Philosophical vs. religious Taoism

[teamdialectics]

Hi everyone,

 

I'm someone who has read a few Taoist texts and spoken to a few "Western" Taoists, and I'm curious about the "philosophical" vs. "religious" split in Taoism: Often you find "philosophical" Taoists (particularly "Western" ones) speaking about "religious" Taoism as if it were some sort of corruption, but clearly there must be some social or historical reason why certain religious practices gravitated into the Taoist "orbit", and I'm curious about various schools of Taoism, their history, why they are different to each other, and what they're like in practice today.

[Marblehead]

Hello teamdialectics, and welcome.

 

Your membership is approved and we're happy you found your way to us. We look forward to accompanying you on some of the way that you still have to go.

 

Please take the time to read the two posts pinned at the top of this Welcome page and take a look at the forum terms and rules. This covers all you need to know when getting started.

 

For the first week you will be restricted to ten posts per day but after that you can post as much as you like. Also, until you’ve posted fifteen times in the forums, you’ll be a “Junior Bum” with somewhat restricted access and will be allowed only two private messages per day.

 

Good luck in your pursuits and best wishes to you,

 

Marblehead and the TDB team

 

 

Hi teamdialectics,

 

I am one who likes to keep philosophical and religious Taoism separated.  I am always ready for a discussion as to why if you are interested.  (I'm a Philosophical Taoist.)

 

You are welcome to jump right in ongoing discussions, revive an older thread, start a new thread of your own, or start a discussion in the "Newcomer Corner" sub-forms to expand on your introduction or ask general questions to help you get started.

 

May you enjoy your time here.

 

Marblehead

[Limahong]

On 4/1/2017 at 7:56 PM, Marblehead said:

I am always ready for a discussion

 

Good morning Marblehead,

 

Where is the rest of this thread?

 

- LimA

[Marblehead]

This is a fairly recent thread and most of us have already had similar discussions before.

 

And most of our members don't like repeating themselves so they just remain silent.

 

Me?  I have no problem with repeating myself.

 

But really, this is a "Welcome" thread.  We have welcomed the new member.  Now the fat lady sings.

 

[Limahong]

19 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Most of our members don't like repeating themselves so they just remain silent. Me?  I have no problem with repeating myself.

 

Hi Marblehead,

 

Thank you for your nurturing nature.

 

Still a relatively new kid on the TDB block, I am getting used to be its member (on a searching/lurking mode).

 

To me these are Taoist dichotomies -

(i) "don't like repeating/no problem with repeating"

(ii) "themselves/myself"

 

With respect to (i) and (ii), where would I like to position myself at TDB?

 

Somewhere in the middle. Why? So that I am Taoistically balanced.

 

Also I am a budding Buddhist philosophically. I like to move along a middle path.

 

- LimA

Edited July 7, 2017 by Limahong
Correct typo error

[Stosh]

This the kiddie pool , times up.

[Stosh]

Imo there are several schools of Daoism even today, religious mystical daoism was traditionally older but spawned the philosophical sprout which largely became resorbed ,, similar to the ancient western greek model which became overshadowed by the older Abrahamic traditions , and only later reemerged as a renaissance allowing the west to dominate world culture , carving up china africa and the new world and drag the rest into the 20th century.

[Marblehead]

1 hour ago, Limahong said:

 

With respect to (i) and (ii), where would I like to position myself at TDB?

 

Somewhere in the middle. Why? So that I am Taoistically balanced.

 

Also I am budding Buddhist philosophically. I like to move along a middle path.

 

- LimA

Yeah, I suppose you would fit well in the middle.  And yes, you must walk the Middle Path.

 

[Limahong]

10 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

You must walk the Middle Path

 

Hi Marblehead,

 

Thank you. I will.

 

A great weekend.

 

- LimA

[Kongming]

Louis Komjathy's view on the topic is of interest and one I largely agree with:

 

Popular Misconception: 

 

Daoism consists of two forms, “philosophical Daoism” and “religious Daoism.”1

 

Informed View:

 

The distinction between so-called “philosophical Daoism” and so-called “religious Daoism” is a modern Western fiction, which reflects colonialist and missionary agendas and sensibilities. The use of such categories, even in scare quotation marks, should be taken, ipso facto, as indicative of ignorance concerning Daoism. From its beginnings in the Warring States period (480–222 bce), “Daoism” consisted of religious practitioners and communities. 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.

 

Popular Misconception: 

 

“Philosophical Daoism” is the original form of Daoism and is best understood as “philosophy” (disembodied thinking/ way of thought).

 

Informed View:

 

Outside of the modern world, there is no form of Daoism that is not “religious.” Although there are aspects of Daoism that are “philosophical,” the category “philosophical Daoism” fails to consider the centrality of embodied practice (way of being), community, and place in Daoism, especially in “classical Daoism.” It is based on a systematic mischaracterization of the inner cultivation lineages of Warring States Daoism and a misreading of the earliest Daoist texts, namely, the Laozi (Lao-tzu; a.k.a. Daode jing) and Zhuangzi (Chuang-tzu), among others.

 

Popular Misconception: 

 

Daojia 道家 and daojiao 道教 correspond to the Western categories of “philosophical Daoism” and “religious Daoism,” respectively

 

Informed View:

 

Daojia 道家, literally “Family of the Dao,” and daojiao 道教, literally “Teachings of the Dao,” are indigenous Chinese categories with no correspondence to the Western constructs of so-called “philosophical Daoism” and so-called “religious Daoism”. Each term has a complex history, with its meaning changing in different contexts. For example, in the fifth century, daojia referred to the Daoist religious community in general and the Daoist priesthood in particular.

 

From:

 

http://media.bloomsbury.com/rep/files/9781441168733_commonmisconceptions_daoisttradition.pdf

[Marblehead]

I have grown to include a third form of Daoism and that is Shamanic/Alchemic Daoism. 

 

But yes, my earlier thoughts were just the two mentioned above,

 

 

[LAOLONG]

32 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

I have grown to include a third form of Daoism and that is Shamanic/Alchemic Daoism. 

 

But yes, my earlier thoughts were just the two mentioned above,

 

 

It is practical taoism.

Chuang tzu is referring to it.

[Miffymog]

1 hour ago, SHINTO said:

It is practical taoism.

Chuang tzu is referring to it.

 

I've filled in a few forms recently saying my religion was Daoism. I often then get asked what this is. The response I give is that I'm not really sure but that I follow Daoist practices. When asked what this is, rather than saying its Zhan Zhuang or Qi Gong, I just say its a form of Tai Chi, which is the closest thing they can relate to and seems to satisfy their curiosity.

 

So what kind of Daoism is this, if any at all? Well, I think of it as practical Daoism. For me, it's not religious or philosophical, its something I do, so its practical Daoism.

[Limahong]

On 7/8/2017 at 1:50 AM, Miffymog said:

So what kind of Daoism is this, if any at all? Well, I think of it as practical Daoism. For me, it's not religious or philosophical, its something I do, so its practical Daoism.

 

Hi Miffymog,

 

Life is for living.

 

I agree with you as a middle-path practical pragmatist.

 

- LimA

[Limahong]

 ... and I like to add this Miffymog:

 

I must try and understand Taoism first in its most basic.

 

Otherwise what am I doing?

 

- LimA

Edited July 8, 2017 by Limahong
Correct typo error.

[dawei]

I've had my say here and here:

 

COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS CONCERNING DAOISM (TAOISM)

 

Classical Daoism; is there really such a thing?

 

[Limahong]

36 minutes ago, dawei said:

I've had my say here and here:

 

Good Morning dawei,

 

Presently I am 3 plus months old at TDB and still learning the ABC of Taoism from my enrollment at its portals.

 

Your "say here and here" has reminded me of my primary school teachers who went through their curriculum repeatedly.

 

I was very thankful to them - there and then.

 

I am thankful to you - here and now.

 

- LimA

[Limahong]

On 7/7/2017 at 6:47 PM, Stosh said:

Imo there are several schools of Daoism even today ... and only later reemerged as a renaissance allowing the West to dominate world culture , carving up China Africa and the new world and drag the rest into the 20th century.

 

Hi Stosh,

 

I share your 20th century - I was colonised. But no more now. Why?

 

It's presently the 21st century and I want to live forward - mindfully. No one can carve my mind.

 

China and Africa - have survived, especially the former.

 

What have happened to the ex-carvers in the West? I don't know and don't want to know. Why?

 

I have fallen in love with this as found in another thread (hello -started by richardn, June 20):

 

Oh, East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,

Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;

But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,

When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!

 

This may be read as saying that 'it is indisputable that geographic points of the compass will never meet in this life, but that when two strong men [or equals] meet, the accidents of birth, whether of nationality, race, or family, do not matter at all ... the mutual respect such individuals have, each for the character, prowess, and integrity of the other, are their only criteria for judging and accepting one another. Any differences in ethnicity between such individuals are never even considered.

 

The above is real? Yes. I have met a few strong wo(men) on both sides of the divide.

 

Thank you for providing the platform to enable me to bring to light my latent thoughts.

 

- LimA

Edited July 9, 2017 by Limahong
Enhancement of sentence.

[Limahong]

On 7/7/2017 at 10:29 PM, Kongming said:

Popular Misconceptions

 

Hi Kongming,

 

Thank you for the clear format - it allows me to streamline my own thoughts.

 

In this my response to your posting, I have put the popular misconceptions alongside thus:

 

(i) Daoism consists of two forms, “philosophical Daoism” and “religious Daoism”.

 

(ii) “Philosophical Daoism” is the original form of Daoism and is best understood as “philosophy” (disembodied thinking/ way of thought). 

 

(iii) Daojia 道家 and daojiao 道教 correspond to the Western categories of “philosophical Daoism” and “religious Daoism,” respectively.

 

(i), (ii) and (iii) are great ports of anchor for me to moor and contain my thinking processes without going widely/wildly off-tangent.

 

I like your definition on philosophy as "disembodied thinking/ way of thought" - a simple heavyweight.

 

- LimA

[Limahong]

On 7/7/2017 at 6:36 PM, Stosh said:

This the kiddie pool , times up.

 

Hi Stosh,

 

I'm trickling at the shallow end.

Near drowning - now and then.

Be a friend - peace Bro peace.

I'm trying hard piece by piece.

Give me a little bit more time.

I will pay you rich with dimes.

 

- LimA

 

[Limahong]

On 7/7/2017 at 11:40 PM, Marblehead said:

I have grown to include a third form of Daoism and that is Shamanic/Alchemic Daoism. But yes, my earlier thoughts were just the two mentioned above,

 

Hi Marblehead,

 

As we grow up/older/wiser, we add on more forms of Daoism?

 

- LimA

[Brian]

Or less...

 

 

[Limahong]

9 minutes ago, Brian said:

Or less...

 

Hi Brian,

 

Sure - Taoistically when there is more, there is less.

 

There are apparently many perspective schools of Taoism - more than three.

 

So instead of simplification - we may end up with complications.

 

My preferred school - Experiential Taoism.

 

As usual, you are witty in your above post - just 2 words + 3'.'.

 

Thus can you please endorse that I can label 'Experiential Taoism' as 'My Taoism'?

 

Please say 'yes'. I like to get personal.

 

- LimA

[Brian]

7 minutes ago, Limahong said:

 

Hi Brian,

 

Sure - Taoistically when there is more, there is less.

 

There are apparently many perspective schools of Taoism - more than three.

 

So instead of simplification - we may end up with complications.

 

My preferred school - Experiential Taoism.

 

As usual, you are witty in your above post - just 2 words + 3'.'.

 

Thus can you please endorse that I can label 'Experiential Taoism' as 'My Taoism'?

 

Please say 'yes'. I like to get personal.

 

- LimA

Yes.

 

 

 

 

"Taoism" is a model.  Models are valuable because they abstract and simplify.  Models are necessarily incomplete, however, so more and more models get created in an attempt at "fitting" to some particular set of attributes which seem important at a particular moment.  More and more models, some overlapping but each also different from every other model in some significant aspect.  Some people at certain times will find a model which seems to fit perfectly.  They are correct but they are also placing themselves in a box, usually without consciously doing so.  A nice cozy box may be quite comfortable, you see.

 

Is that personal?

[Limahong]

3 minutes ago, Brian said:

Is that personal?

 

Hi Brian,

 

Yes. Thank you.

 

Henceforth "My Taoism" in my personal Taoist box (school).

 

I don't want anyone to criticize, assess, condemn ... it. Is that clear?

 

I am not naughty - quite unlike someone.

 

Good night.

 

- LimA