The Relationship Between Religious and Philosophical Taoism

[Stigweard]

This thread has arisen out of a lively debate over the philosophical / religious aspects of Taoism.

 

I can see here that we are witnessing the inherent pluralistic nature of Taoism (i.e. Taoism has various monastic sects (Quanzhen, Longmen, Wudang, etc.) as well as philosophical and folk religious aspects).

 

I know Marblehead maintains that Taoism was a philosophy which then became a religion. In one sense he may be correct in that Taoism wasn't "formalized" until late in the Han dynasty, well after the time of the philosophers Laozi and Chuangzi. However, he has still been unable to produce anything beyond his own opinion to give credibility to his claim.

 

On the contrary, it can be seen that philosophical Taoism is the latecomer and is perhaps a Western distortion of true Taoism within the cultural Chinese context. Please review:

 

THE TAOISM OF THE WESTERN IMAGINATION AND THE TAOISM OF CHINA: DE-COLONIALIZING THE EXOTIC TEACHINGS OF THE EAST

Presented at the University of Tennessee

20 October 1997

Russell Kirkland

[Marblehead]

Dear Sir Stig,

 

Thank you very much for the offering. I read and scanned the article. It is basically an expanded version of what you presented to me when we had our earlier discussion.

 

I will begin by saying that I do not use any for the translations the author criticised as being "unTaoist" as a basis of my understanding. Now, that last word in the previous sentence is a very important word and I have and will continue to use it frequently.

 

I do disagree with the author of the article you offered on many levels but I will not go into that nor will I entertain a critical review of the article. However, there is also much truth in what was presented but I will not spend the time of extracting those thoughts and presenting them for discussion.

 

And it is true that during our discussion on the subject I agreed that there were threads of 'taoist' (lower case is intentional) thoughts, both philosophical and religious, or at least mythological, in existence prior to Lao Tzu's time it is still my contention that it was Lao Tzu (or whoever) who collected these threads and created a collection of the thoughts 'he' felt were of importance.

 

And it was Chuang Tzu who further built on these thoughts. I feel that Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu did a really good job at removing, or at least not including, most of the mythological aspects of the already existing thoughts of the time and that is why I contend that what they attempted, and succeeded at in my opinion, was to create a philosophical system to be used as a guide for others in living their life to the fullest.

 

Yes, the threads that were left out continued to exist and they were incorporated into what became to be called "Religious Taoism". But it is obvious to me that Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu felt that these threads were not important enough to include in their presentations.

 

I feel the same way. Nietzsche helped me in further 'cleansing' the philosophy of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu to create a philosophy that was empty of any and all religious or mythological implications. What I ended up with was a collection of works that fulfilled the want for a philosophy that could be used as a guide in life totally free of any form of dogma.

 

And I will agree that there has been much misunderstanding in the Western world regarding Taoism I none-the-less suggest that Philosophical Taoism can be an excellent guide for one to live their live according to as much as possible in our modernized and technologically advanced present day.

 

So, in conclusion, it is my understanding that both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu did their best at presenting a very valuable philosophy. This is what I hold to.

 

Others came along and incorporated earlier concepts with the philosophy and created the religion. That was a good thing as it afforded those who needed or wanted some form of religion in their life. This is also why Buddhism became so important in China shortly after Chuang Tzu's time. Most people need some form of a religious belief. Some folks don't.

 

So there you go.

 

Happy Trails!

[rene]

So, in conclusion, it is my understanding that both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu did their best at presenting a very valuable philosophy. This is what I hold to.

 

Marblehead, you needed a name for your philosophy - and you chose "Taoist", as have many others who embrace mostly the philosophical aspect. But "Taoism" formalized into much more than the concepts of LZ and ZZ, long before you picked up a copy of the TTC - so why not leave the "Taoist" label to those who practice the full aspect?

 

If identifying with an "ism" is important for you, your ideas would fit naturally under the "Laoist" banner (Laoist = embraces the philosophy of LaoTzu) - where all the concerns over the religious, alchemical and immortal aspects of Taoism are left to others.

[Chen]

To transform any philosophy to religion you only have to add ritual.

The persons that add these rituals to any pholosophy are aiming to control the mass of the beleivers.

If, as an example, you subdract the "mysteries",(wedding , holly community,etc)from Christian relegion, you have only the teachings of Jesus as a philosophy.Of course it is more complicated in reality but I think that this is the principal.

[Yoda]

Stig, cool article thanks!

 

Has anyone read:

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/081269088...;pf_rd_i=507846

 

The Disputers of the Tao?

 

It looks like a history of Taoist debating practice. If debating has a long history then that might mean that Taoism as a philosophy has been around for quite some time.

[rex]

Just a guess:

 

Religious Taoism = Applied Philosophy

Philosophical Taoism = Armchair Philosophy

[Marblehead]

Marblehead, you needed a name for your philosophy - and you chose "Taoist", as have many others who embrace mostly the philosophical aspect. But "Taoism" formalized into much more than the concepts of LZ and ZZ, long before you picked up a copy of the TTC - so why not leave the "Taoist" label to those who practice the full aspect?

 

If identifying with an "ism" is important for you, your ideas would fit naturally under the "Laoist" banner (Laoist = embraces the philosophy of LaoTzu) - where all the concerns over the religious, alchemical and immortal aspects of Taoism are left to others.

 

Yes, I have known people who identify themselves as Laoists. But those that I know of do not hold to the teachings of Chuang Tzu as being a part of their belief system.

 

I have, a couple of times, labeled myself as an Atheist- Taoist as well as a Nietzschian-Taoist. These labels are valid. I generally label myself simply "Taoist".

 

So rather than me changing why can't those who are religious Taoists label themselves as "Religious Taoists" and those who are alchemic Taoists label themselves as "Alchemic Taoists"?

 

At least, I regularly label myself as a "Philosophical Taoist". I have never seen the holders of the other branches label themselves appropriately.

 

So a Christian labels themself as a Christian. If asked, they further identify themself as a Southern Baptist. Sometimes they just say, "I am a Southern Baptist."

 

I am an Atheistic-Nietzschian-Lao-Chuang Taoist. But to shorten that label I will continue to call myself a Taoist.

 

Oh well.

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

 

To transform any philosophy to religion you only have to add ritual.

The persons that add these rituals to any pholosophy are aiming to control the mass of the beleivers.

If, as an example, you subdract the "mysteries",(wedding , holly community,etc)from Christian relegion, you have only the teachings of Jesus as a philosophy.Of course it is more complicated in reality but I think that this is the principal.

 

And so the truth is spoken.

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

Just a guess:

 

Religious Taoism = Applied Philosophy

Philosophical Taoism = Armchair Philosophy

 

 

Hehehe. Good try Rex!

 

(I don't accept it but that doesn't matter.)

 

Happy Trails!

[Marblehead]

I just wanted to add this thought to my post above (in response to hfd).

 

I think you will see, if you look at all my posts, I have never entered a discussion of Taoist Religion or Taoist Alchmey practices. That is because these subjects do not concern me.

 

However, if any thread is discussing Taoist Philosophy I may or may not post to that thread if I feel I should speak to a particular issue.

 

It is equally true of any Buddhist discussion. These discussions do not concern me. However, if Taoist Philosophy is mentioned or alluded to in that thread then I may or may not post in that thread.

 

You will also see me posting to something V. has said because I just want to irritate him now and then. Hehehe.

 

Happy Trails!

Edited October 5, 2009 by Marblehead

[Stigweard]

 

Firstly I will agree with you that the Philosophical branch of Taoism "can be an excellent guide for one to live their life," no question about it. I think it is fantastic that so many people have benefited by it.

 

However the process "cleansing the philosophy of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu to create a philosophy that is empty of any and all religious or mythological implications" is no different from the way pharmaceutical companies will extract the active ingredient of a plant and create a patented drug.

 

Take Aspirin for example. It originally came from the White Willow tree (Salix alba) because the bark and leaves contain Salicylic acid which of course is now the active ingredient in Aspirin. Now the pharmaceuticalists couldn't by rights call their drug "White Willow" because they recognized that that would be incorrect. So they called it Asprin because Aspro is Greek for "White."

 

So what you and the Philosophical Taoists have done is to separate what you consider to be the best bits of the holistic tradition of Taoism, sanitize it so that it more suits your sensibilities, and yet still call it "Taoism."

 

The thing you have to really appreciate is that the tradition of Daojiao, whilst yes regarding Laozi as a prime exemplar, included a whole spectrum of texts including but not limited to:

 

* Shenzi / Shen Tzu 慎子

* Laozi / Lao Tzu 老子

* Zhuangzi / Chuang Tzu 莊子

* Liezi / Lieh Tzu 列子

* Wenzi / Wen Tzu 文子

* The Daozang 道藏 (Treasury of Tao)

* Yijing / I Ching 易經 (Book of Changes)

* Neiye / Nei Yeh 內業 (Inner Cultivation)

* Huainanzi / Huai-nan Tzu 淮南子

* Huangdi Neijing 黃帝內經 (The Yellow Emperors Classic)

* Tai Hsi Ching

* Huahujing

 

No one of these texts can stand alone as being "all of Taoism." They are each syncretically an aspect of the whole tradition of Taoism.

 

In the same way, all the practices of Taoism are interdependent parts of the whole:

 

~ Nei Tan, Internal Medicine, which can support a person's spiritual future through refinement of the physical, mental and spiritual essence,

~ Tai Shi, Internal Breathing, which is higher than external breathing, although both are usually practiced together,

~ Tao Yin, Energy Channelling, for purposes of health and spiritual benefit,

~ Chun Shih, Visualization or concentration,

~ Fu Erh, External Nutrition, using natural herbs and other things,

~ Shing Jeau, Walking, for gathering and refining energy,

~ Fuh Chi, Internal Energy Maintenance,

~ Bei Gu, to stop eating food completely (especially helpful to those who are cultivating spiritually so that they can stop looking for and preparing food for themselves - eventually they combine their life with the environment),

~ Fu Chi, Intaking Natural Energy through breathing and swallowing, which should be practiced with Bei Gu,

~ Fang Jung, Sexual Cultivation,

~ Fu Jyeo, Secret Talismanic Characters, Words and also Invocations,

~ Jing Tan, Golden Elixir,

~ Shr Jeah, Method of Exuviation into a New Life."

 

Whilst different schools may place more emphasis on one or two practices, they are still an intrinsic aspect of Taoism.

 

So to disregard the spectrum of Taoist practices or to choose only one or two texts as representative of all of Taoism is like eating the leaves of the pomegranate tree and ignoring the fruit. Worse than this though, you are saying the leaf is the whole tree.

 

<-- Edited to add practices -->

And it is true that during our discussion on the subject I agreed that there were treads of 'taoist' (lower case is intentional) thoughts, both philosophical and religious, or at least mythological, in existence prior to Lao Tzu's time it is still my contention that it was Lao Tzu (or whoever) who collected these threads and created a collection of the thoughts 'he' felt were of importance.

 

And it was Chuang Tzu who further built on these thoughts. I feel that Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu did a really good job at removing, or at least not including, most of the mythological aspects of the already existing thoughts of the time and that is why I contend that what they attempted, and succeeded at in my opinion, was to create a philosophical system to be used as a guide for others in living their life to the fullest.

 

Yes, the threads that were left out continued to exist and they were incorporated into what became to be called "Riligious Taoism". But it is obvious to me that Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu felt that these threads were not important enough to include in their presentations.

 

I feel the same way. Nietzsche helped me in further 'cleansing' the philosophy of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu to create a philosophy that was empty of any and all religious or mythological implications. What I ended up with was a collection of works that fulfilled the want for a philosophy that could be used as a guide in life totally free of any form of dogma.

 

And I will agree that there has been much misunderstanding in the Western world regarding Taoism I none-the-less suggest that Philosophical Taoism can be an excellent guide for one to live their live according to as much as possible in our modernized and technologically advanced present day.

 

So, in conclusion, it is my understanding that both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu did their best at presenting a very valuable philosophy. This is what I hold to.

 

Others came along and incorporated earlier concepts with the philosophy and created the religion. That was a good thing as it afforded those who needed or wanted some form of religion in their life. This is also why Buddhism bacame so important in China shortly after Chuang Tzu's time. Most people need some form of a religious belief. Some folks don't.

 

So there you go.

 

Happy Trails!

[Guest allan]

[Marblehead]

Hehehe. Good try Stig. But you will never convert me to become a Religious Taoist. (Sorry, I just couldn't resist that.)

 

 

Firstly I will agree with you that the Philosophical branch of Taoism "can be an excellent guide for one to live their life," no question about it. I think it is fantastic that so many people have benefited by it.

 

Yes Indeed!

 

However the process "cleansing the philosophy of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu to create a philosophy that is empty of any and all religious or mythological implications" is no different from the way pharmaceutical companies will extract the active ingredient of a plant and create a patented drug.

 

Take Aspirin for example. It originally came from the White Willow tree (Salix alba) because the bark and leaves contain Salicylic acid which of course is now the active ingredient in Aspirin. Now the pharmaceuticalists couldn't by rights call their drug "White Willow" because they recognized that that would be incorrect. So they called it Asprin because Aspro is Greek for "White."

 

I would say that the process has aided many people, wouldn't you? Aspirin for your body and Lao Tzu for your soul. Take one every four hours.

 

So what you and the Philosophical Taoists have done is to separate what you consider to be the best bits of the holistic tradition of Taoism, sanitize it so that it more suits your sensibilities, and yet still call it "Taoism."

 

Yep. We have done that. And I'm proud of what I did. Hehehe. Just like I threw out the parts of Nietzsche I didn't like.

 

The thing you have to really appreciate is that the tradition of Daojiao, whilst yes regarding Laozi as a prime exemplar, included a whole spectrum of texts including but not limited to:

 

* Shenzi / Shen Tzu 慎子

* Laozi / Lao Tzu 老子

* Zhuangzi / Chuang Tzu 莊子

* Liezi / Lieh Tzu 列子

* Wenzi / Wen Tzu 文子

* The Daozang 道藏 (Treasury of Tao)

* Yijing / I Ching 易經 (Book of Changes)

* Neiye / Nei Yeh 內業 (Inner Cultivation)

* Huainanzi / Huai-nan Tzu 淮南子

* Huangdi Neijing 黃帝內經 (The Yellow Emperors Classic)

* Tai Hsi Ching

* Huahujing

 

No one of these texts can stand alone as being "all of Taoism." They are each syncretically an aspect of the whole tradition of Taoism. Sure Laozi and Zhuangzi provide the philosophical flavor to the mix, but to then disregard other texts like the Neiye, Yijing, and the Huangdi Neijing is like eating the leaves of the pomegranate tree and ignoring the fruit. Worse than this though, you are saying the leaf is the whole tree.

 

I would rather say I have eaten the fruit and left the leaves for the catepillers. (I don't know why it came out like that.)

 

Oh, my goodness! I don't deny those folks any appreciation. They did their best to fulfill something they thought had holes in it. What I have done is nothing different than what they have done.

 

Yes, the other writings are filled with wonderful and valuable information. Please! Everyone read them!

 

I think I remember correctly in saying that I have already mentioned that I started reading the supplimental Taoist Literature but found it was not satisfying any need that I personally had.

 

A while back I decided to remove myself from dualistic terms as much as possible and start using the terms useful and useless (not useful to me). I found that the suplimental texts were not useful to me. That is, Me, the individual. And this valuation makes no suggestion as to whether or not they would be useful to any other person.

 

I truely do understand what you are saying, and why you are saying it. And if I were you I would be a Religious Taoist. But you know what? I'm not you and there are probably a lot of people who are thankful for that. There were times in my life when I didn't want to be me.

 

Yes, only Nietzsche and Lao and Chuang Tzu left a hole so that the circle was not complete. That hole, for me, has been filled through NA spirituality (primarily Cherokee).

 

But then, I was brought up to be a Christian but I couldn't accept 'all' of the Christian concepts and back then I couldn't find a way to filter it so that it was acceptable to me so I just dropped the entire belief system.

 

So you, any everyone else, please!, follow the belief system that helps you through your life. I have mine and I am very comfortable with it.

 

Happy Trails!

Edited October 5, 2009 by Marblehead

[Stigweard]

[Marblehead]

* nods in agreement *

 

 

Well, of course you would.

 

*shakes head in disagreement*

 

 

Happy Trails!

[rex]

Well it was just a guess - I'll lurk and learn

 

All the best.

 

 

Hehehe. Good try Rex!

 

(I don't accept it but that doesn't matter.)

 

Happy Trails!

[宁]

it's that they are written differently

 

道教

 

道家

 

hmm?

[三江源]

I dont think I can believe that religion is ever a primary manifestation. It's nature, I think, is that of a later formalisation.

[Marblehead]

Well it was just a guess - I'll lurk and learn

 

All the best.

 

Hi Rex,

 

Don't just take my word for it though. I have been known to be wrong. That's why I try to remain flexible - I might have to change my mind at a moment's notice.

 

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

it's that they are written differently

 

道教

 

道家

 

hmm?

 

 

Excellent! Thanks for pointing that out.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

I dont think I can believe that religion is ever a primary manifestation. It's nature, I think, is that of a later formalisation.

 

Very good!!!

 

I think it is an absolute essential that we consider nature in the development of and belief system.

 

Man tries to understtand nature so that he/she can find security in thier environment.

 

So we look to nature in an attempt to understand. If we find the answers to 'our' questions through observation and analysis we stop there. We have found our needed security.

 

However, if we do not find the answers we need we create the answers that address our questions.

 

Peace & Love!

[Easy]

Good thread.

 

I read the article that was referenced at the top. The author has a sound point, but one that is all too typical, too easy: A scholar looks with dismay at popular versions of what they have been working on in 70, 80 hour weeks for the past 18 months all for the sake of their doctoral thesis.

 

Has anyone here read Anthony Yu's translation of Wu Ch'eng-en's Journey to the West...all four volumes ? It has it all, philosophical Taoism and Buddhism and religious Taoism and Buddhism, martial art fantasies, exotic recipes and menus, healing hints, folk lore, sex and low-down bathroom humor...it is the greatest novel ever written. (I spent two and one half years reading it out loud to the woman I was living with at the time.) Most folks in the west don't know about religious Taoism with its kind of dress-up-and-go-to-church-on-Sunday-morning rituals in elaborate temples with priests in fantastically embroidered kimono kind of robes and every0ne praises the Jade Emperor, ruler of the Ninth Heaven and on and on. This is stuff that Western mystics just aren't really going to relate to very well at all. But when Wu Ch'eng-en was writing his novel in the 15th Century (CE) this was what was hot across the board. Wu Ch'eng-en, a Taoist, worked all of these elements into a seamless whole 100 chapters. (Somewhere in the first volume is a fantastic translation and contextualization of The Heart Sutra.) But there is nothing in there that looks much like the Taoism of the typical 21st Century American Taoist.

 

But who would want it to, and why does it matter if it doesn't?

 

That was then, this is Tao.

 

I see no reason why I should pay any attention to anyone's tradition or religion. Tradition says I should bow to someone dead. I'm not going to do it. Like the Christian Bible says, "Let the dead bury their dead."

 

I read this sentence: "So what you and the Philosophical Taoists have done is to separate what you consider to be the best bits of the holistic tradition of Taoism, sanitize it so that it more suits your sensibilities, and yet still call it 'Taoism.'"

 

And I think two things:

 

1) This is the kind of intra-faith inclusivism (my Taoism is better than your Taoism) that matches the inter-faith inclusivism of that troll Buddhist gentleman who constantly writes that only through Buddha and codependent arising will one find salvation...wait, I'm getting things mixed up...it was Jesus that talked salvation and Buddha talked enlightenment...I think that was how it worked out, but then again all cats are gray in the dark.

 

2) Why does a dog lick its ball? Because it can. Why would one want to call their sanitized bits of cherry picked Chinese philosophy "Taoism?" Because they can!

 

There is this thing called The Free World.

 

I certainly wouldn't want to call myself a Taoist any more than I would want to call myself by the name of anything that had to do with metaphysics. But, nonetheless, whenever I'm in a tight situation I find myself asking, "What would Zhongli Quan do?"

Edited October 7, 2009 by Easy

[Yoda]

Easy,

 

I 100% agree with you... that book has been the single best resource on Chinese religion that I've come across and we have a book club discussion firing up on it and it would be great to see you on the thread!

 

We can argue about the east/west thing there too!

 

Your pal,

Yoda

[VCraigP]

 

Has anyone here read Anthony Wu's translation of Wu Ch'eng-en's Journey to the East...all four volumes ? "

 

Do you mean

Anthony Yu & Journey to the East??

[Easy]

Do you mean

Anthony Yu & Journey to the East??

 

 

Correct, sorry for the misspelling. Thank the Jade Emperor for 'do-overs."

Edited October 6, 2009 by Easy

[Stigweard]

1) This is the kind of intra-faith inclusivism (my Taoism is better than your Taoism) that matches the inter-faith inclusivism of that troll Buddhist gentleman who constantly writes that only through Buddha and codependent arising will one find salvation...wait, I'm getting things mixed up...it was Jesus that talked salvation and Buddha talked enlightenment...I think that was how it worked out, but then again all cats are gray in the dark.

Essentially you are quite correct, I have taken this slant haven't I? I apologize if I have denigrated anyone's path through my comments.

 

We have to accept that Taoism is essentially a pluralistic tradition. The religious aspects can't claim ascendancy over the philosophical and vice versa

[Marblehead]

Good thread.

 

I read the article that was referenced at the top.

 

Hi Easy,

 

Nice post. You even gave me a couple chuckles. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Essentially you are quite correct, I have taken this slant haven't I? I apologize if I have denigrated anyone's path through my comments.

 

We have to accept that Taoism is essentially a pluralistic tradition. The religious aspects can't claim ascendancy over the philosophical and vice versa

 

That is a very gracious post Stig.

 

Peace & Love!

[Easy]

 

That is a very gracious post Stig.

 

Peace & Love!

 

What he said!

[Iskote]

Do you mean

Anthony Yu & Journey to the East??

 

Or maybe he means Anthony C. Yu's translation of "Journey to the West"?

Maybe "Journey to the East" is also very good... Sort of like the journey to the west,

but everything is the opposite. just funnin', that's all...

 

Best wishes from Iskote...