Daoism Not as We Know It

Abstract

Daoism as a school of thought does not appear until after political unification. Its first definition goes back to the summary by Sima Tan 司馬談, father of grand historian Sima Qian 司馬遷 (145–86 BCE), of the Liujia 六家 (Six Schools), i.e., Yinyang, Confucius, Mozi, Law, Logic, and Dao. In his view, Dao 道 (Way) is supreme because it encompasses the best of all the others ( Shiji jjie [Taipei: Wenhua tushugongsi, 1974] 70, 555). Daoism thus could be seen as eclectic and non-partisan. The question is how and when was it formed? Central to Daoism, I would argue, is the idea of unity, spiritual as well as geopolitical. Kidder Smith argues Sima Tan personally invented Daoism and other schools himself, which just goes to show the extent of the problem (2003). To solve it we need to re-evaluate Dao’s role in the Qin empire, the elephant in the room. It was Qin that shaped the crucial transition from the Warring States to the Han empire—a period still poorly understood.