Trey Smith
On more than one occasion -- both in posts and the comments section -- Baroness Radon has submitted that she does not "subscribe to the western philosophical/religious Dao distinction." In her view, this represents nothing more than an arbitrary and imaginary line created by those of us in the West.
In one sense, she's correct. If I was to travel to China (something the Baroness has done several times) and I tried to enter into a conversation with Chinese Taoists about the differences between the philosophical and religious forms, I would bet they would look at me as if I was off my nut! For the vast majority of them, there is no distinct difference whatsoever.
However, in another sense, I disagree with her assertion somewhat. From my readings on the history of Taoism, it started out as something akin to a school of thought. There were numerous schools of this nature and each tried to find rulers to implement their framework in the territories they controlled.
In time, this school of thought formed the basis for a religious tradition. It adopted sacred rituals and texts, installed clergy and built temples. In other words, it became an institutionalized religion.
What many of us in the West refer to as philosophical Taoism is the school of thought PRIOR to its conversion into a somewhat formalized religion.
It is not that different from the distinction made by some people between the philosophy of Jesus and the institutionalized Christian Church. I have known several people throughout my life who consider themselves followers of Jesus, but who adamantly oppose the Christian religion. In their view, the church bastardized his moral teachings and turned this sagely man into a superhuman freak. For them, the only Christian writings of any import are the Gospels (both canonical and non-canonical) and the rest isn't worth a reading.
In my opinion, behind EVERY religion is a philosophical framework. When we scrape away the deities and superhuman aspects, we find a worldview. When I state that I am a philosophical Taoist, I mean that I embrace the Taoist worldview without subscribing to the religious bells and whistles.
Put another way, what many of us term as philosophical Taoism is a framework that can be embraced by atheists and agnostics alike. It is a way of looking at the world without the belief in a specific creator entity.
I think this is why the Baroness has trouble with this distinction. She has shared with us that she is influenced by her liberal Christian/Catholic Church background -- a background that includes a god in her definition of life. Consequently, it doesn't make sense to her mind to strip away the somewhat formalized religious aspects and solely to focus on the philosophic underpinnings.
But, as an atheist, it makes perfect sense to me!
Oddly, it is generally Christians who make the distinction. The Christians who confronted Taoism in the colonial period needed to separate philosophy and religion to make sense of it. One would think I would be the one to be very adamant about philosophical versus religious Taoism. But i agree with the scholar Louis Komjathy who notes that:
ReplyDelete"The distinction between so-called “philosophical Daoism” and “religious Daoism” is a modern Western fiction which reflects colonialist and missionary agendas and sensibilities. From its beginnings in the Warring States period (480-222 BCE), “Daoism” consisted of religious practitioners and communities. [Komjathy does not mention the shamanistic roots, but that is part of the worldview as well.] Considered as a whole, Daoism is a complex and diverse religious tradition. It consists of various adherents, communities and movements, which cannot be reduced to a simplistic bifurcation. Its complexity may be mapped in terms of historical periodization as well as models of practice and attainment"
Komjathy goes on to note, in regard to people who call themselves Daoists because they love the worldview and "go with the flow":
"From a Daoist perspective, there are various types of religious adherence and affiliation. These involve different degrees of commitment and responsibility. The Daoist tradition consists, first and foremost, of ordained priests and monastics and lay supporters. Lineage and ordination are primary dimensions of Daoist identity and religious affiliation. This requires training under Daoist teachers and community elders with formal affiliation with the Daoist religious community and tradition. A distinction may in turn be may between Daoist adherents and Daoist sympathizers. In the case of Daoism in the West, one also finds various forms of spiritual appropriation and spiritual capitalism."
Komjathy decries "Popular Western Taoism," particularly reflected in works by such popularizers as LeGuin and Mitchell. "...such popular Western cultural productions are popular exactly because they expunge all of the culturally specific and religious dimensions of the text. "
He is highly critical of Hoff and Dyer and others of that ilk: "They are part of popular Western culture, New Age spirituality, as well as self- help and pop psychology. They are part of “spiritual capitalism” and a new form of alternative spirituality best understood as “Popular Western Taoism.”
One of the things that is not quite clear to me in your own worldview and practice ( if you have any) is where you draw the line between philosophy and the "bells and whistles." I can understand you not wanting to participate in devotional aspects of Daoism, no incense burning and collection of statues on an altar to venerate, but do you also reject the cultivation of qi, internal alchemy practices, the essentially mystical aspects of Dao?
(I love that the little eye test of word verification for this comment included the word "twoness.")
"From its beginnings in the Warring States period (480-222 BCE), “Daoism” consisted of religious practitioners and communities. [Komjathy does not mention the shamanistic roots, but that is part of the worldview as well.]"
DeleteDo you mean that the idea of shamanistic roots is part of the western worldview? Do the Chinese view Taoism as not having any precedents, or as simply arising at the time period you quoted? Perhaps I need some understanding of how the Chinese culture is different from the West, as we always seem to believe that everything is built upon what comes before.
"He is highly critical of Hoff and Dyer and others of that ilk: "They are part of popular Western culture, New Age spirituality, as well as self- help and pop psychology. They are part of “spiritual capitalism” and a new form of alternative spirituality best understood as “Popular Western Taoism.”
As I said in a comment on one of your previous posts, at least by reading materials by Hoff and Dyer I was introduced to the Tao, so I will thank them for that. It was up to me to seek out what Taoism was really about. I like the term "spiritual capitalism". I'd never thought of it that way.
"...do you also reject the cultivation of qi, internal alchemy practices, the essentially mystical aspects of Dao?"
For me, this is what I would like to learn about, from a more reliable source than you can often find on the shelf at Barnes and Nobles. I think overall, I need to find good sources to study about all what might be considered "deeper" meanings and teachings of Taoism, plus I need to study the differences between Western and Eastern worldviews, which reveals how we (in the West) tend to interpret the Tao Te Chang and other Taoist teachings (I am a relative novice at this).
That's a nice quote and all, but I think he fails to distinguish between folk religion (with shamanistic aspects) and institutional religion. From what I've read to date, the latter didn't begin to take form until the 1st or 2nd century AD. In other words, it was as foreign to Lao Tzu and Zhuangzi as it is to me.
ReplyDeleteAs to where I draw the line, I can't answer that. There is no precise point.
That's a fair point and I might run this by my local univeristy contact who teaches this stuff. I think Komjathy is saying there is a continuity from ~Lao Tzu to Zhang Daoling, at which point it was kind of codified in one specific school, which later died out. Oddly, Komjathy is loathe to consider some of the earlier things like the Ho diagram, Luo writing, I Ching, the medical principles of the Yellow Emperor, and such as specifically Daoist, although they are fundamental in Daoist teaching. You see them in all the temples and academies. I was taught them as fundamental to later concepts.
ReplyDeleteRegarding "specific creator identity" ...
ReplyDeleteIn TTC Ch 1 "eternal Reason" & "Unnameable" are referred to as "the beginning" or "of the ten thousand things the mother" & although Tao is not sitting comfortably, omnipotent in the sky there is still a sense of Tao as a formless unfathomable source of all things. Not necessarily requiring devotion or worship but in a sense HOW we live our lives in our attitudes & daily choices (eg recycling, sustainable growth or planting & tending one's own herbs, vegetables & fruits) is in itself a form of respect for the divine laws of the universe.