Dao (2015) 14:303–306 DOI 10.1007/s11712-015-9427-0 Liu, Xiaogan, ed., Dao Companion to Daoist Philosophy Dordrecht: Springer, 2015, vii + 569 pages David Chai 1 Published online: 3 April 2015 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 The Dao Companion to Daoist Philosophy is the sixth such work in the Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy series edited by HUANG Yong. Not only is it the most recent addition to this magnificent series, it happens to be the longest Companion published thus far. Divided into five parts, the work includes a total of 24 chapters, covering the classical phase of Daoism as seen in the thought of Laozi 老子 and Zhuangzi 莊子 (8 chapters), the Huang-Lao 黃老 tradition of the Han 漢 (6 chapters), and the Xuanxue 玄學 (Dark Learning) movement of the Wei-Jin 魏晉 dynastic era (4 chapters), before ending with several comparative studies of Daoism and other traditions (5 chapters). If there is one thing that makes this particular volume stand apart from the others in this series, it has to be the tremendous contribution of its editor, LIU Xiaogan, in that no less than seven of the book’s chapters are of his hand! After the Editor’s Introduction, which, surprisingly, is more of a personal manifesto on the nature of Chinese philosophy than an overview of Daoism, LIU Xiaogan begins the book in earnest with chapter two, “Did Daoism Have a Founder? Textual Issues of the Laozi.” After a prolonged historico-hermeneutic analysis, Liu’s answer to this question is both no and yes: “If our word ‘founder’ means one who builds an institution or school, then there was no such person for Daoism. If, however, we hold that a founder could have originated this system of thought and the core part of the Laozi was probably written by someone who went under that name before the emergence of the Zhuangzi text, Laozi seems a fair candidate” (42–43). Mark Csikszentmihalyi follows LIU Xiaogan with a chapter entitled “Thematic Analyses of the Laozi” and whose declared purpose is to examine “Laozi’s key terms—dao [道], de [德], wuwei [無為], and ziran [自然]—and those that relate it to larger cross-cultural categories such as mysticism, politics, gender, and ecology … [but only as to] their role relative to the key religious and philosophical themes of the text” (48). This chapter surveys the many scholarly opinions on the aforementioned terms without resorting to technical language * David Chai davidchai@cuhk.edu.hk 1 Department of Philosophy, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong 304 David Chai and seems to be directed more toward the novice reader of Daoism than one who is already familiar with it. Indeed, this is precisely the task of chapter four, “Laozi’s Philosophy: Textual and Conceptual Analyses” by LIU Xiaogan. XING Wen then examines the bamboo-slip texts Hengxian 恆先 and Taiyi Shengshui 太一生水 in his “Early Daoist Thought in Excavated Bamboo Slips.” These two texts are important for understanding early Daoist thought in that they present cosmogonist views quite different from that put forth by Laozi. They represent an unquestionably important phase in Daoism’s development and their inclusion in this Companion is evidence as such. Part II contains four chapters on the Zhuangzi, three of which are by LIU Xiaogan (chapters 6, 8, and 9 respectively). Drawing upon his published research in both English and Chinese, these three chapters bring together some of his most important findings on the Zhuangzi. Steve Coutinho’s “Conceptual Analyses of the Zhuangzi” (chapter 7) looks at the “Qiwulun 齊物論” chapter (chapter 2) and how four particular scholars have interpreted it—A. C. Graham, Chad Hansen, Paul Kjellberg, and Lisa Raphals—before ending with his own reading. Like LIU Xiaogan, most of what Coutinho says can be found elsewhere, specifically, in his monograph from 2004. This is not to say these four chapters are somehow deficient; rather, the problem is that they do not offer anything substantially different from what can be found in other sources. Part III covers the time when Daoist philosophy underwent a transformation of both identity and content, known as Huang-Lao. During its maturation from the late Warring States to the early Han, the Zhuangzi became overshadowed by the canonical texts of the mythical Yellow Emperor and philosophical discourse moved away from cosmogonist metaphysics towards a syncretic blend of metaphysics, statecraft, military strategy, and medicinal self-cultivation as embodied in the doctrine of yin-yang 陰陽 and the five agents. This is an often-overlooked phase of Daoist philosophy, thus to have six wonderful chapters covering its various aspects is both remarkable and welcome. Briefly put, chapters 11, “Daoism in the Guanzi [管子]” and 15, “Huainanzi [淮南子]: The Pinnacle of Classical Daoist Syncretism” by Harold Roth demonstrate the role Daoist theories of physical and mental nourishment played for those holding political authority, that is, the sage-king. Carine Defoort’s “Pheasant Cap Master,” Griet Vankeerberghen’s “The Four Lost Classics: An Essay in Readership,” and Paul van Els’ “The Philosophy of the Proto-Wenzi [文子]” (chapters 12 through 14 respectively) demonstrate further ways in which Daoist life-praxis and conceptions of socio-political norms and institutions were adopted during this unique historical period. However, if not for the preliminary introduction in the form of “The Doctrines and Transformation of the Huang-Lao Tradition” by L. K. Chen and Winnie Sung, the reader would be hard pressed to discover the common thread winding through these figures and their reapplication of concepts that had long ago been taken for granted. The success of this Companion is due in no small measure to the outstanding scholarship of this, its third section. Leaving behind the classical period, Part IV delves into the next stage—the commentarial tradition and the rise of a decidedly naturalistic ethical cosmology. The most famous of the intact early commentaries are those by WANG Bi 王弼 and GUO Xiang 郭象, and are discussed by Richard J. Lynn in his “WANG Bi and Xuanxue,” and Brook Ziporyn in his “G UO Xiang: The Self-So and the Repudiation-cumReaffirmation of Deliberate Action and Knowledge.” Although WANG Bi and GUO Review of Dao Companion to Daoist Philosophy 305 Xiang wrote commentaries to different texts, and lived at opposite ends of the Xuanxue movement, the manner in which Lynn and Ziporyn investigate their principal themes dovetails perfectly. Although these chapters (16 and 17 respectively) do not represent the intellectual endeavors of their namesakes in their entirety, a task that is impossible for all of the chapters comprising this Companion, they brilliantly show how Daoists continuously re-examined their tradition and recalibrated their ideas to remain relevant in the vast intellectual landscape of ancient and early-medieval China. Sandwiched between WANG Bi and GUO Xiang we find the creative heart of Xuanxue in the form of seven individuals who threw down the gauntlet when it came to publically displaying their genius as LO Yuet-keung so succinctly notes: “The Seven Worthies themselves may not have shared much in their worldviews other than a nonconformist attitude toward hypocrisy and illegitimate rulership” (433). Lo’s chapter, “The Seven Worthies of the Bamboo Grove,” gives a sublime account of this group’s background and how it came to be named as such. Where the chapter disappoints, however, is that Lo only gives a detailed account of three of the seven members—RUAN Ji 阮籍, JI Kang 嵇康, and XIANG Xiu 向秀—while ignoring the others. Given these three have already received a fair amount of scholarly attention, this would have made for an opportune time to focus on the other four, scant though their writings may be. The final chapter in this section is by SEO June Won, entitled “The Liezi and Daoism.” To date, only A. C. Graham (The Book of Lieh-Tzu. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990) and the contributors to Ronnie Littlejohn’s volume (Riding the Wind with Liezi: New Perspectives on the Daoist Classic. Albany: SUNY Press, 2012) have probed this most misunderstood and neglected text, which was for the longest time thought to be a forgery. Indeed, Seo grapples with this issue from the outset and ends up agreeing with the work’s forged status: “[The] only reason we can surmise for the compiler to make this forgery is ironically his sheer and serious philosophical interest to elaborate a complete metaphysics with which he could explain the reason of the world and eliminate illusions from the truth” (464). In the fifth and final part of the Companion, five chapters are offered. The first of them (chapter 20), by LIU Xiaogan, is intended to “introduce other dimensions of Daoism, especially the religious movements that developed and derived from this indigenous philosophical heritage, as well as other traditional practices and beliefs” (471). As a cursory introduction to Daoist religion and the art of fengshui 風水 (geomancy), this chapter does an excellent job. One could argue, however, that limiting discussion of the Baopuzi 抱朴子 by GE Hong 葛洪 to just a single page is unjustifiable. There is much to be said about GE Hong’s text, especially with regard to his doctrine of the One and the Many, and his contribution to the debate within Xuanxue regarding the being/non-being dyad. The Baopuzi is a text in desperate need of further examination so it is a real pity to see GE Hong characterized as “a contributor to the history of Chinese chemical science” (480) in order to discredit him for being the philosopher he actually is. In chapter 21, Karyn Lai examines the relationship between Daoism and Confucianism from the point of view of “the individual within its environment, the socio-political world, and the cultivation of the self” (498). As one would expect with such an endeavor, similarities and differences abound; however, they also share “common features such as the conception of the self-in-environment, attention to relationships, and a practical orientation. These are important aspects of the conceptual framework of Chinese thought and they help to establish Chinese philosophy as a 306 David Chai unique field in philosophical studies” (507). The next chapter by YAO Zhihua brings together Daoism and Buddhism for the purpose of comparing their views on nothingness and emptiness. The conclusion Yao reaches is that “the Buddha’s attitude towards these metaphysical questions comes close to the Wittgensteinian silence, which rejects the meaningless metaphysical discourse … [whereas they are employed in] Laozi’s linguistic strategy to approach the ineffable ultimate reality Dao” (524). Lisa Raphals, in the first of two consecutive chapters, attempts to reveal how Daoism stacks up again Greek philosophy; an insurmountable task for a chapter of such brevity. However, her purpose is not to provide an exhaustive account but to highlight the fact that “this field deserves more attention than it has received, and is a fruitful area for future research” (535). In chapter 24, the last of the Companion, Raphals seeks an even more intimidating project by comparing Daoism and science. Again, her goal is to merely expose the “relation of Daoism to the qualitative sciences of medicine and astronomy, and their relations with early Chinese philosophy overall … [which is important because] new research and the evidence of recently excavated texts is transforming our understanding of the scientific aspects of Daoist thought” (549). In terms of stylistic consistency, this Companion has a number of errors that somehow slipped through the copyediting process. Take the writing of LIU Xiaogan’s name, for example. Amongst the various chapter bibliographies, some of them give only the English version of Liu’s name, some give both the English and Chinese versions, and some only provide Chinese for half of the listed entries. Another formatting inconsistency pertains to the way in which sources are cited at the end of each chapter. For example, chapter 3 has a distinct annotated bibliography entitled “Additional References” while other chapters incorporate such annotations into the bibliography itself, and quite haphazardly at that. What is more, chapter 16 contains a “References” section followed by a separate “Bibliography” while chapter 21 has one section entitled “Classical Texts, Translations, and Collections” and a second called “Studies in Chinese Philosophy.” A third type of oversight is related to the inclusion of Chinese text whenever it appears in the body of a chapter. For example, chapters 5, 7, 12, 13, and 18 all give the Chinese text after its English translation, chapter 14 gives it beforehand, chapter 21 gives it beforehand, afterwards, or not at all, and chapter 22 puts the Chinese in the footnotes, while the remaining chapters do not include any Chinese at all. Be this as it may, the Dao Companion to Daoist Philosophy marks yet another outstanding volume in the Dao Companions series. Springer is to be commended for its unfailing support of such an ambitious academic endeavor while HUANG Yong has every reason to be proud of and commended for producing a literary child of such prodigious merit.