Mason Keller

EQ-Dr. McKinney
Friday, May 09, 2014
Inverse Procedures: Christianity and Daoism
Oftentimes, it is the case that practitioners of a certain religion think that their belief is
insular. Fundamentalists exist of every creed, and someone is always proclaiming their way to
be inerrant and unaltered truth. However, in history, it is undeniable that syncretism occurs in
most belief systems; cultures come into contact, and it is natural for their theologies to mix. The
phenomena of Christmas trees in December and May poles at Pentecost among the faithful
should not be surprising when we consider that Christian Europe arose only on the back of a
Pagan Europe. There are many other examples, but as Westerners, these are a few of the most
familiar. However, for completeness, an eastern example of syncretism is the near total fusion
of Shinto and Buddhism in Japan. Now, it was mentioned that syncretism occurs when cultures
rub shoulders, but I propose a different, theological exercise. Say one presupposes the simplest
syncretic religion: unrelated texts A and B are both taken dogmatically. Then, when
inconsistencies arise, they do so out of disparity in the texts. Before I continue, I want to make
clear that I do not claim that syncretism never occurs between distant cultures. As an example,
the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, active in Britain in the early 20
th
century, incorporated
ideas from Greek, Egyptian, Jewish, and alchemical (distinct from Egyptian religion, even though
Al-Khemia is the art of Khem, or Egypt) texts. Ultimately however, what this proposed thought
experiment does is that it allows the discrepancies of the two creeds to come to a head. To
phrase it differently, if one knows X, and knows precisely in what ways Y differs from X, even
without deep study of Y, one can understand it as, X excepting that I write of this, because
it is a useful tool for understanding the theology of different religions. To make the purpose
absolutely clear: overlapping Christian dogma with other creeds can help illuminate the moral
Mason Keller
EQ-Dr. McKinney
Friday, May 09, 2014
differences in the systems. Perhaps it is presumptuous to take Christianity as the point from
which I compare, but as Westerners, it is familiar, even if it is not agreeable. In particular, I wish
to use this method to write about the Dao De Jing (Wade-Giles, Tao Te King). The culture
heritage and history of China are, by definition, foreign to the West. The proposed thought
exercise is almost necessary then, to begin to understand the text. While holistic
understandings are valuable, they are forever out of reach without holistic understanding of
history and culture. Religion shapes culture, though, and so one thing requires another that
requires, in turn, the first. Without a foothold in reach, one can never climb a mountain. For
this reason it necessary to first have a comparative understanding of another religion before
one can attain to a holistic understanding of it. Moreover, from a pragmatic standpoint the
differences in the moral praxes are quickly realized in this way, without necessarily getting
involved in deep theology. If ones desire is to understand what a religion says about how to
live in the world, and our desire is certainly this, then said pragmatism is ideal.
So then, if we are to come to grips with the Daoisms moral code in this way, it is first
necessary to find the parts that are most loudly dissonant. Most prominently, the Dao presents
a dualistic worldview. Poem one presents a worldview in which the creative force of the
universe is fundamentally dualistic. Nothing brought about something (the Dao). The Dao,
having no name, created the Dao, having a name. This theme is expounded on in poem two,
with the claim that all qualities arise out of relation to one another, not just the Dao. This gives
us the closest Daoist analogue to a creation story. Specifically, the Dao, having a name, is
described in poem 6 as a root on which all life grows, being the mother of all things. The
metaphor of all things growing equally from the same root is the first difference we can really
Mason Keller
EQ-Dr. McKinney
Friday, May 09, 2014
note. Now, familiar, exoteric Christianity is not so focused on duality. Certainly, one can talk
about God the merciful and God the severe, or Christ the man as opposed to Christ the divine.
In the Christian creation story, regardless if one takes in in allegory or not, God creates man and
gives him free will, though ultimately retaining dominion over him. God then gives man
dominion over the animals, birds, fish, and so on. Later, God gives certain men dominion over
other men: the kings over the priests over the believers over the slaves and so on. Outright, I
mean the conception of the Great Chain of Being. One thing must be in order for the things
below it on the chain to be in order. A king must rule in accordance with God for his people to
be well. A farmer must farm in accordance with God for his animals to prosper. This in and of
itself does not contradict the Dao. The Daoist world view presents that the ideal state is
inaction. Water, which flows only in response to the forces acting on it, is ideal. Everything in
the world is perfected, says Laozi, if only we with free will would stop getting in the way. So,
one can attempt to reconcile the ideas by saying that ruling in accordance with God is the same
as ruling in accordance with the Dao. But this is the paradox; scripture advocates godliness is
attained though striving. It takes effort. The Dao is attained through absolute lack of effort. All
good things spring from the same root. The chain as it were, is not vertical, but horizontal. The
root cause of this discrepancy is the Christian conception of the world as fallen, or as a veil of
tears. The world is fundamentally flawed; as beings of free will it is our job to suffer through it
as best we can, and strive to restore what godliness we can to the world. The best way that I
can explain it is to resort to quotation of occultist Dion Fortunes Mystical Qabala, chapter two,
paragraph eight. He [the Westerner] does not try to escape from matter into spirit, leaving an
unconquered country behind him to get on as best it may [referring to the Hindu/Buddhist
Mason Keller
EQ-Dr. McKinney
Friday, May 09, 2014
yoga]; he wants to bring the Godhead down into manhood and make Divine Law prevail even in
the Kingdom of the Shades. The Daoist imperative to inaction is at odds with this, and it is the
first step at understanding the different moral praxes.
The next step is application and refinement of this distinction. Certainly, each text has
its own dos and do nots, though the Bible has many more prohibitions than the Dao De
Jing. Now, when dealing with specifics, it is important to bear in mind the consistency of the
system one is dealing with. Anyone can make scripture say this and say that. Because of the
fundamental disparity between the two dogmas, it is possible to find these opposing doctrines
all over regardless of which pet verses the inquirer has. The following, being familiar to me,
merely serve as examples. Laozi writes that one should hide the light of his procedure, and if
one is gaining notoriety, to withdraw from the public. However in the gospel as according to
Matthew, Jesus, on the mount, was saying that, Let your [the apostles/faithful] light so shine
before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your father which is in heaven.
Evangelism and proselytizing by the display of works (both mundane and miraculous) was the
bread and butter of the early church (according to scripture, not necessarily history). Daoism,
however, would reject the evangelical process. Moreover, Daoism would reject the active
doing of thaumaturgy in the first place. It comes back to divinity by striving versus divinity by
inaction. A single example is not exhaustive, but I believe that most of the discrepancies in new-
testament morality and Daoist morality can be reduced to this single dissonance. To give final
summary, I return to comparison: to live humanely under Daoist dogma is to let things be and
in not doing to alleviate evil; to live humanely under Christian dogma is to take up arms against
evil, so as to let things be once they are perfected.