Confucianism, Taoism, and Shinto Religions

by dagnabitt

Confucianism, Taoism, and Shinto, predominant Eastern Religions, share many common cultural beliefs. It is noted in Ellwood’s Many People, Many Faiths (pg.181) that the Chinese, for example, differ from many western cultures in that they have no real tradition of migration or the conquering of new lands. Rather they are generations upon generations of sedimentary culture that remains for the people a focussed and unchanging perspective on reality. The average traditional Chinese person likely worked the same plot of land as innumerable ancestors prior, and had little reason to believe life would ever be different for their own progeny. Hence, life for many Chinese was simple and stable. There was no need for outside perspective or insight, and cultural belief systems flourished unchallenged. In fact during the period these belief systems developed, the east in general was nothing if not a total mystery to the west. Hence much of the above three religions trace their similarities to a common cultural perspective, in many ways very different than traditional western thought.

Confucianism, Taoism, and Shinto also have many characteristics that are at times radically different from each other. These will be the bulk of this paper. However, the similarities that underlie these differences, those of culture rather than ideology, cannot be overlooked and will be outlined prior to concluding. Effectively, there is little competition for epistemic or spiritual dominance amongst these traditions, and it is more often the case that a given individual will remain, at some level, affected by and partial to all three. This remains an expression of eastern culture in general, independent from the more competitive notions of ideology we have in the west. In the east validity may be extracted from each or any system of belief towards the more universal spiritual goals of the culture in general. So despite much ideological divergence, there is much room for acceptance and tolerance in the name of greater goods.

Confucianism and Taoism both focus on the Tao, which I understand to be similar to the Hindu conception of Dharma, or cosmic law. Tao refers to an organic conception of causal relatedness and interconnectedness that engulfs the totality of all things. That is the Tao encapsulates the idea of the summation of all things as one totality that endures constant internal change, rather than a summation of fragmented and unrelated experiences or ontologies. While this totality is not, in itself, epistemologically graspable by finite minds, but only available inferentially via meditation (as in Buddhism), the Tao is observable and knowable via the changes that occur within the totality. Such change reflects the motion of the universe itself. As we humans are temporal beings, in constant causal interaction with the totality of things, then such motion is intimate to us, and can be given definition via our intimate experiences. The Tao or “way” then, reflects the laws that govern the order of the change within the totality of things. To align oneself with the Tao is to live “properly”, from an ontological perspective, so as to not create turmoil by going against the cosmic order. Thus, the Tao for the Chinese obviously has both personal and cultural implications, for it is the fundamental axiom from which particular laws (both casual and substantive) are properly deduced. Truth essentially flows out of this highly rational paradigm(1), and for civilization to continue to exist it should be aligned with the causal flow of the universe itself, for to not do so would be tantamount to accepting chaos and disorder as an acceptable norm.

Confucianism and Taoism differ with respect to exactly how the Tao is to be best understood and implicated in public policy, although the underlying rational conception of the Tao remains essentially the same for both traditions. Confucianism, a predecessor of Taoism, focuses on accessing the Tao via ren, or virtue. Ren is sanctioned by social convention which is itself an expression of the Tao. So for Confucianism one best maintains the Tao via alignment with existing social values, so defined by tradition and cultural morays. Hence Confucianism is essentially conservative, defined historically, and has an emphasis on maintaining an individual’s place within a precisely defined social nexus.

The “ideal type” Confucian is a “jun-zi” or “superior man”. One becomes a jun-zi by following Li or proper moral conduct (the right way) so as to best exemplify the Tao in “his” person. Li is outlined in the books of ru, thought to be written by Confucius himself, and is typically defined with reference to appropriate cultural roles an individual should take on. Thus society in general becomes aligned with the Tao when “fathers act like fathers” and “emperors act like emperors”. Hence tradition dictates certain institutions which come to be valued, and the good which is to be found in such institutions as “fatherhood” is an expression of the Tao itself, and hence should be ritualized, replicated, and personified to the greatest extent of human ability. The method for Confucianism appears as a grasp at staticity; It attempts to access via reason what has been valuable in the past and maintain it for all time. It is as if it is the duty of man to discover laws within reality, and then hold those laws constant. The presumed end of such a process would be a fully rationalized grasp of the Tao and its expressions, and a perfect human alliance with it through the procreation of this knowledge. For Confucianism the secular is the sacred. Hence a person needs only to learn increasing amounts of knowledge about society or other academic disciplines to increase their personal alignment with the Tao. It is through this progressive education that society can become proper, and the cosmic order can be effectively deduced. It is as if the Confucian attempts to put their world under a microscope, understand the implications of the past, and then worship those post hoc interpretations.

Because this emphasis on the analysis of the past and education are fundamental to proper maintenance of society, any order of traditional (ie ascetic etc…) monks or whatnot is replaced in Confucianism by an elite class of scholars who are to regulate society via their superior knowledge. Similar to Plato’s “philosopher kings” such scholars enter a symbiosis with other members of society, exemplifying the Tao not by gratuitous power but rather learned responsibility for society’s well being. Hence, despite social hierarchy there is no power differential as it is to some extent the failure of the emperor whose people have gone against him. It is the responsibility of all members of society to uphold the Tao and this is no less burdensome for any particular class. Thus failure to maintain ones responsibility has inevitable personal and social consequences (via the unseen hand of the Tao), and this may manifest in all manners of ill from social humiliation to civil war.

On a practical level the Tao is corresponded with by means of ritualistic maintenance of ones social role, be it father, mother, son, or perhaps the proper execution of one’s occupation. The institutions of family and state are worshipped primarily, as expressions of the true moral “ought”. Also important is the worship of one’s ancestors (as fathers and mothers etc…) as if to make the temporality of human life pseudo-permanent with respect to the importance of the roles people adapt while they are alive. So while the Confucian Scholars typically do not believe in such things as ghosts or life after death, ancestral worship is sanctioned for it’s emphasis on not forgetting the tradition from which one comes, and to honor it rightly. Whether this is how laymen explicitly interpret such practices is of lesser importance.

Taoism interprets the Tao differently. Rather than emphasizing scholarly reason and method, Taoism presumes these things actually pervert the Tao by attempting to hold constant something that by definition is ever-changing and ungraspable for finite and particular humans. For the Taoist things like social convention, ritual, and essentially the worship of order of the Confucian attempts to reduce the ultimate reality of the universe to a personal piece of property, to be used and exploited as if it was simply another possession. For the Taoist the Tao represents precisely the opposite. The emphasis of the Confucian on “ownership” and control of the Tao through precise reason is replaced in Taoism with a turning away from all that is categorical. The Tao is realized not through the faculties of man, but the rejection of them. Hence, one knows the Tao spontaneously, accidentally, and at times despite one’s own efforts. It is known not precisely, but only intuitively in ways the rational structure of language and reason must fail to grasp. The Tao is that which is above(2)humans. It is the unifying principle from which the particularity and divergence of the phenomenal world is deduced. But it is not itself experienced or knowable, as to do so would be to make the infinite mistakenly finite, and hence no truths may be claimed from it. It is known almost by privation alone, and cannot be encapsulated within the temporal as if it was a mere object of recognition.

Taoism focuses not on rational structures such as “family” and “society”, but rather the sentimental domains of personality and subjective experience. That is, if the Tao is to be considered that which cannot be held constant in knowledge, then it may not act as an axiom from which any certain method or spiritual path may be deduced. Hence all are fair paths to enlightenment. The Confucian order remains mutually exclusive from many other paths such as magic, the reality of dreams, and spirit worship. Thus for the Taoist it is unnecessarily authoritarian, and constraining to equally good methodology. Taoism attempts to understand by listening to the Tao’s flow with the sentiments, rather than attempting to dominate it with reason. So where Confucianism can be considered a “top-down” attempt at alignment with the Tao, Taoism can be considered to work more from the “bottom-up”, or from the perspective of pure experience unpolluted by the pseudo-certitude of reason. Hence, rituals develop as they are intuited, and truths are felt rather than understood. Effectively, Taoism can be many things to many different people. The Tao is under no obligation to conform to any one understanding, so any one is as good as any other.

So the ideal type Taoist may be many things, but what may hold Taoists in common is a refusal to be pigeonholed into any one certainty regarding the Tao. One should experience the world with an “open wonder”, and understand that to be aligned with the Tao allows for a multitude of expressions. A person should be above all free from personal bias regarding the Tao, and when this is accomplished a more universal enlightenment is achieved. To quote Ellwood, “…what for the Confucians was the very essence of true civilization, for the Taoists was the token of decay and hypocrisy” (pg.201). The Taoist then avoids the over analysis of phenomena and attempts to experience the world in a natural and uncultivated way, regarding order and reason as perversities of this path.

Shinto, notably a Japanese rather than Chinese religion, is more of an ancient and “anthropomorphic” belief system. Translated “the way of the Gods”, Shinto sanctions primarily the worship of a multitude of deities or kami. In this way it is essentially different from Confucianism and Taoism, as it maintains a pluralistic metaphysic regarding ontology, rather than some absolute underlying schema. Worship of various deities with offerings of rice or perhaps meat puts a “face” on the unknown. Deified personalities were often once humans who evolved into gods by merit, perhaps in the eyes of an emperor. Kami are however not themselves immortal anymore so than humans, and here the Shinto emphasis on plurality and also temporality becomes hard set. There is no unifying principle that exists “above and beyond” the particularity of the phenomenal world. The temporal nature of reality is here primordial, and reason need not seek for explanation beyond. Although Shinto is not some “pure” Empiricism either. It is highly symbolic as well as literal. It places emphasis on “nature”, and this nature is the domain of both Gods and humans. There is no other world, or extra-experiential principle, and hence one needs not intuit or understand one. Hence there is no Tao in Shinto. Although it is easy to see that a Taoist would have little trouble accepting this idea, despite the apparent contradiction.

Shinto also shares in common with Confucianism the worship of ancestors. Although in Shinto one gets the impression of a more literal and less symbolic interpretation of what this means. Yet the emphasis on the past is apparent in both traditions.

The Shinto tradition focuses on the worship of the pure to the exclusion of the impure. Hence, one worships images representing life and goodness while at the same time denouncing death and illness. The Kami here become personifications of the positive things one finds in nature, and ceremonial acts of worship seek to achieve the perseverance of positive influence. Shinto temples are places where this purity is emphasized, as a sanctuary away from harm.

The ideal Shinto practitioner is of a simple nature, and is closely involved with the kami through festivities, personal worship, and the overall celebration of and enjoyment of life, in a very immediate sense. Such a person has a focus on purity with reference to that which is intuitively “good” or “evil”(3), and lives to maximize the former while minimizing the latter. This involves aligning oneself with human-like deities that also share this motif, and respecting their awesome power in a similar quest.

Confucianism, Taoism, and Shinto all differ along the lines discussed above, but their divergence does not prevent them from interacting in a common culture of eastern religious life. As mentioned above, it is rare that an individual will be exclusively one tradition alone. Rather all have entered non-competitively into a cultural nexus where contradiction takes a back seat to personal well being and spiritual fulfillment. Here, the subjectivism of Taoism shines through. It is less important to be right, it appears upon observing the interaction of these traditions, than to be happy. However, ritual and structure are also integral to eastern religion although not in the pure form of ideal Confucianism. Rather, the structure of religion, in keeping with its ultimately personal nature, as expressed by Taoism, serves as more of a means than and end in itself. Taoism teaches where Confucianism may be overstated, while Confucianism provides numerous methodologies through which the Tao may be explored, if not held for certain. The resulting interaction allows for a more complex enlightenment and social organization, that leaves no stone unturned in the quest for spiritual betterment. The same is true for Shinto, where layman may take comfort in anthropomorphic deities and symbolism without fully ascribing to an ontological pluralism, but rather at the same time the unity of the Tao. Thus eastern religious culture is bedrocked on diversity and acceptance, and a relatively non-critical approach to the religio-social order when compared with the west. There seem to be few hard-fast truths at some critical level of interpretation, and contradiction, despite Confucian efforts I’m sure, ceases to be an impediment in many people’s lives. Thus it is a trait of eastern culture to treat its beliefs as more symbolic and pragmatic than in the west. This assumption I make based on the obvious exclusionist nature of many western faiths, Christianity (ies), Platonism, or Scientific Method providing examples. The west has an unmistakable warring epistemological tendency by comparison with the east, and it is such cultural inclusionism that defines the east as a distinct tradition apart from traditional western thought.

Notes,

1) The concept of Tao is similar to many “Rationalist” conceptualizations of the totality of things. Popular throughout the Enlightenment era, such thinking assumed human minds were capable of giving definition to their own experiences via reference to super natural or “extra-experiential” ontologies. Hegel’s “absolute”, or Spinoza’s “cause of itself” are examples. Essentially such theories contend that finite human minds, independent of experience, can by inference deduce truths about extra-experiential reality and hence the “proper” way to live (ethics) for humans.

2) This term is used loosely. I simply mean that which is thought to be unifier of all particularity, humans included.

3) This is in keeping with a pluralistic ontology. Taoism or Confucianism may see something such as evil as more of a misalignment with the Tao (or misbalance of yin and yang) rather than self-contained forces.