Philosophical Taoism versus Religous Taoism

[ron7786]

I have an Idea of what Philosophical Taoism versus Religious Taoism is. I have been having trouble find a concrete definition of the two paths online however, and in the books I have from the library. Here is my definition thus far. Philosophical Taoism is the intellectual study of the oldest Taoist texts such as the Tao Te Ching and the Book of Chuang Tze as originally written before the integration of these books of Philosophy with animistic/polytheistic religious rituals and magic of traditional chinese folk religion. And Religious Taoism I see as the later synchronization of Philosophical Taoism with those Traditional Chinese Folk Beliefs/Shamanism and new rituals made specifically for this new (at the time) religion.

Does that sound about right or am I missing something?

Please note for Religous Taoists on this board who may read this that I do not consider Religous Taoism to be in any way invalid or less than Philosophical Taoism. It is quite possible that the texts and teachings do have spiritual meaning and were revealed by celestial teachers and deities. I am just trying to define the differences between the two for my own understanding and study.

Edited December 5, 2008 by ron7786

[picnic]

It may be worth adding to the pot that China and India, Nepal and so on were not the entities they are now. So knowledge was walking about with no allegiance.

 

We had many people with good knowledge, mainly we would have to say from tribes and shamans. Lots was suited to the area but they wandered with the people and mixed. Only later did they become solidified by writings, temples, culture and countries.

 

Stir that into the debate pot as you see fit. I think I am going to find this thread very interesting

[goldisheavy]

To me there is only one Taoism, and that's what's described in Dao De Jing (Tao Te Ching), Zhuangzi (Chuang Tzu) and Liezi (Lieh Tzu). Especially Zhuangzi, because Dao De Jing is essentially a reflection of Dao, but Zhuangzi is a path to Dao, and Liezi are some inspirational and wise stories about various sages, but not exactly a path, more like a boost or a kick in the ass along the way.

 

Fundamentally Zhuangzi rejects structured approach. Zhuangzi rejects formulaic approach. If you just read Dao De Jing you may have a nice feeling like "aahhhh" but no way to realize Dao in yourself, because it's just a "here's how Dao is" work, and not a "here's what to think about or do on your way to realizing Dao in yourself". Zhuangzi laughs at Confucious and Moists. Zhungzi makes a mockery of every established idea, of facts, of everything we take for granted, and perhaps he even laughs at himself too. Zhuangzi takes nothing seriously, but this not taking anything seriously is serious business.

 

Now if you look at the so-called "religious" Daoism, it does everything that Zhuangzi laughs at. It's like a spit in the face of Zhuangzi. Like a giant f u to Zhuangzi. That's what "religious" Daoism is. Zhuangzi was not a religious person. He didn't go to any temples. He writes nothing about going to temples. If anything he recommends to stay away from the civilization instead of embracing it. Zhuangzi takes a very skeptical and dim view of humanity. He laughs at it and doesn't find it all that appealing. Zhuangzi teaches you how to ask questions. Zuangzi teaches you how to keep your mind open and how to never be stuck. And as he teaches you all that, he does so with humor. He laughs and makes jokes. Is there any room for jokes in religion? NEVER. Religion is always serious business. If you believe wrong, religions are the ones that will behead you, torture you, excommunicate you and so on. But to Zhuangzi there is no right or wrong belief, just unexamined and examined belief. Unexamined belief is naive and stupid. Examined belief is no longer a real belief anymore. It's no longer a serious belief. That's because if you examine a belief and look for its foundations, you can't help but laugh at it at some point.

 

The problem comes with the word "philosophical". In the West we have lost the true Greek meaning of that word. Philosophy means "love of wisdom". It doesn't mean idle intellectualization, and it doesn't mean making a lot of conclusions and taking various opinions as your own. Pretty much all or most of the Western philosophy is garbage (save perhaps deconstructionists? and some phenomenological works? but mostly garbage -- too wordy, too jargony, and not eminently hard hitting). So this gives philosophy a bad rep.

 

So what you call "philosophical" Daoism is the real path and it has nothing to do with making more and more opinions. It has to do with examining your beliefs in a critical fashion and resting your mind in peace as you do so or in intervals. The result of this is attainment of GREAT peace, joy, contentment and limitless powers (magic). Zhuangzi advocated meditation along with contemplation. Zhuangzi strongly advocated the reader to rely on one's own mind. There is a lot of experimentation and real tangible work, but Zhuangzi knows if you are smart enough to understand him, you will know what that work is, and since there is no need to structure that work, he didn't even bother to present it (wise man!).

 

Religious Daoism is for someone who wants to ingratiate oneself, to accumulate merits, to seek protection, and so on. It is NOT for anyone who actually wants to reach immortality in one life. Immortality has nothing to do with making charms or divination. Zhuangzi laughs at divination.

 

The big 3 taught fundamental principles and left it up to you to come up with the details. But religious Daoism leaves NO detail up to you, because it has prescriptions for everything, while it teaches you no principles of Dao. Basically religious Daoism is the opposite of the true spirit of Daoism, although like all things, and like ignorance, it is still a part of the Dao.

[picnic]

goldisheavy saves me lots of time by typing out what I would have put if i could take the time to do so. Great post gold

[ZenStatic]

To me there is only one Taoism, and that's what's described in Dao De Jing (Tao Te Ching), Zhuangzi (Chuang Tzu) and Liezi (Lieh Tzu). Especially Zhuangzi, because Dao De Jing is essentially a reflection of Dao, but Zhuangzi is a path to Dao, and Liezi are some inspirational and wise stories about various sages, but not exactly a path, more like a boost or a kick in the ass along the way.

 

Fundamentally Zhuangzi rejects structured approach. Zhuangzi rejects formulaic approach. If you just read Dao De Jing you may have a nice feeling like "aahhhh" but no way to realize Dao in yourself, because it's just a "here's how Dao is" work, and not a "here's what to think about or do on your way to realizing Dao in yourself". Zhuangzi laughs at Confucious and Moists. Zhungzi makes a mockery of every established idea, of facts, of everything we take for granted, and perhaps he even laughs at himself too. Zhuangzi takes nothing seriously, but this not taking anything seriously is serious business.

 

Now if you look at the so-called "religious" Daoism, it does everything that Zhuangzi laughs at. It's like a spit in the face of Zhuangzi. Like a giant f u to Zhuangzi. That's what "religious" Daoism is. Zhuangzi was not a religious person. He didn't go to any temples. He writes nothing about going to temples. If anything he recommends to stay away from the civilization instead of embracing it. Zhuangzi takes a very skeptical and dim view of humanity. He laughs at it and doesn't find it all that appealing. Zhuangzi teaches you how to ask questions. Zuangzi teaches you how to keep your mind open and how to never be stuck. And as he teaches you all that, he does so with humor. He laughs and makes jokes. Is there any room for jokes in religion? NEVER. Religion is always serious business. If you believe wrong, religions are the ones that will behead you, torture you, excommunicate you and so on. But to Zhuangzi there is no right or wrong belief, just unexamined and examined belief. Unexamined belief is naive and stupid. Examined belief is no longer a real belief anymore. It's no longer a serious belief. That's because if you examine a belief and look for its foundations, you can't help but laugh at it at some point.

 

The problem comes with the word "philosophical". In the West we have lost the true Greek meaning of that word. Philosophy means "love of wisdom". It doesn't mean idle intellectualization, and it doesn't mean making a lot of conclusions and taking various opinions as your own. Pretty much all or most of the Western philosophy is garbage (save perhaps deconstructionists? and some phenomenological works? but mostly garbage -- too wordy, too jargony, and not eminently hard hitting). So this gives philosophy a bad rep.

 

So what you call "philosophical" Daoism is the real path and it has nothing to do with making more and more opinions. It has to do with examining your beliefs in a critical fashion and resting your mind in peace as you do so or in intervals. The result of this is attainment of GREAT peace, joy, contentment and limitless powers (magic). Zhuangzi advocated meditation along with contemplation. Zhuangzi strongly advocated the reader to rely on one's own mind. There is a lot of experimentation and real tangible work, but Zhuangzi knows if you are smart enough to understand him, you will know what that work is, and since there is no need to structure that work, he didn't even bother to present it (wise man!).

 

Religious Daoism is for someone who wants to ingratiate oneself, to accumulate merits, to seek protection, and so on. It is NOT for anyone who actually wants to reach immortality in one life. Immortality has nothing to do with making charms or divination. Zhuangzi laughs at divination.

 

The big 3 taught fundamental principles and left it up to you to come up with the details. But religious Daoism leaves NO detail up to you, because it has prescriptions for everything, while it teaches you no principles of Dao. Basically religious Daoism is the opposite of the true spirit of Daoism, although like all things, and like ignorance, it is still a part of the Dao.

 

Ah so at last we know you are a Zhungzi follower. You don't seem to care about the Tao, only in staying away from what is structured. Do you even know that Zhuangzi's writings we're in response to the Confucian thought of his day? Or does context just mean absolutely nothing to you?

 

Amusingly enough, what you proscribe as Zhuangzi's taoism, goes by another name, Zen. I mean, you want all parts of "religious Taoism" tossed out, so all of the shamanic practices they may use that predate the TTC must be tossed out. No qigong. No internal alchemy. No qi cultivation. So what do you have left?

 

What I think is especially telling, and actually shines light on what you do actually believe and your view of the world, is your complete disdain of structure. And you know, that is fine, for you. Your personal belief on how the world should be, and your personal belief of how spirituality should be, are shaped by who you are and your past experiences. It would just be nice if you started stating it as opinion, rather than trying to make believe it is solid fact in this world. Abusing the context of an ancient text, and having a few others that agree with you, doesn't make you the universal voice of truth.

[Sloppy Zhang]

As soon as you define religious, you create non-religious.

 

As soon as you create structure, you create non-structure.

 

As soon as you create "fact", you create fiction.

 

When you create "religious tao" you then have "non-religious tao".... but who created those?

 

"You".

 

Who is "you"?

 

A person.

 

Is "religious tao" or "non-religious tao" or "philosophical tao" what tao is? Or is it what "you" have created?

 

Hmm........

 

This is what crosses my mind when I read the TTC, then see these threads.

[Tao99]

I have an Idea of what Philosophical Taoism versus Religious Taoism is. I have been having trouble find a concrete definition of the two paths online however, and in the books I have from the library. Here is my definition thus far. Philosophical Taoism is the intellectual study of the oldest Taoist texts such as the Tao Te Ching and the Book of Chuang Tze as originally written before the integration of these books of Philosophy with animistic/polytheistic religious rituals and magic of traditional chinese folk religion. And Religious Taoism I see as the later synchronization of Philosophical Taoism with those Traditional Chinese Folk Beliefs/Shamanism and new rituals made specifically for this new (at the time) religion.

Does that sound about right or am I missing something?

Please note for Religous Taoists on this board who may read this that I do not consider Religous Taoism to be in any way invalid or less than Philosophical Taoism. It is quite possible that the texts and teachings do have spiritual meaning and were revealed by celestial teachers and deities. I am just trying to define the differences between the two for my own understanding and study.

 

This might help from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Taoism:

 

In the most general way, Taoism may be defined as a traditional form of thought and (or) religion, based on some central notions, cults, and practices but never subject to systematization as a whole, and syncretic but at the same time self-contained--in the sense that it integrates many elements from other traditions, but frequently emphasizes its distinction from them. These basic features underlie different formulations of doctrinal notions and a large variety of practices, ranging from self-cultivation to communal rituals.

 

The main early Taoist text is the Daode jing (Scripture of the Way and its Virtue), a short work consisting of aphorisms attributed to Laozi (the Old Master, or Old Child). Although some scholars have suggested that other sources might be slightly earlier, virtually all movements and lineages within Taoism consider this as the founding scripture of the entire tradition, even though they may venerate their own texts and their own founders. Another early work, the Zhuangzi (Book of Master Zhuang), has provided Taoism with doctrines, notions, and technical vocabulary throughout its history. Despite differences in emphasis, the two texts present the same view of the Dao and its relation to the world.

 

The person who has "returned to the Dao" is called in the Daode jing the shengren ... As the highest realized human being who has achieved liberation in life, this Taoist transcended the limitations of individuality and [earthly] form; he continues to remain in the world of multiplicity until he has completely fulfilled his function in it, but from an absolute point of view, which is the one in which he constantly dwells, his self-identity is already null, for he is identified with absolute Principle. Death for him, therefore, is not even a change of state, for he has attained the state in which no more change need occur. In the human world, he "practices the teaching without words" and "makes it possible for the ten thousand things to function, but does not start them."

 

To a significant extent, the history of Taoism may be seen as a continuous restatement of the principles enunciated in the early founding texts. To an equally significant extent, its development has been marked by the adaptation to varying historical circumstances, the response to the needs and demands of different social groups, and the incorporation of notions, beliefs, cults, and practices derived from other trends of thought and religion.

 

The process that led, in the second half of the second century CE, to the formation of the first major Taoist religious movement can only be understood in the light of the politico-religious ideals of ancient China, synthesized in the notion of Great Peace (taiping) and shared by different traditions including Confucianism. At the center of that process was the deification of Laozi, now represented not only as the sage who expounds the metaphysical doctrines of the Daode jing, but also as a messiah who embodies the Dao and reappears at different times either as a sage counselor of political rulers, or as the inspirer of religious leaders.

 

In one of his transformations, Lord Lao appeared (in 142 CE, according to the traditional date) to a healer, Zhang Daoling, in the southwestern region of Sichuan. Lord Lao established a covenant (meng) with Zhang Daoling, revealing to him the teaching of Orthodox Unity (zhengyi) and bestowing upon him the title of Celestial Master (tianshi). This revelation is at the origin of the Way of the Celestial Masters (Tianshi dao), a priestly lineage that continues to exist in the present day.

 

The diaspora of the Celestial Masters' communities after the end of the Han resulted in the expansion of the new religion to other parts of China. Its spread in Jiangnan, the region south of the lower Yangzi River, was one of the prerequisites for the formation of two other major corpora of Taoist doctrines, texts, and practices in the second half of the fourth century. The first corpus, known as Shangqing (Highest Clarity), derived from revelations that occurred from 364 to 370 and was centered on meditation practices; the second, known as Lingbao (Numinous Treasure), derived from revelations that occurred between circa 395 and 405 and was based on communal ritual. These two codifications clearly define, for the first time, the two main poles of the Taoist religious experience, namely inner, individual practices on the one hand, and collective practices for the community of the faithful, or for the dead, on the other.

 

The relations among these traditions were formally codified in the early fifth century in the system of the Three Caverns (sandong). Its main purpose was to hierarchically arrange the different legacies of Jiangnan, assigning the higher rank to Shangqing, the intermediate one to Lingbao, and the lower one to other earlier and contemporary traditions. Around 500 CE, the corpora associated with the Daode jing, the Taiping jing (Scripture of Great Peace), alchemy, and the Way of the Celestial Masters were assigned to the so-called Four Supplements (sifu). The Three Caverns also provided the formal schema for other important aspects of Taoist doctrine and practice, including the ordination stages of the Taoist priest (daoshi) and the arrangement of scriptural and other writings in the collections of Taoist texts (Daozang) that began to take shape from the early fifth century.

 

This model continued to perform this function even after the contours of Taoist religion were reshaped by various new revelations and codifications during the Song period (960-1279) and later, and by the creation in the early thirteenth century of Quanzhen (Complete Reality, or Complete Perfection), a monastic order that is, along with the Way of the Celestial Masters, the main branch of present-day Taoism.

http://www.stanford.edu/~pregadio/taoism.html

Edited December 5, 2008 by Tao99

[Anabhogya-Carya]

How can you all be so blind! Don't you know! Mak Tin Si is the avatar of true Taoism!

 

No qigong. No internal alchemy. No qi cultivation. So what do you have left?

 

What I think is especially telling, and actually shines light on what you do actually believe and your view of the world, is your complete disdain of structure. And you know, that is fine, for you. Your personal belief on how the world should be, and your personal belief of how spirituality should be, are shaped by who you are and your past experiences. It would just be nice if you started stating it as opinion, rather than trying to make believe it is solid fact in this world. Abusing the context of an ancient text, and having a few others that agree with you, doesn't make you the universal voice of truth.

 

What you have left is a metaphysical and epistomological base. These things you mention are just more practices, things that people think will help them reach something. They quiet the mind and focus the body, but they to not have to have all the mystical and religious strings attached to them. They can exist are purely psycological and philosophical. I do not think anyone has the final word on the Tao and to think that the TTC or the Chuang Tzu are anything more than interpretations of the Tao themselves is foolish. Maybe even the Tao is foolish, but it does not die, because there is something within the philosophy, something that is true, maybe no one has pin pointed it yet, hence the vagueness of the texts. Thus it is open to continued refinement.

 

How is his interpretation abuse? How do you know that yours is not abuse? It also does not make it not the universal truth either. Both are possible.

[Anabhogya-Carya]

 

 

The problem comes with the word "philosophical". In the West we have lost the true Greek meaning of that word. Philosophy means "love of wisdom". It doesn't mean idle intellectualization, and it doesn't mean making a lot of conclusions and taking various opinions as your own. Pretty much all or most of the Western philosophy is garbage (save perhaps deconstructionists? and some phenomenological works? but mostly garbage -- too wordy, too jargony, and not eminently hard hitting). So this gives philosophy a bad rep.

 

So what you call "philosophical" Daoism is the real path and it has nothing to do with making more and more opinions. It has to do with examining your beliefs in a critical fashion and resting your mind in peace as you do so or in intervals. The result of this is attainment of GREAT peace, joy, contentment and limitless powers (magic). Zhuangzi advocated meditation along with contemplation. Zhuangzi strongly advocated the reader to rely on one's own mind. There is a lot of experimentation and real tangible work, but Zhuangzi knows if you are smart enough to understand him, you will know what that work is, and since there is no need to structure that work, he didn't even bother to present it (wise man!).

 

Religious Daoism is for someone who wants to ingratiate oneself, to accumulate merits, to seek protection, and so on. It is NOT for anyone who actually wants to reach immortality in one life. Immortality has nothing to do with making charms or divination. Zhuangzi laughs at divination.

 

The big 3 taught fundamental principles and left it up to you to come up with the details. But religious Daoism leaves NO detail up to you, because it has prescriptions for everything, while it teaches you no principles of Dao. Basically religious Daoism is the opposite of the true spirit of Daoism, although like all things, and like ignorance, it is still a part of the Dao.

 

 

I do not think it is pretty much all garbage. The wordiness and jargon does not mean there is no value of certain philosophies. Of course unvalidated conclusions have been made and there are failings of logic throughout (Descartes for example) but it does not annhilate the value of the whole. And after stating the failings of having opinions you say something so generalized.

 

Otherwise I agree wholeheartedly with what you have said. Every history of Taoism I have ever read emphasizes how devoid it was of religion until it started becoming fused with the beliefs of the peasents.

[picnic]

A lesson in reading properly before launching in...

 

A post...

Zhuangzi laughs at Confucious and Moists.

 

A reply...

Do you even know that Zhuangzi's writings we're in response to the Confucian thought of his day?

 

I think the answer would be yes, he knows

 

It is fun to see the shuddering and shaking of someone awakening. Shouting at the one who turned on the light.

[Stigweard]

[exorcist_1699]

Up to this moment, besides Taoism ,no philosophy in this world claims that it can solve both physical and spiritual life-and-death issues of humans ; And, if it does, can we still call it a philosophy , not a religion ?

 

In Chinese medicine , Taoist philosophical terms such as qi and jing are also a medical terms to analyze symptoms ,cure diseases; There is no clear line drawing between medical and philosophical terms.

 

Philosophical terms like shen and qi are also religious terms for they not only relates to our earthly , physical life but eternal , spiritual life .Reading of Dao De Jin and Zhuangzi ,especially Zhuangzi , tells you this .

Edited December 6, 2008 by exorcist_1699

[ZenStatic]

A lesson in reading properly before launching in...

 

A post...

A reply...

I think the answer would be yes, he knows

 

It is fun to see the shuddering and shaking of someone awakening. Shouting at the one who turned on the light.

 

Gee, you're funny. If he knew, then why did he interpret the text to be THE definition of taoist practice, or non-practice, rather than the refutation of Confucianism that it was? Just because he mentioned Confucius and Mencius, who was a follower of Confucius so that's kind of redundant, doesn't mean he understood the context. perhaps you need to do the "reading properly" next time.

 

And you can take your little wannabe superiority and shove it right up your ass. I have yet to see you actually contribute anything even slightly original in your posts, perhaps you are just hear to troll away?

[picnic]

And you can take your little wannabe superiority and shove it right up your ass.

Wise words, thanks. In fact I may just go about my day and not take that advice, but if no one laughed it would not be Tao.

 

 

I have yet to see you actually contribute anything even slightly original in your posts, perhaps you are just hear to troll away?

Try again, it may not appear on the surface.

 

And all in all, smile

[ZenStatic]

Wise words, thanks. In fact I may just go about my day and not take that advice, but if no one laughed it would not be Tao.

Try again, it may not appear on the surface.

 

And all in all, smile

 

 

Wow, you can copy paste, good for you. I said original, not something you got from someone else. Either way, your attitude reeks and seeps into everything you say. Enjoy it.

[picnic]

Wow, you can copy paste, good for you. I said original, not something you got from someone else. Either way, your attitude reeks and seeps into everything you say. Enjoy it.

copy and pasted from..... ....my own web site, where I wrote words that i copied from my note pad that i carried whilst wandering round the planet and sitting meditating. ... yes, i copied it from myself

Edited December 7, 2008 by picnic

[Zensunni Wanderer]

I find a lot of Chinese folk superstitions untenable, but Westerners who practice "philosophical, not religious" Daoism often leave a bad taste in my mouth. The unspoken assumption seems to often be that "we rational white people can take anything and understand it better than those primitive brown people we appropriated it from" (not that I'm accusing anyone here of holding such a view). I've seen it in Western Buddhist circles a lot, too. Ultimately, it's difficult to define Daoism and the Daoist canon contains some very different philosophical and religious approaches to common problems. Mahayana Buddhism has the concept of 84,000 Dharma Doors; not a one size fits all approach. Perhaps the same could be true, to some extent, with Daoist self-cultivation? Some people will approach through the simple but profound aphorisms of the authors we've come to collectively refer to as Laozi, and some will approach through internal alchemy, and some will draw from both.

[Wayfarer64]

For me the direct route towards realizing my own part in the Tao of my own now has been contemplating the YiJing... I do not know where that lands me in this brew-ha-ha...

 

Was this wrong of me? Will this create anger and angst amongst us?

 

This is a sad thread. Our various minds, expressing ideas on these pages have often induced anger amongst us bums, but this thread seems rancorous without any basis...

 

Please, lets cool our jets and take a better look at the question as it relates to each of our own practices and systems and paths trodden while seeking.- Or maybe after we just meditate a bit longer on being calm with each other...These differences are just stages we each go through...

 

 

Then expressions of anger may clear blockages too...so have at it ...if you must...

[Dog]

I have an Idea of what Philosophical Taoism versus Religious Taoism is. I have been having trouble find a concrete definition of the two paths online however, and in the books I have from the library. Here is my definition thus far. Philosophical Taoism is the intellectual study of the oldest Taoist texts such as the Tao Te Ching and the Book of Chuang Tze as originally written before the integration of these books of Philosophy with animistic/polytheistic religious rituals and magic of traditional chinese folk religion. And Religious Taoism I see as the later synchronization of Philosophical Taoism with those Traditional Chinese Folk Beliefs/Shamanism and new rituals made specifically for this new (at the time) religion.

Does that sound about right or am I missing something?

Please note for Religous Taoists on this board who may read this that I do not consider Religous Taoism to be in any way invalid or less than Philosophical Taoism. It is quite possible that the texts and teachings do have spiritual meaning and were revealed by celestial teachers and deities. I am just trying to define the differences between the two for my own understanding and study.

First there was Alchemical Taoism, the Alchemical Taoists hypocritically where anarchists yet at the same time wished to control the info and process. Thus the people having little tools for self empowerment(embodiment of the Tao) or inner guidance they demanded outer guidance and the market for Taoist/Buhdist religions and Confucianism was born. Same happened in the west but possibly a slight more Elitists taste to it. Most religions are groupings of common folk cults and shamanism, with just enough Alchemy for the priest to play with. Hope my perspective helped.

[rain]

First there was Alchemical Taoism, the Alchemical Taoists hypocritically where anarchists yet at the same time wished to control the info and process. Thus the people having little tools for self empowerment(embodiment of the Tao) or inner guidance they demanded outer guidance and the market for Taoist/Buhdist religions and Confucianism was born. Same happened in the west but possibly a slight more Elitists taste to it. Most religions are groupings of common folk cults and shamanism, with just enough Alchemy for the priest to play with. Hope my perspective helped.

 

before they start thinking and speaking about it and gunging up

Edited April 18, 2009 by rain