Trey Smith
As I've mentioned before, in one way I have become my mother! I have gotten to where I read several books simultaneously. (Not at the same time, of course. That would be hard!) I'll read a few chapters or pages of one book and then a chapter or a few pages of another one.
Since my overall knowledge of the history of Taoism is a bit lacking, I recently picked up The Shambhala Guide to Taoism by Eva Wong. As I was reading the section of Chapter Two entitled, "Classical Taoism in the Spring and Autumn Period: Lao-tzu and the Tao-te-ching," I had an aha moment that wasn't directly related to what I was reading.
My aha moment concerns the philosophical/religious distinction in Taoism that Baroness Radon argues doesn't actually exist. While I am coming to understand that the Baroness most likely is correct in one sense, I have had trouble trying to explain why I believe the distinction is valid in another sense. And that's when it hit me: Most, if not all, of the religious figures we venerate today were philosophers when they walked the earth.
For example, Jesus was not a Christian; he was a Jewish philosopher. In time, as people reflected upon his life and teachings, a religion was born out of this reflection. An organizational structure was created and an institution was developed.
The same can be said of Lao Tzu and Zhuangzi. Neither of them was a Taoist (a term coined long after their deaths); each was a Chinese philosopher. As with Jesus, people began to reflect on their teachings and a religious belief system slowly coalesced around their central ideas.
As part of this process of religion creation, these human beings were transformed into something akin to deities. They couldn't have been birthed from normal circumstances, so myths were created to show their extraordinary kinship with the heavens. Magical powers were added to the mix and their death stories confirmed that they reached a state that a mere mortal could not attain.
So, it can be argued that those of us who focus solely on the teachings of these Masters -- not the myth creation that occurred after their deaths -- are attuned to their philosophy. This is why I refer to myself as a philosophical Taoist. I focus on the philosophers and their words, not the other stuff that was conjured up after the fact.
Wong herself adds to this point later in Chapter 2, when she writes,
In shedding the shamanic world of diverse spirits and retaining the personal power of the shaman, the Tao-te ching represents a transition from shamanic beliefs to a philosophical system with a unified view of the nature of reality (the Tao), the sage, and the cultivation of life. (emphasis added)
Fair enough. (Though Eva Wong is in fact a religious Taoist associated with a lineage.) However as Taoism progressed from shamanism to philosophical codifications (Eva Wong is speaking of the TTC) it also progressed to "religious forms." It did not bifurcate as if into two rivers, it just expanded into a sea. My point is that it is a continuum (from shamanism to Quanzhen to --biting my tongue --cultural appropriation in the West; I don't limit myself to a specific moment in the axial age in my practice or understanding of Taoism as a whole. (Although I am sceptical of how it is interpreted in the West by the Dyers and Poohs and hippie surfah boyz; but I am equally sceptical of Western Buddhism for some of the same reasons.)
ReplyDeleteOn another point, Jesus was not "a Jewish philosopher", he was an activist rabbi with serious religious background. (Although rabbis are philosophers, really; so too were Sts. Augustine and Aquinas.) When some rich guy asked Jesus what must he do to get to heaven he said, "just follow the 642 (or whatever) rules of the Torah." The guy said, "But I already do that." At which point Jesus says, "Then give it all up and follow me." At which point the rich guy runs away, giving Jesus the opportunity to talk about camels and needles.
And she does say "retaining the personal power of the shaman..."
DeleteSaying that Jesus was "an activist rabbi" is bit of a stretch. By definition, a rabbi is someone ordained to lead a particular congregation or synagogue. While there is no question that Jesus was learned in the Torah, we don't know much about him between age 12 until about the last 2 years or so of his life.
DeleteI mean, can you identify the specific congregation or synagogue he was rabbi to?
As to your second comment (your reply to your own comment), I think this underscores the difference between small "r" religion (folk religion) and capital "R" formal religion (institutionalized). I would say that parts of classical or philosophical Taoism encompass the former, but not the latter.
I understand rabbi as a learned teacher, a master, which he most certainly was.
DeleteI think this all comes down to the fact that you (and not just you, most if not all of the new athiests) just detest religion in any form. I do not. There's really not much more to say. Let's drop this. I am going to go read Wuzhen Pian and then sit for a bit. You do whatever is is you do.
But before I go, just which parts of folk religion does philosophical Taoism encompass (that are not encompassed in the big R? ). That is, which aspects of the folk religion do you recognize? It sounds like you may be comfortable with them.
Baroness,
DeleteThis has been my point all along. You see far more religion as part of Taoism because you yourself are religious. I see far less because I'm an atheist. That was the point of a previous post in which I stated HOW we view Taoism has a lot to do with who we are and the way we view the world.
As to your second question, I honestly can't answer it right now. As you have pointed out, my knowledge of Chinese history is lacking and so I am in the process of trying to catch up somewhat. I made that statement to leave the door open, so to speak.
Eva Wong also says:
ReplyDelete"As my understanding of Chinese history & philosophy deepened, I realized that it was in Taoism, not Buddhism or Confucianism, that the sacred and spiritual traditions of China are preserved. Confucianism may have shaped Chinese cultural behaviour, but Taoism has shaped the soul and spirit of the Chinese people"
Indeed soul & spirit are experienced as different & cultivated separately.
If memory serves, the I Ching predates Tao Te Ching & other 'philosophical' Taoist literature. This indicates that, as Wong says, "The Taoist Spiritual Tradition is rooted in the shamanic belifs of early China" with reverence given to Lord & Lady of the River & The Great Lord of Destiny. Taoism as a philosophy or World View evolved from a deep reverence for & understandimg of The Laws of Nature (? or Divine Law).