Modern day society is defined and characterized by the progression of society; strict,
fundamental rituals and daily habitual routines are the guiding principles by which humanity has
advanced. It almost seems as if social order demands that the human race be enriched by the
maelstrom of the daily grind in order to be successful. Through the use of these circadian
schedules, the 21st century is decidedly and perhaps unknowingly following a set of Confucian
ideals, a set of principles directly in conflict with the Dao; the natural, ever changing, free
flowing order of nature. Daoism, while conceivably the most misunderstood of all the great
worldly religions, is perhaps the most natural and harmonious. According to the Daoist ideals the
wondering and spontaneous sage known as a zhenren is the ideal man. A zhenren promotes free
and easy wondering knowing that the core values of the Dao are: naturalness, equanimity,
spontaneity, and freedom. A religion that seems so inherently natural is not infallible or without
qualms and dispute; for Daoists have divided themselves into two schools of thought; the school
of Philosophical Daoism (daojia) and the school of Religious Daoism (daojiao). While both
schools of thought have the same natural, intimate reverence for the Dao and believe that
longevity is about living your life in harmony with the Dao, a divergence occurs when looking at
specific principles such as the natural state of death, the roles of Daoist religious texts, and the
importance of Laozi in modern day Daoism. Therefore the debate about which school of Daoist
thought is most in line with not only cognitive reason, but also in line with the four original
previously mentioned core values of Daoism is widely contested. In this paper, I will analyze
components of both Religious Daoism and Philosophical Daoism, elaborating on the key
differences between the two and ultimately explaining why Philosophical Daoism is more in line
with cognitive based reason, and the original tenets of the zhenren and the Dao.
In order to understand why the Religious sect of Daoism is fundamentally contradictory
to the original pillars of the Dao, a greater understanding of the historical foundation of this
particular school of thought is required. Founded in China during the reign of the Han Dynasty in
206BCE to 220CE, Religious Daoism has drawn inspiration and received substantial theological
contributions from outside sources including Buddhism and Confucianism. By placing an
emphasis on overcoming the natural state of death through a physical, earthly immortality,
Religious Daoism utilizes natural rituals such as breathing exercises and other alchemic practices
to induce a sense of a prolonged existence while seeking to obtain almost super human like
powers. These physical rites, ceremonies, and according to some the “grasping after the brass
ring of physical immortality” via alchemy are the result of Religious Daoism’s translating most
concepts from the text of the Daodejing in a very literal fashion. In accordance with this literal
interpretation of the Daodejing, the daojiao regard the mythical founder of Daoism, Laozi, as the
highest of the immortals; and consider his writing of the Daodejing to be a divine revelation on
the Way of the Dao.
Before delving into understanding why Religious Daoism is full of contradictions one
should attempt to understand why and how Religious Daoism has maintained its sphere of
influence in the modern world. The key notion here lies in the fact that daojiao school of thought
was fundamentally designed for the average Chinese citizen through practicality. For example,
the average Chinese citizen does not have the financial means to abandon all responsibilities in
order to wander aimlessly through the woods. As a result of this, the Religious Daoist pays
homage to temples and shrines, a much more feasible means of devotion to the Dao. A second
component of Religious Daoism’s perpetuation can be attributed to its founding nature as a
hybrid religion. The fact that components of Buddhism and Confucianism are used in Religious
Daoism attribute a sense of flexibility and tolerance to the daojiao, a concept not seen in the ever
stringent Philosophical sect. This pseudo sense of freedom and expression correlates with the
term “Popular Daoism” which was coined by Stephen Prothero on page 310 of his text God Is
Not One. According to Prothero, this form of Popular Daoism involves “an array of religious
practices,” in a sense, Religious Daoism portrays itself as the more malleable, relaxed school of
thought, which is certainly in accordance with the Daoist principles of naturalness and freedom.
As a result of these pliable concepts attributed to Religious Daoism it is not hard to see why
some may favor this school of thought over the much more complex opposing school of thought
in Philosophical Daoism. If one were to do a quick internet on Religious Daoism one would soon
learn that the daojiao sect is more in line with the even earlier shamanistic and mystic religions
found in China’s past. These early religions revolved around veneration of natural spirits and
familial ancestors, unintentionally placing an early emphasis on not only household rituals but on
the Dao itself. Despite Philosophical Daoism originating as the first form of Daoism, opponents
to the daojia sect may consider it not be religious enough, highlighting the ritualistic elements of
Religious Daoism, its ties to China’s traditional shamanistic and mystic past, and its emphasis on
physical immortality as more pious based concepts. Because Religious Daoism displays itself as
more religiously based through the aforementioned concepts and its flexibility, one may elect to
internalize and follow the daojiao when conflicted with issues from a standpoint of morality.
When looking at Religious Daoism from an opposing view it now becomes possible to
see why this particular school of thought of Daoism is at odds with the four traditional
components of the zhenren and the Dao. Previously it was noted that the very definition of the
Dao was the natural, harmonious, ever changing natural order of the environment. The
Confucian ideal of rituals and daily routines act as the antagonist to the Dao, limiting its free
flowing nature and inhibiting its prosperity. However, Religious Daoism is set in these habitual
patterns in an effort to proliferate longevity, it is this attempted proliferation of life that is
directly inconsistent and conflicting with the Dao. By its simplest nature Religious Daoism
arbitrarily is at odds with its own literal interpretation of the zhenren and according to Professor
James Miller from Queens University, “the goal of all higher Daoist practice is to mirror
unobtrusively the dynamic spontaneity of one’s environment.” The very nature of Religious
Daoism is now directly contradicting one of the essential goals of Daoist practice of spontaneity.
By using rituals to attempt a literal transcendence of reality to become one with the Dao is where
Religious Daoism loses its ground, stumbling beneath its own conviction. When looking at the
daojiao interpretation of death, a natural and necessary life stage, another contradiction with the
Dao is observed. From a Daoist point of view, life is a yin and yang fundamentally centralized
around opposing pairs; it is through these opposites that balance is achieved. If the birth of man
is yin, the death of man must thus be the yang in order to maintain a harmonious equilibrium.
When the Religious Daoist attempts to use Confucian based rituals and alchemy in order to
attempt to obtain physical immortality, he is intentionally manipulating the balance of nature by
disproportionally favoring his yin. This influence of the natural balance and order of man is at
odds with the Dao, as death is a part of the natural circle of life. Being at odds with the definition
of the Dao and essential specific views such as spontaneity, provide two critical pieces of
evidence that highlight how Religious Daoism, referred to in the Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy as Neo-Daoism, has become a hybrid of Buddhist ideals and Confucian based rituals
mixed with beliefs of the earlier, purer form of Philosophical Daoism.
If Religious Daoism is defined as the literal school of thought, in order to maintain the
principle of balance, Philosophical Daoism must then be interpreted metaphorically and
allegorically. Considered by most to be the more secular school of thought, Philosophical
Daoism was founded during China’s Warring States period from 403B.C.E to 221 B.C.E. In
regards to Religious Daoism the daojia, structured to be an elitist faction, regard such a literal
interpretation of Daoist texts as a “bastardization.” Due to its limited scope of external
influences, daojia is regarded by some as a more “pure” form of the Dao, which actively accepts
and encourages the role of death in the human story. Again more in line with the traditional form
of Daoism, Philosophical Daoism encourages spontaneity, freedom, naturalness and briefly
following of the mortal yet still mythological Laozi through reclusion and wandering. However
according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Philosophical Daoism owes more to
Zhuangzi and his work The Zhuangzi as a text of guidance then that of Laozi and the
Daeodejing. Zhuangzi’s text has best been described as “a satirical….work of literature and
comedy.” The argument then becomes how can such a frivolous text be so influential and
regarded so divinely in what is supposed to be characterized as the Daoist sect of reason? It is in
the underlying themes of The Zhuangzi where its brilliance is hidden. Zhuangzi defines the great
human debate as, “lifelessness… brought on by social customs so prized by Confucianism.” By
directly taking a stance against Confucian ideals, The Zhuangzi has come to embody the perfect
ideals of the wandering sage; by discouraging society, Zhuangzi’s text embodies the principles of
naturalness, equanimity, spontaneity, and freedom. However, due to lacking a set of rituals and
or regular patterns common amongst most religions, including Religious Daoism, and the light
hearted nature of such a critical text in The Zhuangzi, Philosophical Daoism may come off as
unstructured and frivolous. Such assumptions are incorrectly based; one simply needs to
remember that the daojia simply promotes the way of the True Dao through a return to nature
where simplicity reigns supreme.
Where Religious Daoism is full of contradictions that distance it from traditional Daoism
and the zhenren, Philosophical Daoism as earlier stated promotes the reclusion from society and
a return to nature. Due to its metaphorical elucidations of the Daodejing, the absurdity in The
Zhuangzi, and its acceptance of the melodious nature of death, Philosophical Daoism embodies
the zhenren and the natural way of the Dao. A lack of Confucian and Buddhist influences/rituals
enhances the tenant of spontaneity in daojia. However, Philosophical Daoism is not as detached
as it may initially seem, the daojia promote a free flowing, spontaneous stream of consciousness
which defines humanity and its qi as a deeply spiritual and intimate concept, best expressed
when immersed in nature. From a yin and yang principle Philosophical Daoism promotes
equilibrium and lacks any external manipulation such as alchemy, encouraging the principle of
wu wei; which can best be defined as metaphorically drifting along with the Dao. While the
daojia float, the Religious Daoist resists. Therefore when speaking in terms of cognitive reason;
a metaphorical sense of immortality is more feasibly understood than a physical sense. Still in
line with reason, Philosophical Daoism encourages us to return to our origins, at our time of birth
we enter this world with nothing but an innate happiness. Society and the demands of our
everyday life place stressors upon us that often dictate our emotions and feelings of self-worth.
The daojia simple call for us to return to our state of innate happiness in order to discover the
Dao, the zhenren, and who we really are as a person.
Analyzing Religious and Philosophical Daoism allows for the understanding of how
outside influences, mainly Buddhism and Confucianism have impacted and shaped modern day
Daoism. Religious Daoism is perhaps more of a hybrid form of interpretation drawing heavily
from the aforementioned outside influences and Philosophical Daoism. Its literal understanding
and feeble attempts to inhibit the natural order of life through alchemy diverge this sect away
from traditional Daoism. At the opposing end of the spectrum, Philosophical Daoism, the
predecessor to the daojiao, is more in line with cognitive based reason through the use of
metaphors; and more harmonious with the definition of the zhenren. By encouraging a humble
lifestyle that promotes the four aspects of naturalness, equanimity, spontaneity, and freedom; the
daojia have mastered following the Dao and are more in line with its traditional definition of the
natural order.
H.R: See sources, Bibme.com
Sources:
Hansen, Chad. "Daoism." Stanford University. Stanford University, 19 Feb. 2003. Web.
9 Apr. 2015.
Jenkins, Michael. "Religious Taoism vs. Philosophical Taoism." People. Demand Media.
Web. 9 Apr. 2015.
Miller, James. "The Forum on Religion and Ecology at Yale." Daoism. The Forum of
Religion and Ecology at Yale, 1998. Web. 9 Apr. 2015.
Prothero, Stephen. "Daoism." God Is Not One. New York: HarperOne, 2010. 388. Print.