Why is all of modern Daoism 'Xuanxue' (neo-Daoism)?

[MadePossible]

Xuanxue, unless I am mistaken, is interpreting the Dao de jing as a metaphysical, philosophical treatise?

 

That Dao is emptiness and ziran is the expression of this emptiness.

[zerostao]

I do see the  Dao De Jing as one person's metaphysical, philosophical, treatise.

One that has many layers and meanings for the reader, regardless of where they are, among the food chain.

[心神 ~]

The doorway most people use today is books, translations, and philosophy classes, and xuanxue is the style that treats the Daodejing (and the Yijing and Zhuangzi) as high metaphysics.

 

Xuanxue (Dark/Profound Learning) was a Wei–Jin era way of reading the classics, especially through big commentaries like Wang Bi’s Laozi. Those commentaries became hugely influential, got copied and taught for centuries, and shaped what later readers thought the text "really" means. So when people discover Daoism through reading, they often meet it through a lens already polished by xuanxue.

 

Later Daoist traditions, especially internal alchemy and the Quanzhen world, developed emptiness / stillness / nonbeing language while in relation to Buddhism and Confucianism. Modern presentations tend to pull from that shared vocabulary.

 

Not only that, but ritual Daoism requires extensive training, community, ordination networks, temples, and lots of context. Online spaces and modern education reward what’s easier to share quickly, like Dao = emptiness, ziran = expression of Dao, wu = the root, and other simple abstract statements.

 

So modern Daoism looks like xuanxue because the most visible vehicle for Daoism is textual, and xuanxue is the most established, widely inherited framework for reading those texts that way.

 

[Apech]

4 minutes ago, 心神 ~ said:

The doorway most people use today is books, translations, and philosophy classes, and xuanxue is the style that treats the Daodejing (and the Yijing and Zhuangzi) as high metaphysics.

 

Xuanxue (Dark/Profound Learning) was a Wei–Jin era way of reading the classics, especially through big commentaries like Wang Bi’s Laozi. Those commentaries became hugely influential, got copied and taught for centuries, and shaped what later readers thought the text "really" means. So when people discover Daoism through reading, they often meet it through a lens already polished by xuanxue.

 

Later Daoist traditions, especially internal alchemy and the Quanzhen world, developed emptiness / stillness / nonbeing language while in relation to Buddhism and Confucianism. Modern presentations tend to pull from that shared vocabulary.

 

Not only that, but ritual Daoism requires extensive training, community, ordination networks, temples, and lots of context. Online spaces and modern education reward what’s easier to share quickly, like Dao = emptiness, ziran = expression of Dao, wu = the root, and other simple abstract statements.

 

So modern Daoism looks like xuanxue because the most visible vehicle for Daoism is textual, and xuanxue is the most established, widely inherited framework for reading those texts that way.

 

 

 

Nagajuna's shunya and Xuanxue match quite closely and in a way Wang Bi and his school paved the way for an easy entrance for Buddhism into China.  I wonder how different Daoism would be without Xuanxue?  Can we ever know?

 

 

[心神 ~]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

Nagajuna's shunya and Xuanxue match quite closely and in a way Wang Bi and his school paved the way for an easy entrance for Buddhism into China.  I wonder how different Daoism would be without Xuanxue?  Can we ever know?

 

 

Yes, I agree. And I find the ‘emptiness’ translation of sunya / wu matters a lot. To me, translated as nothingness, Buddhist and Daoist concepts feel remote and purely abstract. When translated as relational reality/interdependence, the connection to daily life and practice is clearer.

 

One small thread in xuanxue discourse was an effort to make Confucian social order and Daoist (Lao-Zhuang) ideals fit together. If the Dao is the root and ziran describes how life unfolds on its own, then how does mingjiao (Confucian rites, roles, and norms) align with that root and that natural pattern?

 

Without the xuanxue filter, maybe publicly Daoism shows up less as ontological text for literati debate, and more as everyday life-craft and governance guidelines: emphasis on close seasonal and environmental observation, conserving vitality, aligning action with circumstances, and keeping rule light.

 

I wonder, without xuanxue influence, would Confucian framing have been less dominant in how elites explained Daoism? And I wonder which Daoist strands might have become the “prestige” readings?

 

[MadePossible]

2 hours ago, 心神 ~ said:

Later Daoist traditions, especially internal alchemy and the Quanzhen world, developed emptiness / stillness / nonbeing language while in relation to Buddhism and Confucianism. Modern presentations tend to pull from that shared vocabulary.

 

Even later Daoist schools such as Quanzhen seem to be Xuanxue. I asked chatgpt if Quanzhen is xuanxue, and it said it wasn't, yet they seem to follow Wang Bi's interpretation of the Daodejing.

 

Indeed, I've read the Heshang gong commentary by Dan Reid and it's confusing since it seems to add his commentary to a Xuanxue translated daodejing.

 

I am starting to wonder where exactly is there original Daoism without Xuanxue?

[Apech]

51 minutes ago, 心神 ~ said:

 

Yes, I agree. And I find the ‘emptiness’ translation of sunya / wu matters a lot. To me, translated as nothingness, Buddhist and Daoist concepts feel remote and purely abstract. When translated as relational reality/interdependence, the connection to daily life and practice is clearer.

 

One small thread in xuanxue discourse was an effort to make Confucian social order and Daoist (Lao-Zhuang) ideals fit together. If the Dao is the root and ziran describes how life unfolds on its own, then how does mingjiao (Confucian rites, roles, and norms) align with that root and that natural pattern?

 

Without the xuanxue filter, maybe publicly Daoism shows up less as ontological text for literati debate, and more as everyday life-craft and governance guidelines: emphasis on close seasonal and environmental observation, conserving vitality, aligning action with circumstances, and keeping rule light.

 

I wonder, without xuanxue influence, would Confucian framing have been less dominant in how elites explained Daoism? And I wonder which Daoist strands might have become the “prestige” readings?

 

The use of the word Dao was fairly universal in Chinese philosophy wasn’t it?  Like the other schools such as the Naming School and so on.  So we would have to identify a purely daoist Dao distinct from others?   And also where are we placing the origin of daoism anyway?

 

 

[Apech]

14 minutes ago, MadePossible said:

 

Even later Daoist schools such as Quanzhen seem to be Xuanxue. I asked chatgpt if Quanzhen is xuanxue, and it said it wasn't, yet they seem to follow Wang Bi's interpretation of the Daodejing.

 

Indeed, I've read the Heshang gong commentary by Dan Reid and it's confusing since it seems to add his commentary to a Xuanxue translated daodejing.

 

I am starting to wonder where exactly is there original Daoism without Xuanxue?

Pre-philosophical shamanism????

 

 

[心神 ~]

54 minutes ago, Apech said:

The use of the word Dao was fairly universal in Chinese philosophy wasn’t it?  Like the other schools such as the Naming School and so on.  So we would have to identify a purely daoist Dao distinct from others?   And also where are we placing the origin of daoism anyway?

 

 

 

In this context, I mean the Laozi / Zhuangzi presentation of the Dao. Dao as the root that precedes fixed names and rigid norms, and the practical orientation that comes with it; wuwei as non-forcing, ziran as self-so unfolding, and the wu/xu register that points to openness, absence of imposed structure, and the usefulness of what is “not there.”

 

Of course Daoism draws on a very long prehistory of Chinese ritual life and spirit-facing practice (like you said, pre-philosophical shamanism, but there's also a huge span of time and a lot of change between early court ritual worlds, Shang divination practices, and the Zhou / Warring States philosophical explosion.

 

So if we’re looking for Daoism without xuanxue, I'm not sure pre-philosophical shamanism gives us a good idea of what to expect. Maybe better to consider the Daodejing and Zhuangzi with the center of gravity on practice, governance, and cultivation language, before Wang Bi-style metaphysical framing became the default for educated readers.

 

[MadePossible]

4 minutes ago, 心神 ~ said:

In this context, I mean the Laozi / Zhuangzi presentation of the Dao. Dao as the root that precedes fixed names and rigid norms, and the practical orientation that comes with it; wuwei as non-forcing, ziran as self-so unfolding, and the wu/xu register that points to openness, absence of imposed structure, and the usefulness of what is “not there.”

 

But all that is still Xuanxue.

[stirling]

2 hours ago, 心神 ~ said:

Yes, I agree. And I find the ‘emptiness’ translation of sunya / wu matters a lot. To me, translated as nothingness, Buddhist and Daoist concepts feel remote and purely abstract. When translated as relational reality/interdependence, the connection to daily life and practice is clearer.

 

Of course, probably almost no-one encountered these ideas first in written text,  if they could read at all. They would have encountered these ideas after seeking a teacher, who would have had a reputation OR have been recommended by someone with a reputation. The  teacher they found wouldn't have given the student an impossible to find or buy text, they would have shown them what they were talking about directly. 

 

The concepts ARE abstract, but the reality of them can be demonstrated to be omni-present and real with practice and guidance.

 

 

[心神 ~]

5 minutes ago, MadePossible said:

 

But all that is still Xuanxue.

 

 

What is your definition of xuanxue?

 

[MadePossible]

Just now, 心神 ~ said:

 

What is your definition of xuanxue?

 

That Dao is emptiness, that wu wei is the expression of that emptiness, that is ziran, etc. Basically a meditation, mindfulness guide.

[心神 ~]

27 minutes ago, MadePossible said:

That Dao is emptiness, that wu wei is the expression of that emptiness, that is ziran, etc. Basically a meditation, mindfulness guide.

 

Ah, I see. My understanding of xuanxue is that it's a style of elite metaphysical reading and debate anchored in commentary work. A textual, scholarly movement and approach to pre-existing texts.

 

[Apech]

11 minutes ago, 心神 ~ said:

 

Ah, I see. My understanding of xuanxue is that it's a style of elite metaphysical reading and debate anchored in commentary work. A textual, scholarly movement and approach to pre-existing texts.

 

 

Yes.

[心神 ~]

46 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

Of course, probably almost no-one encountered these ideas first in written text,  if they could read at all. They would have encountered these ideas after seeking a teacher, who would have had a reputation OR have been recommended by someone with a reputation. The teacher they found wouldn't have given the student an impossible to find or buy text, they would have shown them what they were talking about directly. 

 

The concepts ARE abstract, but the reality of them can be demonstrated to be omni-present and real with practice and guidance.

 

 

 

Yes, I agree with you that the concepts are abstract at the core. It's just when lived meaning gets lost, nothingness language seems to easily slide into a nihilistic perspective.

 

A teacher can prevent the confusion by showing, directly, that emptiness is not the same as nothingness. But many people don't get that kind of guidance, so they grab the bleak version and stop there, you know?

 

[stirling]

15 minutes ago, 心神 ~ said:

Yes, I agree with you that the concepts are abstract at the core. It's just when lived meaning gets lost, nothingness language seems to easily slide into a nihilistic perspective.

 

A teacher can prevent the confusion by showing, directly, that emptiness is not the same as nothingness. But many people don't get that kind of guidance, so they grab the bleak version and stop there, you know?

 

Agreed. I think most people FIRST encounter this kind of thing from a book or online now, and might take texts and teachings out of context, in an illogical order, or interpret them incorrectly and waste vast amounts of time.

 

In my opinion there is also this addiction and attachment that people have to exclusivity, rarity, or how "secret" a teaching is that can derail progress. What is needed to practice and find some success is in fact very simple... and there is a reason that many of the most popular teachings REMAIN popular.