Classical Daoism – Is There Really Such a Thing? Part 1

Bao Pu 抱朴


(Part 2 – – – Part 3 – – – Part 4 – – – Part 4.2 – – – Part 4.3)

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…

View original post 2,983 more words