Abstract

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Philosophical Enactment and Bodily Cultivation in Early Daoism: In the Matrix of the Daodejing by Thomas MichaelJing Tan (bio) and Xiangfei Bao (bio)Philosophical Enactment and Bodily Cultivation in Early Daoism: In the Matrix of the Daodejing. By Thomas Michael. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2022. Pp. x + 278. Hardcover $115.00, isbn 978-1-3502-3665-3. Thomas Michael's Philosophical Enactment and Bodily Cultivation in Early Daoism: In the Matrix of the Daodejing (hereafter Philosophical Enactment) brings forward new perspectives and pathways to one of the most important topics concerning the reconstruction of early Daoist history. The author has contributed two other original and insightful monographs to the study of Daoism, including In the Shadows of the Dao: Laozi, the Sage, and the Daodejing (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2015) and The Pristine Dao: Metaphysics in Early Daoist Discourse (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2005). Together with his newly published research article "The Original Text of the Daodejing: Disentangling Versions and Recensions" (Religions 13, No. 4, (2022): 325), Michael has displayed his erudition and expertise in the study of early Chinese religion and philosophy in both a sinological and philosophical way. His Philosophical Enactment sheds new light on the history of early Daoism. Writing the history of early Daoism is not easy, as Daoism is not ready-made and has no clear boundaries. The difficulty lies not only in its entanglement with, for instance, Confucianism and Legalism, but also in when Daoism began and how it transformed. Narrating the origin and the vicissitude of Daoism requires a prescribed narrative logic or a choice of philosophical paradigm. Piling up materials is not history writing. A typical pattern in writing the history of early Daoism is distinguishing the Daoist school of philosophy (daojia 道家) from Daoist religion (daojiao 道教).1 Indeed, this distinction brings much convenience to the history writing of Daoism and has been adopted by many scholars. Though some do not explicitly state this distinction, the structure of their writings indicates it.2 The distinction between daojia and daojiao was recognized by scholars long before Fung Yu-Lan 馮友蘭 (1895-1900) published his A Brief History of Chinese Philosophy in 1948. [End Page 1] Xu Dishan 許地山 (1893-1941) believes that such a distinction can be traced back to the "Three Ranks" (sanpin shuo三品說) in Liu Xie's 劉勰 (ca. 465-532) "On Eliminating Doubts" (Miehuo lun滅惑論).3However, the received distinction between daojia and daojiao is a retrospective one. It is the product of modern discipline classification and is based on the modern understanding of philosophy and religion. Such a distinction must have been unknown to the people before and during the Han. This distinction may also cause difficulties, for instance, how to classify Ge Hong 葛洪 (283-343) and his works. Wang Ka 王卡 (1956-2017) categorized Ge Hong as a Daoist philosopher,4 while Tang Yijie 湯一介 (1927-2014) assigns Ge Hong to Daoist religion. Tang even asserts that Ge Hong established a theoretical system for Daoist religion. 5 The practice of distinguishing and dichotomizing the Daoist school of philosophy and Daoist religion has been opposed by many researchers. The French Sinologist Henri Maspéro (1883-1945) argues that daojia and daojiao are not so distinct as is often received; they both belong to the same ancient tradition. Maspéro's opposition to the dichotomy was also supported by Joseph Needham (1900-1995), Kristof Schipper (1934-2021), and others.6Although many scholars find it difficult to sharply separate the Daoist school of philosophy from Daoist religion,7 and also find it improper to dichotomize these two concepts, they still commonly accept the distinction and then trying to bridge the two. However, the dilemma faced by scholars compels us to wonder about the appropriateness of the philosophical paradigm dictating this distinction. In other words, do we have a more appropriate alternative? Thomas Michael's Philosophical Enactment provides us with a new perspective for reconsidering the problem of the relationship between the Daoist school of philosophy and Daoist religion, while also being an excellent example of the history writing of early Daoism. According to the general view, the Daodejing belongs to Daoist philosophy because it offers systematic...