I've mentioned before that, when I first became interested in Taoism, the brief chronologies I read painted a somewhat inaccurate picture. Some sources show the I Ching as coming first, followed by Lao Tzu and then later by Chuang Tzu. The idea presented is that the I Ching was utilized as a source that Lao Tzu transformed into the Taoist philosophy and then Chuang Tzu came along and further refined it.
While the I Ching does appear to be the oldest of the classic texts, many scholars don't necessarily tie it to the philosophy that later became known as Taoism. Many schools of thought drew upon it and no one school can really claim it.
Of the two legendary figures of Taoism, the historical record points to Chuang Tzu preceding Lao Tzu, not the other way around. The first rendition of the Tao Te Ching doesn't show up until 250 BC and Chuang Chou (Chuang Tzu) lived about 100 years before that. In addition, it's not altogether clear if the schools of Chuang Tzu and Lao Tzu were clearly connected thematically or if they represented two independent schools of thought that were later brought together because they shared some themes in common.
One thing we do know is that, if any of us could travel back in time to sit with Chuang Chou or the mythic Lao Tzu, a lot of people might be shocked to learn that neither man considered himself a Taoist/Daoist. The word, Taoism, wasn't attached to this generalized and conjoined school of thought until the second or third century CE.
So what we have today as philosophical Taoism (in regards to the foundational texts) are works by two men or schools of thought that discuss the mysterious unknown -- the Way -- in compatible, though at times, dissimilar terms. The school of Lao Tzu seemed far more concerned with how people can utilize the Way in governance, while the school of Chuang Tzu seemed to pay little heed to practical politics.
There are other key differences in emphasis as well and I will highlight some of those later this year when we commence with the series on the Chuang Tzu.
While the I Ching does appear to be the oldest of the classic texts, many scholars don't necessarily tie it to the philosophy that later became known as Taoism. Many schools of thought drew upon it and no one school can really claim it.
Of the two legendary figures of Taoism, the historical record points to Chuang Tzu preceding Lao Tzu, not the other way around. The first rendition of the Tao Te Ching doesn't show up until 250 BC and Chuang Chou (Chuang Tzu) lived about 100 years before that. In addition, it's not altogether clear if the schools of Chuang Tzu and Lao Tzu were clearly connected thematically or if they represented two independent schools of thought that were later brought together because they shared some themes in common.
One thing we do know is that, if any of us could travel back in time to sit with Chuang Chou or the mythic Lao Tzu, a lot of people might be shocked to learn that neither man considered himself a Taoist/Daoist. The word, Taoism, wasn't attached to this generalized and conjoined school of thought until the second or third century CE.
So what we have today as philosophical Taoism (in regards to the foundational texts) are works by two men or schools of thought that discuss the mysterious unknown -- the Way -- in compatible, though at times, dissimilar terms. The school of Lao Tzu seemed far more concerned with how people can utilize the Way in governance, while the school of Chuang Tzu seemed to pay little heed to practical politics.
There are other key differences in emphasis as well and I will highlight some of those later this year when we commence with the series on the Chuang Tzu.
All of the concepts however -- the yi, the tao, the te, five element theory, the trigrams/hexagrams -- are all rooted in very ancient Chinese thought and culture. I think it is useful to put the texts in context, both historically and contemporarily (if that's a word?). While they can be read and considered alone, they are part of a larger continuum of Chinese history.
ReplyDeleteWell of course they weren't taoists, just like Buddha wasn't a buddhist and Christ wasn't a christian :-)
ReplyDeleteLol :)
ReplyDeleteNice one, anonymous.
I once heard a Christian claim that God is a Christian.
It is difficult to converse under such circumstances.