Daojiao 道教 (tao-chiao) literally means “Teachings of the Dao.” The term daojiao was
already being employed in the chapter “Feiru” 非儒 (“Against Confucianism” ) of the
Mozi 墨子 (Book of Master Mo). In the Mozi, a Warring States (402-221 BCE) text, daojiao
designates the teachings of the earlier sage-kings concerning the dao. When the dao
under discussion refers to the way of earlier-sage kings as taught by the Confucians,
then daojiao is used to denote Confucian teachings. The term is used in a similar
way, as a designation for “Confucianism,” in the Lihuo lun 理惑論 (Treatise on Removing
Confusion), which was written during the reign of King Wu (222-280 CE) of the Three
Kingdoms period (221-264 CE).
Similarly, when dao designates the central principle of Buddhists, daojiao refers
to the Buddha’s teachings (Pali: dhamma; Skt.: dharma). A relevant example of this
type of usage is found in Xie Fu’s 謝敷 preface to a commentary on the Da anban shouyi
jing 大安搬守意經 (Sûtra on Ânâpâna Meditation), which was written during the Eastern
Jin dynasty (317-420)
These examples illustrate the fact that from at least the third century BCE through
the fifth century CE the designation of daojiao could refer to a wide variety of
historical phenomena. Early on it referred to the teachings of the ancients or of
the Confucians, while later it was applied to both Confucianism and Buddhism.
One of the earliest examples of the term daojiao as a denotation for “Daoism” appears
in the Yixia lun 夷夏論 (Treatise on Barbarians and Chinese), which was written by the
Daoist priest Gu Huan 顧歡 (420-483) during the Liu-Song dynasty (420-479). The use
of the term daojiao as a designation for Daoism originates in the struggle for imperial
patronage and court influence. With the increasing presence and power of Buddhism,
indigenous Chinese religious traditions had to find a way to distinguish themselves
from the “barbarian invasion.” Thus, daojiao represents a classic determination of
identity through negation—not that, but this. Daojiao is not fojiao (Buddhism). As
members of daojiao, Daoists could now represent themselves as China’s indigenous
higher religion.
Around the same time, the term daojiao appears alone rather than in contradistinction
to Buddhism or Confucianism. The “Shi-Lao zhi” 釋老志 (Treatise on Buddhism and Daoism)
chapter of Weishu 魏書 (History of the Wei Dynasty) records a message given to the
Daoist Kou Qianzhi 寇謙之 (365-448) by the deity Taishang laojun 太上老君 (Most High Lord
Lao). Here daojiao refers to the Way of the Celestial Master tradition. In his Laojun
yinsong xinke jiejing 老君音誦新科戒經 (Scripture on the New Code of the Commandments Enunciated
by Lord Lao), Kou Qianzhi refers to his growing religious organization, the New Way
of the Celestial Master (Xin tianshi dao 新天師道), as daojiao.
It is interesting that Kou Qianzhi places his emerging movement into a larger historical
context. That is, rather than simply referring to his movement as (the expected)
Tianshi dao or Zhengyi mengwei, there is a sense that a larger tradition is involved.
For Kou, the Way of the Celestial Master, especially in its reformed manifestation,
is the true “teaching of the Way.” The Way of the Celestial Master represents a religious
tradition that preserves and perpetuates skill and knowledge of the ineffable Dao.
Tianshi dao, in fact, has formed a covenant with the highest emanation of the Dao,
the Most High Lord Lao. Thus daojiao refers to the “teachings of Laozi,” both as
author of the Daode jing and as the high god of the universe.
The above discussion suggests a number of important insights. First, before Daoists
began using the term daojiao to denote their own religion, the term was already being
used by Confucians and Buddhists in the sense of “the teachings of the earlier sage-kings
about the Way” and “the teachings of the Buddha about the Way,” respectively. In
the earliest usage, daojiao did not refer to “Daoism;” it referred to “the teachings
of the Way,” whatever those teachings might be. However, in the historical context
of Buddhism’s introduction to China, indigenous religious traditions, which wished
to have imperial support and court influence, had to find a way to distinguish themselves
from the Buddhists. The term daojiao served just such a purpose. There also was an
added benefit to choosing this term—it had historical collateral and cultural capital.
The term had been in circulation for a length of time that imbued it with authority.
To say that the Way of the Celestial Master was daojiao meant that it was the storehouse
for the (correct [zheng 正] and primary [yi 一]) teachings concerning the Dao. Daoism
had now truly emerged as the indigenous Chinese higher religious tradition. For Koyayashi
Masayoshi, upon whose research most of this entry is based, such a historical account
leads to a specific conclusion: Such historical facts suggest that the establishment
of a self-conscious, organized Daoist religious tradition occurred some time after
the middle of the Liu-Sung (that is, some time after the mid-fifth century). Wishing
to clarify, but maintain, the application of daojiao to historical phenomena, Kobayashi
locates the term as a designation for organized Daoism in the mid-fifth century.
That is, Daoism as a formal and distinct religious tradition, so-called daojiao,
did not exist before the Liu-Song dynasty. This means that the previous 700 years
of practitioners and texts, assuming that the writings of the Laozi and Zhuangzi
are part of the Daoist tradition, were not daojiao; they were not identified as a
fully organized and self-conscious tradition. This is a radical claim; it means that
Daoism as a religion originates with Kou Qianzhi and the Northern Celestial Master
tradition, and that the early Celestial Master movement was proto-daojiao. However,
it should also be noted that during many of these same historical moments Daoists
were using the term daojia 道家 to refer to their community. These various details
also beg the question of how to define “religion.”
In the modern world, the term daojiao is used inaccurately as a designation for so-called
“religious Daoism,” which is often misidentified as “degenerate” or “superstitious”
Daoism, a later Daoism that is wholly different from classical Daoism. Preliminary
research indicates that that usage begins in the mid to late nineteenth century in
the context of Western colonist and Christian missionary interests in China. It began
under the influence of indigenous Confucian prejudices against Daoism. Under that
modern construction, so-called “religious Daoism” stands in contrast to so-called
“philosophical Daoism.” The former is said to refer to everything from the Later
Han dynasty (25-220 CE) to the contemporary period. This is some 2,000 years of history!
Such an interpretative framework not only misunderstands classical Daoism, but also
fails to consider significant continuities and departures throughout the Daoist tradition
considered as a whole.
More research needs to be done on both historical constructions of “Daoism” as well
as indigenous Daoist referents for “Daoism” and the ways in which Daoists set parameters
for inclusion in their tradition. In any case, there are no theoretically grounded,
historically accurate, or anthropologically relevant referents for the Western distinction
between “philosophical Daoism” and “religious Daoism.” “Philosophical Daoism” is
wholly a modern fiction. The same is true of the distinction between daojia and daojiao.
Daoism (daotong 道統) was a religious community from the beginning, here dated to the
Warring States period (480-222 BCE). Even the texts of classical Daoism (Daode jing,
Zhuangzi, and other lesser known texts) document master-disciple lineages as well
as specific practices aimed at mystical union with the Dao. In a Daoist context,
the Dao is a cosmological and theological concept. These early texts and communities
formed the foundation for the Daoist religious tradition, which became formally organized
during the Later Han dynasty and Period of Disunion (220-589).
Further Reading: “Chronology of Daoist History”/Louis Komjathy; Daoism Handbook/Livia
Kohn (ed.); Daoist Identity/Livia Kohn and Harold Roth (eds.); “On the Word ‘Taoist’
as a Source of Perplexity”/Nathan Sivin; Original Tao/Harold Roth; “Periodization
of Daoist History”/Louis Komjathy; Taoism: The Enduring Tradition/Russell Kirkland;
The Encyclopedia of Taoism/Fabrizio Pregadio (ed.); “The Establishment of the Taoist
Religion (Tao-chiao) and Its Structure”/Kobayashi Masayoshi; “The Historical Contours
of Taoism in China”/Russell Kirkland; “The History of Taoism: A New Outline”/Idem.;
The Taoist Canon/Kristofer Schipper and Franciscus Verellen (eds.).
See also Dao, Daoism (Historical), Daojia, and Philosophical Daoism.
