(c) Ye. A. Torchinov
(c) Tresi Maci

The Second Chapter

Daoism History Sketch

1. Problem Of The Origin Of  Daoism

p. 206

In connection with the question of origin of Daoism can be singled out two different approaches to this problem:
the first one is to consider the history of just formed Daoism and it begins the history of Daoism from the period of Late Han Dinasty (1 – 2 centuries AD); for M. Strickmann, for example, such approach has principal meaning, because of Strickmann thinks that only organized Daoist religion should be considered as Daoism;
another researchers prefer to analyze “prehistory” of Daoism also, i.e. these researchers are interested in the period before Daoism formed into different schools and trends; these researchers discuss the question of genesis of Daoism from proto-daoist believes of those people who dwelt in the territory of China in ancient times; these researches especially pay attention to ancient shamanism. (J. Thiel  Schamanismus im alten China. Sinologica, 1969, vol 10, pp.: 149 – 204; W. Eberhard The Local Cultures of South and East China. Leiden, 1969)
Needless to say that Late Han period has exceptional importance for the history of Daoism because Daoist tradition was finally formed in this very period and appeared first schools of orthodox Daoism. (This process has been completely finished in 3 – 4 AD).
However it is supposed that consideration of the history of formed Daoism only would be incorrect.

p. 207

If we begin the history of Daoism from the Late Han period then not only all processes leading to the final formation of Daoist tradition but Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi philosophical systems also would be outside of our consideration. Also, using such an approach we are not able to see unity and continuity of Daoist tradition. (K. M. Schipper Le corps taoiste. Corps physiquecorps sociale. Paris, 1982, p.: 29)
Due to this case it seems to be possible to single out two main stages in the history of Daoist tradition:
stage of origin and formation of Daoist tradition
and
stage of evolution of developed Daoism.
This thought has already been expressed by Chinese scholars in 1920th – 1930th. For example, Xu Dishan in his scheme of genesis of Daoism shows that religious organized Daoism (Xu Dishan names it “modern Daoism”) begins from formation of the first orthodox school “Way of the Celestial Masters” 天师道 Tian Shi Dao (in the system of Xu Dishan this school is named Wu Dou Mi Dao 五斗米道 Way Of Five Pecks Of Rice); but Xu Dishan writes that it was preceded by a very complicated preparatory process of formation of Daoist tradition. ( Xu Dishan 许地山Daojia sixiang yui daojiao道家思想与道教 Daoist ideology and Daoist religion. Yanjing xuebao, 1927 № 2, p.: 259)  Another Chinese scholar Fu Qinjia also speaks that Daoism has its origin in pre-daoist shamanistic creeds of ancient Chinese people, especially of people of Chu, Qi and Yan kingdoms (Fu Qinjia Zhongguo daojiao shi 中国道教史Shanghai 1937).  But it is Japanese scholar Izutsu Toshihiko 井筒俊彦 who expresses this point of view in the most consistent way. Izutsu Toshihiko showed that study of  the sources of Daoism is a matter of great importance for understanding systems of Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi as well as for interpretation the Daoist tradition on the whole. (Izutsu Toshihiko Mythopoeic “Ego” in Shamanism and Taoism. – Sophia Perennis. The Bulletin of the Imperial Iranian Academy of Philosophy, 1976, vol. 2, № 2,   pp.: 5 – 24) Izutsu Toshihiko speaks about shamanic roots of Daoism and show the closeness of shamanic and Daoist world view. He speaks not only about doctrines of ecstasy or conceptions of communication with spirits but also about Daoist philosophical conceptions, for example the doctrine of universality of changes, conceptions of dream and reality, theory of subject – object relations. It doesn’t mean that Izutsu Toshihiko equates Daoist philosophy or Daoist

p. 208

believes with shamanism. He very well understands the qualitative differences or even a precipice which lies between Daoism and shamanism. Izutsu Toshihiko is not going to reduce Daoism to shamanism. He speaks just about genetic relationship between them which is pretty important for understanding of Daoism.
He states that qualitative transformation of shamanism into Daoism could not be just a result of a simple immanent internal development of shamanism, because for the formation of Daoist philosophy was necessary appearance of such an outstanding thinkers as authors of “Dao De Jing” and “Zhuang Zi”. It is possible to state that only having passed through the prism of mind of genial philosopher ancient shamanism could transform into the philosophy of Dao. It has to be noted that Izutsu Toshihiko pays little attention to socio-economical and cultural development of ancient Chinese society which permitted to Daoist thinkers to produce their genial systems and was thus the objective cause of appearance of developed Daoism.
In the same time Izutsu Toshihiko could successfully escape so called “sources fetish”...