, but I should have left it at that and not continued. Sunray June 30, 2005 20:28 (UTC)

Structure

Hello everybody. I have hard time to see your respective points. I often think talk pages are not that suitable for real discussions. But we have to do wth the tool we have. We apparently agree that this article could and should be heavily improved. No structure, different pov without articulation, missing important developpements, etc. I would give the following general shape to the article :

1. the heading seems ok to me.

2. a longer paragraph saying shortly origins, main ideas, influences, stating the main points.

3. A first part on "primitive taoism", which could be called by whoever wants "phylosophical taoism", or "Lao-Zhuang taoism".

3.1. Origins (shamanism, seasons, agricultural society, etc.) (first part of actual "history" is this topic)

3.2. Daoist founders (a word about 100 schools, etc.)

3.2.1. Lao Zi, wu-wei, emptiness, power

3.2.2. Zhuang Zi (as a development of Lao Zi) relativism, "esthetism", anti-politism

3.2.x. ...

3.3. Influences (Legalism, Synchronism theory)

4. Taoism in Imperial China

Here I'm not very able to split in parts. Maybe : Relationship with emperors, Daoism as a religion for the lower classes, Daoism and arts, Daoism and Buddhism

5. Modern Daoism

In China, in Western countries.

What do you think about this canvas ? What is missing ? gbog June 29, 2005 16:07 (UTC)

I like it and will help work on it. Sunray June 30, 2005 20:24 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tried a big restructuration. For now, it is still far from standard quality but I hope I have removed most repetitions and give a general shape. Most chapters still have to be reworked to articulate better with the rest and missing info should be added. I have moved a big chunk to Taoist Doctrine but I guess an excerpt of it should remain in this article. I've made many cut-n-paste and some rewriting, so if something is missing it is probably not because I don't like it, but because I had to use an axe to do the job. I hope you and Pontifex as well as other people will agree to help me with the necessary polishing work (first with a rasp, then with a file). gbog July 2, 2005 18:09 (UTC)

Interactions with Buddhism and Confucianism

I've been puzzling over this phrase in the Overview section: "[Taoist ideas and sects] have been spiritually challenged by Buddhism and socially denigrated by Confucianism." While I'm sure that this is the case, I think it may be insufficient to just say that. In other words, I don't think it represents the whole picture, just a part of it. More important, it seems to me would be to talk about the ways in which the three systems have interacted with and influenced each other. For example, the interaction between Buddhism and Taoism produced Ch'an Buddhism and later, Zen. The interactions between Confucianism and Taoism are likewise rich, flowing in both directions. Thoughts? Sunray July 6, 2005 02:08 (UTC)

You're right. I think we should have a short sentence in the overview that says something like : Taoism had complex relationships with Buddhism and Confucianism. These relationships were made of mutual influence as well as competition. Buddhism challenged Taoism on its spiritual "side", while orthodox Confucianism tried to confine Taoism in the private sphere of life. But Chinese synchretism (melt everything into a mess) that doesn't allow for clear distinctions and radical oppositions, this synchretism resulted eventually in the Neo-confucianism of Zhu Xi, which was considered as orthodoxy until the Ming dynasty This is verbous and should be rephrsed. Those topics have to be expanded in dedicated paragraphs. I'll do my best and write on them. Thank for your work. gbog 6 July 2005 06:14 (UTC)

History of Taoism

This article talks mostly about the history of the background of Daoism, not Daoism itself. I would like to know a little bit more about the history of Daoism.

I Ching

I was happier with the previous reference to the I Ching in the Origins section. For one thing, it was briefer, allowing anyone who wants to know more to follow the link to the excellent article on the I Ching. Another problem I have is with part of the wording. The transitional states are usually referred to as the eight trigrams which combine to form the hexagrams; not the hexagrams themselves. Sunray July 6, 2005 02:23 (UTC)

I'm not happy either with the current text. What do you think about something like

One of the most important core of Chinese thought is the I Ching, a "cycle matrix" composed of sixty-four hexagrams. With a simple combination of six Yin or Yang lines, this system depicts the variety of the possibilities of the universe, and their relations. As 阴一阳之谓道 [isn't there a 一 in the begining of the sentence?] explains it well, the alternance of polar qualities (Yin-Yang is creative-receptive, sunny-shady, male-female, heaven-earth, and so forth), giving life to all beings, is the Tao itself. As for the I Ching, Taoism main questionnings are rooted on those observations of cyclic changes and searches for a way to live a "good life" in this everchanging world.

I'm not sure to fully agree with you on the problem of the trigrams in the I Ching. I read sometime that they were invented after the hexagrams (sound weird, but...) and were added to the I Ching later, in order to mnemonically help to "find" an hexagram in the list (a little bit like the "keys" of the Chinese characters, maybe). However, Trigrams have prominent importance in Chinese thought, as well as in Taoism, and the debate is not whether to include them or not, but where : I may suggest to write about trigrams together with five elements and resonnance theory. Thoughts ? gbog 6 July 2005 06:31 (UTC)

Perhaps you are a modernist and believe that the hexagrams came first? :-) No matter, certainly the I Ching was a "work in progress" that went on over centuries. However, the classical interpretation is that the trigrams date from the earliest period—the time of Fu Hsi, when he read the lines inscribed on the back of a tortoise and described the bā gùa, the arangement of the eight trigrams. Then in the Shang Dynasty, King Wen organized the I Ching into the framework of hexagrams as we now know it and the Duke of Chou added the commentaries on each of the lines. Later, during the Zhou dynasty, Confucius is thought to have added his commentaries. While modernists dispute the influence of Fu Hsi and Confucius, it seems to me that each of the components are essential to the I Ching from a Taoist perspective (because Taoism was influenced by the classical form of the I Ching over the centuries). The trigrams are related to familial relations, cosmic phenomena, and the eight directions. The trigrams thus play a key role in the transitional state. Here's how Wilhelm describes their role:

These eight trigrams were conceived as images of all that happens in heaven and on earth. At the same time, they were held to be in a state of continual transition, one changing into another, just as transition from one phenomenon to another is continually taking place in the physical world. Here we have the fundamental concept of the Book of Changes. The eight trigrams are symbols standing for changing transitional states; they are images that are constantly undergoing change..

Practically speaking, it is hard for a mere human to hold sixty-four images in mind. Eight elements is relatively easy. Sunray July 6, 2005 15:49 (UTC)

After checking various versions of the I Ching, including Wilhelm and Huang, I think that the trigrams are essential to a Taoist reading of the I Ching. I have thus revised the paragraph to include the role of trigrams. I hope it is faithful to what you wanted to say, while elaborating on that one aspect. Sunray July 9, 2005 19:21 (UTC)

Seems ok to me. Just this : apparently the quote is 一阴一阳之谓道 (missing first 一 in the article) gbog 03:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are saying the Chinese characters should go first. I had thought that the translation was what was important, since we are writing for the English Wikipedia. The Chinese characters are nice to have, but only as a parenthesis, I think. Sunray 07:27, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hi! That was not my point : I think there is a mistake in the quotation (first char missing). I'll fix it anyway. BTW I've check some books on I Ching and the hypothesis of trigrams being invented after hexagram is not as supported as I said. gbog 14:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Looked at I hing part, I feel it is somewhat unrelated to taoism in its wording and may be shortened. gbog 14:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, on re-reading that section, I think that it gets too much into details about the I Ching and not enough about the relation to, and importance of, the I Ching for Daoism. I will work on shortening it and making it more relevant to the heading (i.e., the Origins of Daoism). Sunray 14:41, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I've added a connection to Lao Zi and will expand the section somewhat before editing it down. Sunray 06:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Taoism as Religion

A basic history of Taoism can be found online in my Beginner's Guide to Daoism that is excerpted from my book Daoism: A Short Introduction (Oxford: OneWorld 2003)

A very nice summary, James. Do you have any thoughts on pre-Lao Zi influences? Sunray 15:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Also, there is a succint guide to Tao Te Ching / Daode Jing / Laozi

Nothingness is better than emptiness

The reasons:

1. The character in the original text(無)means nothing.

2. Meaning of the character in Taoism's context is definitely more than a completely empty vacuum.

3. Usefulness of uselessness is also one of the essentials in Zhuangzi. The word nothingness can provide this sense too.

4. Let's check the meaning of empty: "1. containing nothing...3. foolish, meaningless, vacuous" (The Oxford Reference Dictionary) "1. with nothing in it...without substance...totally without...without foundation...silly , without seriousness." (Webster's Dictionary)

These mean there could be mud-throwing intentions in English translations.

Nothingness can provide some kinda impartiality in the translation.

5. Try google taoism nothingness and u can get loads of my supporters. These are just a few of them:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/sbe40/sbe4019.htm

http://www.taoistarts.net/main2.html

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/2883/main.html

http://www.the-professor-mon.com/

I shall make the changes if there is no further argument in one week.

--ETTan 03:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You have my full support on this change. Ajnewbold 01:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The change from "emptiness" to "nothingness" was made by ETTan, per his comments, above, and reverted twice—once by Gbog and once by Fabartus. Yet they did not see fit to discuss their reasons for the reverts here. What gives? ETTan's approach was reasonable. Gbog/Fabartus, please explain your reasons for the reverts. Sunray 06:52, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

The discussion on this is in Talk:Tao Te Ching. One of my post is either mixed in a mess, or wasn't sent to database. My main point is : we shall follow the common usage in sinological litterature for translating Wu. No translations are perfect. I guess we could also translate it as "vacuity", or even "Being" in existencial meaning, but this should be the topic of a paragraph or an article and we should continue elsewhere to use what is used by famous translators (Waley, Legge, Graham, ...) BTW ETTan seems to be a sockpuppet and did revert without explanations. gbog 13:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty new in Wiki. There are only 2 articles I'd commented about: Taoism and Tao Te Ching as I'd already working on these 2 topics for years. For me, its kind of weird to translate the chinese character 無 , which means nothing, as empty. This is the main reason that I insist on the changes. Besides, I also provide other reasons, which are established knowledge among taoist scholars, in my discussions. Hopefully, you are not taking grudge against all chinese just because of some bad examples. Please read my comments properly and consult some real experts, who have to know classical chinese, if possible. Or, u can try to persuade all publishers of Chinese-English dictionaries to add empty as one of the meanings for the character Wu 無 .

--ETTan 16:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I have informed ETTan regarding the ugly slander regarding him. Comments like:

"In sum, reasoned, logical arguements aren't going to budge him, you'll also need allies. I'm going inactive for a while, so if you get into further revert situations with this suspected socket puppet, get a hold of Mel"

are never appropriate. Talk pages are to discuss articles, not other editors. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 13:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

This comment itself is ruled out by your stricture; it belongs on Tan's Talk page, not here.
When I get a moment, I'll collect some examples of you commenting on other editors on artcile Talk page. Or is this rule only for other people (as so many of your rules are)?
When an editor's behaviour (especially sock-puppetry) is relevant to an article, then it's usual practice to discuss it on the Talk page. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητη&sigmaf;) 09:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on why you didn't comment here before now, Gbog. It seems to me that nothingness and emptiness are both important in Taoism. It has been said that the Tao teaches both. Thus, it should not be difficult to edit this to meet all the issues expressed above. Here's the sentence from the article before reverts:

Action through inaction (wei wu wei), the power of emptiness, detachment, receptiveness, spontaneity, the strength of softness, the relativism of human values and the search for a long life, are some of its [i.e., Taoism's] preferred themes.

The sentence describes the preferred themes of Taoism. My reading of this sentence is that the word "emptiness" thus does not modify wei wu wei, but rather is another theme. Surely, the power of emptiness is an important theme of Taoism. In English, emptiness means a structure is there but void (e.g. "empty hand" in martial arts, "no mind" in Zen). Nothingness means "there is not anything, not a single thing or not a part of a thing".

It seems clear to me that the original sentence is fine. So I will reinstate that. If someone still has a problem with it, let's continue to discuss it here rather than get into a revert war. However, it could, perhaps, be improved. Also, I would recommend that we assume good faith and treat people in accordance with their actions, rather than an assumed (or even actual) past. Sunray 19:31, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

One further note: There was a second change of the word "emptiness" to "nothingness" (last sentence in the second para of the Tao of Taoism section). Here also, I have gone back to "emptiness." This is not about the translation of a particular character, it is about the ontology of Taoism. We may need to discuss this further. Sunray 19:48, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's check the meaning of empty: "1. containing nothing...3. foolish, meaningless, vacuous" (The Oxford Reference Dictionary) "1. with nothing in it...without substance...totally without...without foundation...silly , without seriousness." (Webster's Dictionary)

These mean there could be mud-throwing intentions in English translations. So, besides those 3 reasons I mentioned above, I'd like to add that "nothingness" can provide some kinda impartiality in the translation. Thus, I'll revert the text again until u can show me more and better reasons.

Taoism is pragmatism of its own kind with emphasis on the usefulness of uselessness, moderated naturalism, wholistic health, political liberalism etc. Therefore, it is contrasted with ontology which presumes essence's total explicability in language. Taoism is de-ontological rather than ontological.

There're 3 domains of human values: absolutely absolute, relatively absolute/relatively relative and absolutely relative. It's the absolutely absolute truth that taoism has rejected its possibility of containing in human language.

Finally, please don't imply that I could be another avatar. This is the one and only account I have here. I shall issue a complain against whoever bring this implication again.--ETTan 03:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I partly answered to this in Talk:Tao Te Ching. I guess we should hold this discussion in only one place, for clarity isn't the main quality of Taoism and subsequent discussions on Taoism. gbog 06:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

When you quote a dictionary, it is perhaps advisable to determine which of the meanings corresponds to the usage in question. In this case, the intended meaning is the first definition of the Oxford Reference Dictionary, i.e., "containing nothing." The other meanings simply don't apply.

Here's something to consider:

Emptiness might be the most important term for the study of the philosophical Taoism. The idea of emptiness can be traced back in ancient China, since it was already present in the Book of Changes. It is generally acknowledged that this book had a decisive influence on the main philosophical schools of the Warring States period (5th-3rd centuries BC)

The notion of emptiness gets a major significance in the writings of the Taoist masters Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu who place it in the center of their outlook.[2]</blockquote>

ETTan, we do not yet have consensus on this. The majority (let alone the two thirds majority required by the guideline on consensus) has not accepted your view. I'm concerned that you would change it back to your preferred meaning before we have reached consensus. Sunray 06:25, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

On the page u quoted above, there is also a link to Huineng(a zen buddhist patriarch) about emptiness which shows that there is a failure to distingush the character Kong(空), which means empty, and Wu(無) which means nothing.

It's worth mentioning again that ETTan has been making the same changes at Tao Te Ching, against similar opposition. It may be that those who have reverted his changes here have done so on the basis of the arguments there, and didn't want to repeat themselves. Sunray is right that, while Tan is insisting on a dictionary definition (from what kind of dictionary I don't know — I've asked on the other Talk page, but he hasn't replied), other editors are concerned with the philosophical meaning in the context of the article. Unfortunately, Tan refuses to engage with that argument, insisting on the narrow linguistic point, and repeatedly reverting to his changes.

The claim that "nothingness" means more than "emptiness" is confusing; it's different, but if anything it refers to less.

On the matter of the identification of him with Mr Tan (talk · contribs): he started editing on the day that Mr Tan stopped (Mr Tan had started on the day that Chan Han Xiang (talk · contribs) had stopped; in both case it came after a unanimously critical RfC on them, in both cases it involved an abandonment of the set of articles edited and a switch to a new set. They all have similar approaches to editing (leaving aside questions of naming). That they're the same people is a natural conclusion. I've said elsewhere that if I'm proved wrong, I'll happily apologise; until then, I'll go with the evidence. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητη&sigmaf;) 09:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

(I copy here my latest comment at Talk:Tao Te Ching:

To ETTan:

The English-dictionary reference doesn't apply; the word is being used in its main meaning, and no-one would (except with deliberate malevolence) read it as meaning anything else in this context. When I say that my coffee cup is empty, or refer to the empty set in maths, I'm not implying anything about foolishness.
"Deontological" means "concerned with or based on duty".
I asked about the kind of Chinese-English dictionary you used: modern or ancient? Ordinary or philosophical? You haven't replied. There are many terms which have very different definitions in an ordinary Engl;ish dictionary and in a philosophical dictionary, and I'd be very surprised if the same weren't true of Chinese.
Speculation about someone having had another account isn't prohibited; it's not even in itself negative as there's nothing against changing accounts in Wikipedia policy, nor in hiding the fact that one has done it). If someone has changed account, though, it can be useful for other editors to know and discuss it, as it can explain an editor's approach, and throw light on her methods. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητη&sigmaf;) 09:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC))

All of them. So far I never come across any chinese-english dictionary that use empty as meaning of Wu.

I use the word de-ontological in its philosophical sense, not deontology.

Is that so? Then I can also speculate that Mr Tan (talk • contribs) is your own creation to throw mud at someone to whom u have take grudge against. I already see that u'll never agree what I said. I'll treat these as word games that will end nowhere. Chit-chat with me whenever u r lonely. U r welcome.--ETTan 13:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You still have not addressed my comment, above, that the sentence [in the "Overview" section] describes the preferred themes of Taoism. My reading of this sentence is that the word "emptiness" thus does not modify wei wu wei, but rather is another theme. Since emptiness is a major theme of Taoism, it certainly belongs in the list. We can talk about adding "nothingness" if you like. Sunray 15:17, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

The proper translation for "wei wu wei" should be "act in nothingness" which, in contemporary sense, could means managerially rather delegate powers efficaciously than doing everything by oneself. "Act in emptiness" would be improper in this sense.

Due to misleading translations of the past, I'd prefer to replace the word "emptiness" with "nothingness" and add those taoistic pragmatism features mentioned above as the prefered themes. These means the whole text would need a major change for those new themes. Some people may not like these to happen. --ETTan 16:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I must repeat what I said before: In this case, the "power of emptiness" does not refer to "wei wu wei." They are both items in a list of important themes of Taoism. Sunray 17:43, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, "wei wu wei" can be part the power of nothingness. It's its efficacy that release the power. For "The Power of Nothingness", please refer to these sites and find the text regarding The Power of Nothingness:

http://www.abintrabooks.com/cgi-bin/abb455/4753.html

http://www.saxakali.com/COLOR_ASP/discoverof0.htm

http://www.hatem.com/mind.htm

http://www.avramdavidson.org/wetering.htm

--ETTan 03:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The word "deontological" has only one philosophical sense; there's no word "de-ontological".

For Web references, you might look at: [3], [4], [5]

I've seen "wu-i-wu" translated as nothingness, as opposed to "wu", emptiness.

The nearest I can find (in literature concerning Taoism) to a translation of wu as "nothingness is in Charles Wi-hsun Fu;s "Daoism in Chinese Philosophy", in which he refers to wu as "No-thingness", emphasising that it's not merely "nothingness". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητη&sigmaf;) 17:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I should add this site, which also explictly states that "wu" is not synonymous with nothingness. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητη&sigmaf;) 17:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

So tell me the other way to express "de-ontological" in its philosophical that I want to express.

I've no idea what you mean by it, so can't help. Could you explain? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητη&sigmaf;) 11:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

As I told u b4, the using of emptiness in taoist text is a mis-interpretation of the past. Try google taoism nothingness and u can get loads of my supporter. These are just a few of them:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/sbe40/sbe4019.htm

http://www.taoistarts.net/main2.html

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/2883/main.html

http://www.the-professor-mon.com/

And I've given an even longer list of sources that either use "emptiness" or specifically reject the use of "nothingness". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητη&sigmaf;) 11:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Congratution! u've finally manage to persuade someone to add your lines into the site. But the more authentic way should be:

1. Find someone who knows chinese character.

2. Ask him/her to check each and every chinese-english dictionaries, copy down the bibliographies.

3. Send letters to those publishers.

4. Wait for the results.

I don't know what this means. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητη&sigmaf;) 11:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Good luck! --ETTan 02:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Tao of Pooh

A real minor thing in a very good article, but does The Tao of Pooh really count as an example of the over-use of the word "Tao" in Western culture, since it's a book actually about Taoism? Perhaps another example could be found and used instead.

Sorting out the mess

I've been watching and thinking about this article on and off over the past couple of months, but haven't made any edits because I believe it needs a much bigger work-over than I have had time to give it. The fundamental problem is that the article fails to do justice to the fact that "Taoism" can mean radically different things in different contexts. Partly this is a translation problem, in that English uses a single word to translate both daojiao and daojia; more fundamentally, there is the conceptual problem that daojiao has generally been viewed in the West as simply a degraded version of the philosophical truths of the daojia. This makes any serious understanding of daojiao almost impossible, just as much as it would be impossible to understand the history of Christianity if we were to view it as a series of misunderstandings and perversions of the 'true meaning' of the Bible.

It is unacceptable that the discussions of daojiao and daojia are amalgamated into a single article just because the English word "taoism" can be used to mean either. I would suggest splitting the article into two, with headwords along the lines of "Taoism (religion)" (=daojiao) and "Taoism (philosophy)" (=daojia), with appropriate cross-references at the head of each article. "Taoism" itself would probably be best either redirecting to "Taoism (religion)" or as a disambiguation page, with enough information to let (potentially naive) users work out which one they want to look up.

A comparison with the Wikipedia treatments in other languages suggests possible ways forward:

The Chinese and Japanese versions linked from this article both have daojiao/doukyou as headword.
- The Chinese introduction to daojiao explicitly describes daojiao as having developed from philosophical foundations in daojia by incorporation of popular religious beliefs about immortals, magical techniques, ghosts, spirits and divination.
- The Chinese article on daojia gives a traditionalist account of the development of philosophical taoism; the information is useful but the article fails to point out the questionable nature of much of this material. It ends with a brief reference (and a link) to the development of daojiao.
- Entering douka (daojia) in the Japanese Wikipedia gives a redirect to Rou-Sou Shisou (Lao-Zhuang Sixiang), which has by far the most historically sophisticated discussion of daojia. It ends with a paragraph that discusses the (seemingly) stark contrasts between Taoist religion and the ideas of Lao-Zhuang. If anyone is willing to translate the Japanese article on douka into English, it would provide an excellent starting point for the proposed English article "Taoism (philosophy)".
The French article "Taoisme" seems to suffer from some of the same problems as the English, especially in its overemphasis on Lao-Zhuang, despite giving daojiao as the Chinese for "Taoisme". On the other hand, it seems to have had suffered less from editors wishing to promote their own interpretations of "Taoist" concepts.
The German article "Daoismus" gives a fairly balanced account of both Taoist religion and Taoist philosophy. It also contains an odd little paragraph decrying the 'eurocentric' dichotomy between religion and philosophy; I would argue that this is inappropriate here, since daojia and daojiao are quite distinct concepts in Chinese historiography of religion from a very early date (I can't say exactly, but certainly pre-Tang). Aside from this, the article contains much useful material that could be incorporated by a willing translator.

I've put all this on the talk page since the changes I'm proposing are fairly major, and writing the two separate articles will require a lot of work - I'd be happy if someone else would be willing to get this rolling! As it stands, the article doesn't do much credit to Wikipedia's ability to produce a coherent account of a fundamental topic. Trampolineboy 22:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

This problem has already been discussed, see archived talk. I don't know much about Taoist religion, for my domain of interest focuses more on thought streams. A (weak) part of article has been moved to Taoist Doctrine and its name could be changed to Taoism (religion). I don't oppose a split because popular Taoist pratices have a long history and deserves an article (even "sexual Taoist practices" deserves one, I'd say), but I do agree with those germans saying that our "religion" and "philosophy" categories don't help much, to say the less, to understand Chinese (Asian) realities of the past and the present. I do often use "practices" and "thought" (following some sinologist I like to read) instead but failed to impose those "categories" here. gbog 05:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that - somehow I had missed that discussion. I don't entirely agree with everything that was said there, but I can see the point of having a single article on "Taoism", despite the multitude of meanings that this word can have. The article as it is doesn't really do justice to this range of meanings, but the issue isn't really one of organisation, it's more that the material on Taoist religion is essentially absent. For the moment I'll concentrate on getting the material onto the page, and leave any restructuring as a possibility for later. Trampolineboy 11:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)