Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/138129


Title: How Daoism Changed My Understanding of Religion
道教如何改變我對宗教的理解
Authors: 勞格文
Lagerwey, John
Contributors: 華人宗教研究
Keywords: Daoism ; Laozi ; Lacan ; Ritual ; Religion 
道教 ; 老子 ; 拉岡 ; 儀式 ; 宗教
Date: 2020-01
Issue Date: 2021-12-07 09:06:50 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 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 L vi-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 morcel ), 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 L vi-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?
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?
Relation: 華人宗教研究, 15, 1-22
Data Type: article
DOI 連結: https://doi.org/10.6720/SCR.202001_(15).0001
Appears in Collections:[華人宗教研究] 期刊論文

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
412.pdf2536KbAdobe PDF22View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing