Hi Jim.

You report Lao-tzu being a predecessor to (perhaps even teaching) Confucius while I think evidence is mostly contrary to that. You note:
... I understand that Lao Tzu was a bit older and had been
teaching (confusing?) people for some time when Confucius
came on the scene.
Lao-tzu's birth is unknown; Confucius's birth was 551 B.C.E.. I've seen one source credit Lao-tzu as nine years older, but dates are widely spread from 600 B.C.E. forward. Many deny him as an historical figure. Daoist claimed Lao-tzu taught Confucius long
after Confucius's death. Daoist also claimed Buddhism was a sect arising from Daoist teaching... :-)

Our friend Lynn wrote privately re' Chinese Daoism as my preference for the origin. It truly is not! Daoism took many twists and turns... and its greatest impact on bonsai is perhaps its influence on Japanese literati (especially in the late 18th through
the 19th century) who were vying with Japanese nativist learning scholars for dominance in arts and literary pursuits. Daoist influence on bonsai is as largely written in Japanese history as in Chinese history. It is more easily followed in my studies
by references to stone/suiseki appreciation that was often shared by the same enthusiasts.

My reading indicated, BTW, that Confucius was one of those
who didn't understand anything that Lao-Tse said. He apparently
mentioned his confusion to one of his followers after the two men
had met.
I'd appreciate learning more, Jim. Daoist religion leaves me confused, and I too often jump to philosophical Daoism-- the perfected _zhenren_ who who wanders free from the conventions of culture and society as described in the _Zhangzi_. Laotzu's _Dao
De Jing_ (admittedly no copy exist from Laotzu's reputed lifetime) notes, "The extensively learned do not really know (Chapter 81)." Is this not a reflecting back on the influential _Analects_ of Confucius (the core of which is also attributed to 2nd gene
ration disciples)?

One web resource http://www.csudh.edu/phenom_studies/...taoteching.htm notes:
Recent philological studies are more inclined to suggest that
_Tao Te Ching_ is written perhaps rather in the 4th or the 3rd
century B.C. (later than Confucius) and is maybe not written by
one author, but from many different origins including certain
proverbs which were very likely prevalent around the time.

This stance is supported by debate over which _Dao De Jing_ texts are authentic to an early source. The earliest edition now is the Guodian (see www.archaeology.org/9811/newsbriefs/laozi.html & http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...63/104-6315758
-3573561). From the Amazon book review of Henrick's text on the Guodian edition of the _Dao De Jing_:
it provides the most conclusive evidence to date that
the text was the work of multiple authors and editors
over hundreds of years, rather than the achievement
of a single individual writing during the time of
Confucius.

Another http://homepages.utoledo.edu/enelson...jingreview.htm notes in reviewing _Laozi, Dao De Jing: A Philosophical Translation_ by Ames and Hall:
... the emergence of the _Dao De Jing_ as a radical and
powerful alternative vision in an epoch-the Warring States
Period (403-221 BCE)-of conflict and uncertainty.

... The Chinese cosmology of this period, both Daoist and
Confucian, sees all relations as familial. The person is thus
inherently constituted in a web of relations in which she has
a unique place and position. The primary familial metaphor
of _ru_ or Confucian thought is that of father and filial son, but
mother and child take precedence in early Daoism (23). This
explains the repeated appeals to the feminine (Ddj 5, 10, 28,
61), the maternal (Ddj 1, 20, 25, 28, 51, 52, 59), and the
child-like (Ddj 10, 20, 28, 49, 52, 55) in the _Dao De Jing_--
that is, to the creative and fecund, the receptive and affirming,
the natural and the spontaneous.
Once again, it seems the _Dao De Jing_ offers a response (and an explicit alternative) to the priority of Confucian relationships.

In short, the liklihood of Lao-tzu teaching Confucius seems less likely than that _Dao De Jing_ reflects a response to earlier Confucian teaching and influence.

FWIW, in Jensen's _ Manufacturing Confucianism: Chinese Traditions & Universal Civilization_, he credits the Jesuits with 'creating' Confucianism. Thus, a case can (and has) been forcefully presented to credit elite literati scholar tradition (_ru_) as se
parate from strong influence by Confucius.

History sometimes appears up-for-grabs, and bonsai history has been sorely ill-defined. Deborah Koreshoff's book draws more together than most histories available in English, but unfortunately its depth is shallow. I can readily see political correctnes
s affecting Hideo Marushima's history regarding modern bonsai in _Classic Bonsai of Japan_.

Daoism, Buddhism and folklore as well as Confucianism are important in understanding bonsai culture... also Asian literary and art history. Modern Daoism like the popular philosophical Zen promoted internationally is far removed from the historical reali
ty.

As you are, I am very anxious to see Peter Aradi's thoughts set down.

Where effective action arises from habitual practice, I think Buddhism & bonsai share a perspective unanticipated in Daoism. The practice of bonsai also shares perspective with martial arts practice. I recall the phrase _ichi nyo_ which is translated "on
e & inseparable." For Zen's Soto sect founder Dogen, _ichi nyo_ describes 2 of his 7 principles:
- 1st principle: _Shu sho ichi nyo_ "Practice (_shugyo_ "rigorous practice"-- including _zazen_) & enlightenment (_satori_ ) are one & inseperable."
- 7th principle: _Shin jin (shin?) ichi nyo_ "Body & spirit are one & inseperable."
Among martial arts, _ichi nyo_ is noted in:
- Taekwando-- _Chi gyo ichi nyo_ "Knowledge & doing are one & inseparable."
- Shorinji karate-- _Ken zen ichi nyo_ "Body & mind are one & inseparable."

Best wishes,
Chris... C. Cochrane, , Richmond VA USA

************************************************** ******************************
++++Sponsored, in part, by Jarbas Godoy ++++
************************************************** ******************************
-- The IBC HOME PAGE & FAQ: http://www.internetbonsaiclub.org/ --
+++++ Questions? Help? e-mail +++++