How Daoism Changed My Understanding of Religion

The cultural baggage I brought to the study of Daoism was my Calvinist upbringing and intense readings in Western philosophy and three of its critics: Lacan, Derrida, and Lévi-Strauss. What I then learned from Daoism came in four distinct ＂waves＂. The first wave was the philosophy of Lao-Zhuang, especially the latter: Whereas Lacan teaches the overpowering terror of the ＂fragmented body＂ (le corps morcelé), Zhuangzi revels in it. Why? The second wave was the Daoism of self-cultivation as seen in texts like the Laozi zhong jing, the Huangting jing, the Cantongqi, and the Wuzhen pian: Why, if Rimbaud had sought and failed to create a language of alchemical power, had the Daoists succeeded? The third wave was Daoist ritual, both its history and current practice: It meant, first, that the anti-ritual (anti-Catholic) stance of my childhood Calvinism was profoundly biased; second, that ritual was what Laozi was referring to when he spoke of ＂wordless teaching＂不言之教; third, that the oral bias of Western metaphysics delineated by Derrida encountered, in the Daoist ＂symbol＂符, its most profound contrast; fourth, that the priority of the written and of ritual in Daoism both implied a priority of space over time, again contrasting with the Western metaphysical tradition focused on time and its foil, eternity; fifth, the centrality of sacrifice in ritual traditions meant that Lévi-Strauss's insistence on ＂mythologiques＂ vs ＂ritologiques＂ was indeed, as Derrida shows, a reflection of the bias of Western metaphysics. The fourth wave came from field study of Daoism in its social context: what exactly was its ＂ecological niche＂ in the crowded religious field of China's four religions?

關鍵字

Daoism ； Laozi ； Lacan ； Ritual ； Religion

並列摘要

我帶到道教研究中的文化包袱，是我在喀爾文主義（Calvinist）的成長歷程和對西方哲學及其三個評論者的深入解讀：Lacan, Derrida和Lévi-Strauss。我從道教中學到的東西有四個不同的「浪潮」。第一波浪潮是老莊哲學，特別是後者：雖然Lacan教導了「支離破碎的身體（le corps morcelé）」的強烈恐怖，但莊子則痴迷於此。為什麼？第二次浪潮是《老子中經》，《黃庭經》，《參同契》和《悟真篇》等文本中的修身道教。為什麼？如果Rimbaud尋求並且未能創造出一種煉金術語言，那麼道教成功了嗎？第三次浪潮是道教儀式，包括其歷史和當代實踐：首先，這意味著我童年喀爾文主義的反儀式（反天主教）立場具有深刻的偏見；第二，當老子談到「不言之教」時，儀式就是老子所指的不言之教；第三，Derrida所描述的西方形而上學的口頭偏見，在道教的「符」中遇到最深刻的對比；第四，道教的文字和儀式的優先地位都說明空間的重要性優於時間，這與西方的形而上學傳統形成鮮明對比，後者側重於時間及其襯托、永恆；第五，祭祀與文字在儀式傳統中的中心地位，意味著Lévi-Strauss堅持研究「神話」而不研究「儀式」，正如Derrida所示，這確實反映了西方形而上學的偏見。第四次浪潮來自道教在其社會背景下的實地研究：在中國四大宗教擁擠的宗教領域中，道教的「生態位」（“ecological niche＂）究竟是什麼？