Spiritual Alternative # 3: Zen Buddhism

Zen Buddhism (which is known as Chan in China, where it originated; Son in Korea; and Thien in Vietnam, and is based on the Sanskrit word dhyana, which is usually translated as "absorption" in modern English, but sometimes simply as "meditation"), according to its practitioners, is, as famous proponent of Zen Buddhism Masao Abe translates it, "[a]n independent transmission outside the teaching of the scriptures, [d]irectly pointing to man's Mind, [a]wakening of one's (Original-) Nature, thereby actualizing one's own Buddhahood" (attributed to Bodhidharma, founder of the Chan/Zen tradition, who is depicted as the transmitter of this tradition from India to China, and not its founder, in traditional Zen accounts).  However, like all traditions Zen Buddhism has a history.  It is not an ahistorical essence or a “wafting cloud in the sky” (D.T. Suzuki, An Introduction to Zen Buddhism, p. 41), at least not in practice.  

Zen Buddhism has definitive practices: zazen or seated meditation, of which there are several kinds (see The Three Pillars of Zen by Philip Kapleau Roshi, pp. 31-44, 141-142), and contemplation of koans, or non-logical statements designed to snap the mind out of its ordinary modes of cognition, at least after several years of intense practice, including some preliminary training in seated meditation.  It even has formal rituals, such as the chanting of sutras and the performance of funerals by Zen Buddhist monks (see The Other Side of Zen by Duncan Ryuken Williams and Soto Zen in Medieval Japan by William Bodiford for information on how such aspects of Zen Buddhism developed in Medieval Japan).  

Zen Buddhism has a rigid code of discipline (more rigid than most other forms of monastic Buddhism, in fact - see The Zen Monastic Experience by Robert Buswell and The Empty Mirror by Janwillem van de Wetering for Western accounts of contemporary Zen monasticism, the former in Korea and the latter in Japan; see The Baizhang Zen Monastic Regulations for a sample of some of the rules and regulations that Zen monks have historically been expected to follow).  It is very hierarchical and very traditional, as the mind of awakening has allegedly been passed from master to disciple for many generations, and respect for and obedience to one’s master is still expected in East Asian Chan/Son/Zen/Thien training.  (I will note here that there is one feature of Zen Buddhism that has been over-emphasized by those who see Zen as an exotic, foreign practice, and under-emphasized by those with a mere philosophical interest in Zen Buddhism: the use, by Zen masters, of the keisaku or kyosaku, or a stick used to hit disciples in order to help rouse them to awakening.  I will not go into details about this here.)

Still, the goals of Zen Buddhism are quite similar to those of Philosophical Daoism.  The primary goal of practitioners of Zen Buddhism is to transcend all limitations and dualities, including oneness or any concept of oneness (which is dualistic because it is exclusive of diversity or many-ness).  In principle, it is amoral, and only considers morality valuable if it aids one in practicing meditation and the other traditional practices of Zen.   

At the same time, it really is part of Buddhism, so it also (again, in principle) accepts the traditional cosmology of Buddhism, including its idea of continuous rebirth in the six realms of existence until awakening or buddhahood is realized.  That Zen Buddhists have historically been more likely to interpret these teachings nonliterally than other Buddhists (again, “more likely” – many, and probably even most Chan and Zen Buddhists historically interpreted these teachings literally, but that has changed in the last century, as it has for many “modernist” Buddhists in Asia and the West) does not negate the fact that they have been present in Zen Buddhism, as they are present in some of the Mahayana sutras upon which Zen Buddhism is based, such as the Lankavatara Sutra.   

In addition, Zen Buddhism is a Mahayana tradition, meaning it regards the bodhisattva, or the one who aspires to full buddhahood out of compassion for all sentient beings (the basis of this aspiration is known as bodhicitta, or the mind of awakening), as the ideal which all sentient beings should seek.  (Heinrich Dumoulin, a Catholic priest, made this point most forcefully in his book Zen Buddhism: A History, India & China (Volume 1) - not to be confused with Dumoulin's earlier edition of this work called A History of Zen Buddhism, which has Catholic triumphalist claims that are utterly inappropriate in a scholarly work on the history of a religion, even if they would not be objectionable in an apologetic work - fortunately, Dumoulin changed his approach for later editions.)

Zen Buddhism excels in its methodology.  Zazen, especially the form of it known as shikantaza (which is the practice of “just sitting” with the mind both fully alert and relaxed, without the aid of counting the breath or any other “crutch,” and is extremely difficult - Kapleau's Three Pillars of Zen, pp. 60-62, provides an excellent description of this practice), for those capable of it, as well as contemplation of a koan, are very effective means (at least for those who rigorously practice them for many years) for freeing the mind from its habitual tendency to set up dualities between likes and dislikes, and thus awakening a person to his or her original nature.  

To clarify, real Zen has the power to do this.  Armchair Zen, or the practice of sitting around discussing the “Zen of” every topic under the sun, or of identifying states of great joy or even occasional feelings of oneness with nature with Zen, while perhaps warranting nothing more than a light smile (and certainly not any kind of self-righteous condemnation), does not have the power to liberate the mind from all dualities, or, more accurately, to introduce a person to his or her original nature, to who he or she has always been but has not recognized before due to attachment to various likes and dislikes.  One does not need to remove these attachments; rather one only needs to recognize the buddha-nature of the mind, and upon the realization of this, likes and dislikes, which are lacking in any intrinsic existence or essential nature, will vanish of their own accord.  Still, it is better, at all stages of practice, to have as few attachments as possible, which I suspect is the rationale for the strict discipline of Zen monasteries historically.

The principal goal of Zen Buddhism, and specifically of the practice of zazen, is the realization or recognition of one’s true nature, of seeing into one’s mind and recognizing that one has always been a buddha, though one has not realized it before.  This is awakening or bodhi (the most complete form of which is known as anuttara-samyak-sambodhi), and it is known in Japanese as kensho or satori (the latter being a “deeper” realization of one’s buddha-nature than the former - see The Three Pillars of Zen, p. 409).   

The goal of Zen Buddhism is not just to experience kensho or satori once, but to constantly remain in that state no matter what other activities one engages in on a daily basis (The Three Pillars of Zen, pp. 53-56).  This actualization of one’s intrinsic buddhahood in all situations is known in Japanese as mujodo no taigen (Ibid.).  As an initial matter, the Zen Buddhist disciple must learn to concentrate the mind one-pointedly (this is called joriki in Japanese), keeping out all external distractions or attachments (Ibid.).  This type of concentration takes time to learn for almost all people, but it is just the first step in the process of awakening.  Although awakening occurs “instantaneously” when it happens, it takes several years of training before most people get to the point where they can actually have this “instantaneous” experience of awakening. 

On the negative side, Zen Buddhism has a tendency to become excessively anti-intellectual, much as many other traditions (such as Advaita Vedanta) have a tendency to become overly-intellectual.  Unfortunately, it often happens that Zen Buddhists teach metaphysical doctrines, whether explicitly or implicitly, but immediately criticize others those who rationally examine or proclaim metaphysical doctrines (many of those who claim to follow the Advaitin sage Ramana Maharshi do the same thing).   

The problematic nature of this situation can best be addressed by accepting that on one level (let us call it that of the seeker, or one who is uncertain about the nature and goal of existence and is looking for answers) it is appropriate to analyze and evaluate any teachings, including the teachings of Zen Buddhism, to determine consistency, sensibility, and practicality, while on another level (let us call it that of the practitioner, or one who is committed to a particular tradition based on what he or she believes to be the certain, probable, or even possible nature and goal of existence), it is best, to put it bluntly, to shut up and practice what the tradition teaches so that one can make some real progress.   

This, of course, applies to all traditions, not just Zen Buddhism, but it seems particularly relevant to Zen Buddhism, since Zen (the “Buddhism” part is often dropped from its name in Western discourse, even though in its origins and in East Asia to this day it is plainly and explicitly a Buddhist tradition) is usually understood in the Modern West as D.T. Suzuki’s “wafting cloud,” that is, as beyond all concepts and speculation, and possible for any person to realize immediately, in the here and now, without years of dedicated practice under a qualified Zen Buddhist master.  (Of course, in theory Zen Buddhism teaches and has historically taught that it is possible to realize one’s true nature, to instantly recognize one’s intrinsic buddhahood at any time, but in practice very few people have ever realized their intrinsic buddhahood without first engaging in years of dedicated practice in zazen, the contemplation of koans, or both.)

RECOMMENDED READING:

The Three Pillars of Zen, by Philip Kapleau Roshi.  This is easily the best book on Zen Buddhism in the English language, as famous scholar of religion Huston Smith claimed.  I recommend it for those who wish to practice Zen Buddhism.  It gives some historical information about Zen Buddhism, but its emphasis is on the actual practice of Zen Buddhism.  

Zen Buddhism: A History, Volume 1 and Zen Buddhism: A History, Volume 2, by Heinrich Dumoulin.  These books describe Zen Buddhism and its historical development in the context of Mahayana Buddhism and the discourses (or sutras) that the Mahayana attributes to the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama or Shakyamuni.  The first edition, A History of Zen Buddhism, is less a scholarly work than a work of Catholic triumphalism, so is not the best resource for those who wish to learn about Zen Buddhism.  

Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation, by Zen Master Dogen, translated by Carl Bielefeldt.  These are comprehensive manuals of meditation by perhaps Zen Buddhism's greatest master, Dogen.  Most Zen masters have held that one should study under a living master, but these are probably the best instructions on meditation or anybody who wants to try to practice on their own (which is very difficult to do).  

Shobogenzo, by Zen Master Dogen.  This is a very advanced philosophical and theoretical text by arguably the greatest Zen master, Dogen.  It is for very serious students of Buddhism or comparative philosophy.  

Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch, translated by Red Pine.  This is probably the greatest theoretical introduction to Zen Buddhism, and it explains almost all of the theoretical foundations of the varieties of Zen Buddhism that have flourished in East Asia for over a thousand years.  

Manual of Zen Buddhism, with works translated by D.T. Suzuki.  This is Suzuki's greatest book, since it translates many of the texts that are and have long been central to Zen Buddhism.  Here, Zen Buddhism is not presented as a "wafting cloud in the sky," but as a tradition with a history, including texts it regards as significant.  

Zen and Western Thought, by Masao Abe.  I find Masao Abe's philosophical musings on Zen Buddhism, and his comparisons between Zen Buddhism and Western Philosophy, to be thought-provoking, but this is not the best place to start in learning about the practice, theory, or history of Zen Buddhism.
 
An Introduction to Zen Buddhism and Essays in Zen Buddhism by D.T. Suzuki.  In my opinion, the works of D.T. Suzuki are not a good place to start in learning about Zen Buddhism, especially not the practice or the history thereof.  Nonetheless, his works are philosophically engaging at times, and need not be dismissed wholesale.  

For Western accounts of the Zen monastic experience, see The Empty Mirror by Janwillem van de Wetering and The Zen Monastic Experience by Robert Buswell.

For information about the social aspects of Zen Buddhism and other aspects of it that have not been historically emphasized in the West, see Soto Zen in Medieval Japan by William Bodiford and The Other Side of Zen by Duncan Ryuken Williams.

Spiritual Alternative # 2: Advaita Vedanta / Smarta Denomination of Hinduism

Advaita Vedanta was systematized by the eighth-ninth century philosopher/theologian Shankara or Shankaracharya.  Based primarily on the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, and Brahma Sutras (all old Hindu texts), it holds that the deepest nature or Self (Atman) of every sentient being is ultimately identical to the Divine Ground of Being (Brahman).  While the Atman-Brahman cannot be literally or directly described, by analogy it is called Sat-Chit-Ananda, or Being/Truth-Consciousness/Awareness-Bliss. 

Sentient beings, however, are ignorant of Atman-Brahman, identifying instead with the five sheaths or coverings that obscure the Atman, as well as with the body, the impermanent aspects of consciousness, i.e. the sense of self-identity or ego, the sense of inwardness or “mind’s eye” or simply mind, the five sense-determinant factors of the mind, and even the most lucid aspect of the mind, the intellect (which is not simply the reasoning faculty, but the faculty that is aware of that which transcends itself, Atman-Brahman and the causal plane).  

Sentient beings identify with these lesser or unreal entities because of ignorance (or avidya), which is produced by Maya, or the power of illusion that produces the world and all that is made manifest within it.  The primal principle of manifestation or nature is known as Prakriti, and is considered the source of not only the body, but the intellect, ego, and inward sense or mind as well.  Atman-Brahman is the Witness or Observer of all that happens in all three states of being: the waking, dreaming, and deep dreamless sleep states.  However, it is beyond all three, in what Advaitins simply call the fourth state (or turiya), which is pure consciousness.    

There are three planes on which activity occurs: the gross or physical, the astral or subtle, and the causal.  The physical plane is the plane in which living beings and inanimate matter exist.  The astral plane is the home of devas (which are like the angels of the Abrahamic traditions), demigods, demons, ghosts, and other spirit-entities.  The causal plane is the plane on which Brahman acts as Ishvara, which is Brahman’s personal manifestation, or manifestation with attributes (Saguna, as opposed to the Nirguna or attributeless nature of the Supreme Atman-Brahman).   Ishvara causes the world to come into existence through the power of maya.

Atman-Brahman is known through contemplation, specifically through contemplation of the Self, or inquiry into the question, “Who am I?” (this is the practice advocated by twentieth-century saint Ramana Maharshi, but it is also the central contemplative question of Advaita Vedanta generally).   Devotion to a personal god (in the Smarta tradition, one can choose devotion to Shiva, Devi or the Goddess, Ganesha, Vishnu and his ten avataras, Surya, or even another deity of one’s choice – all of these are regarded as aspects or manifestations of Ishvara or Saguna Brahman), Raja Yoga (which will be discussed in greater detail in another post), and karma yoga, while helpful, do not lead to liberation (moksha).  Only contemplation (or jnana yoga) leads to liberation.   

There are at least three levels of higher consciousness: the jiva or soul which wanders through the planes of existence from lifetime to lifetime based on the wholesomeness or harmfulness of actions in those lifetimes (a process known as samsara), the “lower” Atman-Brahman which is the observer separate from and beyond phenomena (and in relation to which all phenomena are illusory or non-existent), and the “supreme” Atman-Brahman, which is beyond all dualities, even those between subject and object and Atman-Brahman and maya or phenomena.

From the point of view of the supreme Atman-Brahman and those who have realized their true nature as Atman-Brahman, the world appears as lila, or divine play, but from the point of view of worldly existence and the soul caught in the endless cycle of death and rebirth, it is a place of suffering (as Buddhism teaches), and is, strictly speaking, unreal in relation to the infinite reality of Atman-Brahman. 

Technically speaking, Advaita Vedanta concerns itself with morality only insofar as morality pertains to liberation from samsara.  However, liberation is not easy, and so it requires a great amount of self-discipline.  Traditionally, the main practitioners of Advaita Vedanta have been ascetic mendicants.  There are now far more lay practitioners who fully engage with the tradition’s teachings and practices than there used to be, but strict self-discipline is still the norm.  Historically, the varnashrama system has been accepted as valid, as well.

In many ways, Advaita Vedanta is the most complete and elegant system of spiritual philosophy ever constructed.  Its explanations are terse (at least by metaphysical standards), yet simple (again, by metaphysical standards), as are its practices.  On the other hand, it is quite ascetic, and accepts the law of karma and samsara as facts, despite a lack of convincing evidence for the existence of either.  Thus, it has limitations that some other traditions (particularly Philosophical Daoism) do not have, in my opinion.  Yet its thoroughness, the relative simplicity of its spiritual philosophy and exercises, and its frankness about the limitations of mundane existence and the importance of lifting the veil of ignorance that causes people to misidentify with things witnessed rather than knowing themselves as the Self that is the Witness, make it one of the most profound spiritual traditions.

RECOMMENDED READING:

Upanishads, translated by Patrick Olivelle.  This is a translation of the twelve principal Upanishads, the ultimate basis of all six major sub-schools of Vedanta.  (According to Hindu tradition, there are 108 altogether.) 

Bhagavad Gita, translated by Barbara Stoller Miller; and a version of the Gita in Devanagari, transliterated Sanskrit, and English, translated by Winthrop Sargeant.  This text is certainly not exclusive to Advaita Vedanta.  It is a central text of Vaishnavism (and the sub-schools of Vedanta affiliated with it, which is all except Advaita), particularly the forms of Vaishnavism where Vishnu's avatara (or incarnation) Krishna is the primary object of devotion.  However, it is important in Advaita Vedanta as well.

Brahma Sutras, translated by Swami Sivananda.  These aphorisms are a systematic exegesis of the teachings of the Upanishads, and are the direct basis of all six major sub-schools of Vedanta.

Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta, by Rene Guenon.  Guenon was a traditionalist and perennialist, as well as a Western convert to Islam, specifically its mystical tradition, Sufism, but this book makes it abundantly clear that he was very familiar with the teachings of Vedanta.  This is a great book, but it is not an easy read.

Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical Introduction, by Eliot Deutsch.  This book is very succinct.

Shankara's Crest-Jewel of Discrimination, translated by Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood.  This is a simple introduction to the teachings of Advaita Vedanta by its greatest exponent.  

Atmabodha (or Self-Knowledge), by Shankaracharya, translated by Swami Nikhilananda.  This is a detailed overview of contemplation of the Self leading to liberating knowledge.  Highly recommended.

"A Brief Overview of Vedanta," at the Vedanta Society of Southern California website.  This provides solid basic information about the teachings of Advaita Vedanta.  

"Who Am I?" by Sri Ramana Maharshi, a great Hindu sage of the twentieth century.  For a more detailed understanding of his teachings, see his Talks.  While not technically an initiate into one of the monastic orders founded by Shankaracharya, his teachings get at the heart of what Advaita Vedanta teaches is the goal of all living beings: liberation through knowledge of the nature of the Self and the identity of the Self with the Divine Ground of Being.

Spiritual Alternative # 1: Philosophical Daoism

(NOTES: This post may cover some of the same ground as my earlier post about Philosophical Daoism.  Also, when I italicize Zhuangzi or Liezi, it refers to the book known by this name, while when I do not italicize Zhuangzi, it refers to the historical person who wrote at least the first seven chapters of the book that bears his name, and when I do not italicize Liezi it refers to the historical author of the book of the same name.)

The central practice (or non-practice) of Philosophical Daoism is wuwei, a term which literally means doing nothing.  In practice, wuwei, as best as I can describe it, consists of not thinking, not trying, and not being.  It is spontaneity in all situations.  It is not mere laziness, however.  One who lives a life of wuwei still acts in the world, but "does not by his likings and dislikings do any inward harm to his body - he always pursues his course without effort, and does not try to increase his store of life" (Zhuangzi Chapter 5, Section 6).  However, it is not possible to engage in the practice (more correctly, the non-practice) of wuwei (at least consistently) without first training the mind to be calm, collected, and detached from all mental objects.  This is where meditation comes into play.  

Philosophical Daoist meditation, at least from what the Zhuangzi indicates, incorporates practices known from South Asian traditions like breath control (in Chapter 6, Zhuangzi writes "[the] breathing [of the sages or true men/true people of old] came deep and silently. The breathing of the true man [true person] comes even from his heels, while men [people] generally breathe only from their throats"); concentration of the mind, withdrawal from attachment to the world, overcoming one's exclusive identity with one's sense of separate self-identity or ego, and transcending the opposing dualities of past and present and life and death (described in Chapter 6, Section 4); and mindfulness or awareness, or simply allowing the mind to reflect whatever arises (described as follows in Chapter 7, Section 6: "When the perfect man [perfect person - men and women can both do this] employs his mind, it is a mirror.  It conducts nothing and anticipates nothing; it responds to what is before it, but does not retain it").  This concept of using the mind as a mirror or understanding the mind as a mirror can also be found in certain Buddhist traditions, particularly in the Chan/Zen tradition (it appears in verses from the sixth patriarch Huineng, which are some of the most famous in the history of Zen Buddhism).

Philosophical Daoist meditation, at least the type described in the Zhuangzi, also features the practice of trying to snap the mind out of its ordinary modes of cognition through paradox (see this passage from Chapter 2 of the Zhuangzi, for example), turning logic against itself (much of Chapter 2 is dedicated to this), wondrous anecdotes (such as the opening passage of Chapter 1 and the very famous "Butterfly Dream" at the end of Chapter 2), and profound but unconventional ideas (which are almost, but not quite, antinomian).  In these respects Philosophical Daoism is similar to Chan or Zen Buddhism and the koans or paradoxical statements and stories of the latter.  This is no accident, as Philosophical Daoism exerted a major influence on the Chan tradition when it was developing in China.   

Besides these meditation practices and wuwei, Philosophical Daoism encourages people not to seek fame or merit, to not get involved with politics (Zhuangzi taught this during a turbulent time of political turmoil, while Laozi was expressly concerned with politics - one of the main purposes of the latter in the Daodejing was to provide counsel on the best way to rule a country), and to not worry about the conventional moral notions taught by the likes of Confucius and Mozi.    

The Zhuangzi excels at presenting evocative stories and ideas that question conventional wisdom and jolt the mind into a state of greater awareness and lucidity.  Daoism takes non-duality to the limit (meaning it is fully, rather than only partially non-dual), as its non-duality applies to all facets of existence, and does not even accept conventional or antinomian ideas as valid in a qualified way.  It is thus the most profound of all traditions, and its sages, particularly Zhuangzi, are, in my opinion, the wisest people in human history. 

There is one area in which the Philosophical Daoism is not quite as strong as other traditions.  Overall, the three major texts of the tradition lack a systematic methodology for realizing the Dao, or the unknown and unknowable (through conventional means, anyway) source of all things.  The texts (especially the Zhuangzi) have some passages that describe various helpful practices, like those mentioned above, but they do not present them systematically.  Nonetheless, I think that it is possible to construct a basic methodology based on what the Zhuangzi teaches.

In addition to the teachings mentioned above, Zhuangzi taught that "if a man [or woman] follows the mind given him [or her] and makes it his [or her] teacher, then who can be without a teacher? . . . .  [T]o fail to abide by this mind and still insist upon your rights and wrongs . . . is to claim that what doesn't exist exists."  (Complete Works of Chuang Tzu, tr. Burton Watson, Chapter 2, pp. 38-39).  I interpret this passage as encouraging people to discover wisdom and enlightenment on their own, since it is immediately available in the mind of every person.  One can realize the Dao without relying on an external guru or teacher, and in fact, an external guru or teacher is wholly unnecessary.  This teaching is at odds with the teachings of Chan/Zen Buddhism, which emphasizes the importance of having a master; Advaita Vedanta, which (apart from Ramana Maharshi, at least, who was technically never initiated into any traditional lineage) emphasizes the importance of having a living guru; the tantric traditions teach that it is dangerous to practice tantric rituals and meditation without the aid of a qualified guru (although the tantric traditions, as well as most other traditions that teach the necessity of having a guru or master, never seem to recognize the dangers of giving individuals as much power over others as gurus and masters ordinarily have over their disciples); and many other traditions as well, including Sufism and the Western esoteric traditions (such as Hermeticism and Freemasonry), as well as the two major organized forms of Daoism, Quanzhen and Tianshi Dao (these are not the only two organized forms of Daoism historically, but they have had the most influence in Chinese history), teach that it is necessary to have a guru or master in order to advance spiritually.  

I want to clear something up before moving on.  I am a Philosophical Daoist.  I consider myself a student of Philosophical Daoism above all other traditions.  I am a student of the Zhuangzi above all, but I greatly respect the Daodejing and Liehzi as well.  Sometimes, I prefer not to identify myself as a Daoist at all, because in my opinion the organized traditions of Daoism such as Quanzhen and Tianshi Dao have virtually nothing in common with the teachings of these three great texts, and I do not wish to be associated with those organized traditions in any way.  I am a student of the Lao-Zhuang (or, as I would call it, the Zhuang-Lao) school of philosophy, whatever one may wish to call it.  The distinction between Philosophical Daoism and Organized or Religious Daoism is not the creation of modern Western scholars.  The distinction was originally drawn by Han Chinese historians about 2,000 years ago, as Daojia and Daojiao.  The former refers to the school of philosophy associated with Laozi, Zhuangzi, and Liezi, while the latter refers to organized traditions like Tianshi Dao.  I identify myself with the former, not the latter, and I believe that they should be regarded as separate traditions altogether.  Chinese popular religion or "folk religion" is, in turn, different than both Philosophical Daoism and Organized Daoism, as it incorporates at least as many elements from Confucianism, Buddhism, and the indigenous pre-literate traditions of what is now China as it does from Philosophical Daoism and Organized Daoism.

The Quanzhen, or Complete Reality/Truth school of Daoism, has useful meditative and internal-alchemical techniques, but unfortunately (from a Philosophical Daoist perspective) this school has embraced much of Buddhist and Confucian morality (including a large part of the vinaya or monastic code of the former and most of the social morality of the latter, both of which Laozi, Zhuangzi, and Liezi would have rejected), and so is far less compatible with Philosophical Daoism than many of the schools of other traditions (such as Chan/Zen Buddhism) (see Livia Kohn, Daoism and Chinese Culture, pp. 160-162, available at the link provided, for details on the Quanzhen school's moral code).  This is so because Philosophical Daoism explicitly rejects moralism like that which Confucianism and Buddhism (with the exception of Chan/Zen, at least in some cases, and some forms of Vajrayana Buddhism) proffer as wisdom and truth.   

The Tianshi Dao, or Heavenly Teachers school of Daoism, has elaborate magical rituals and has historically featured the rigorous observance of moral precepts (see Kohn, pp. 72-73), but has almost nothing in common with Philosophical Daoism other than the term Dao and ritual observances involving Laozi and the Daodejing (as far as I can tell).  In the Tianshi Dao, Laozi is deified, and so has little in common with the purported author of the Daodejing, who was simply a wise old man, not an immortal being.  Furthermore, the use of the term Dao does not automatically create common ground with Laozi, Zhuangzi, or Liezi, as the term Dao is not even exclusive to Daoism.  (For example, Confucius and Confucians have historically used the term Dao to refer to the universal moral law they believe in, and C.S. Lewis used it [and spelled it Tao, based on the then-prevalent Wade-Giles system of transliteration] for his own purposes in this sense in his book The Abolition of Man, but most emphatically not in the Philosophical Daoist sense). 

The Dao known to the Philosophical Daoists, and particularly to the greatest of them, Zhuangzi, is beyond all dualities, including all value judgments.  It is beyond good and evil, which are relative categories made up by human beings based on putting too much stock in arbitrary preferences (which vary from species to species, culture to culture, and person to person – and thus have no universal validity).  One must transcend the duality between good and evil, as well as the dualities between truth and falsehood and life and death, in order to realize the Dao.  (Many people will scoff at the idea of going beyond good and evil, and will question the practicality and wisdom of transcending the distinction between life and death, but only those who do these things can ever experience the infinite freedom of the Dao.)

This does not mean that one should embrace antinomian morality as opposed to conventional morality.  Rather, both types of value systems are based on arbitrary notions of good and evil that must be transcended in order to gain authentic wisdom and sagehood.  Wisdom and sagehood exist in potential form in all people, but can only be realized by knowing the Dao, which is not known by those caught up in duality, whether that duality is moralistic, metaphysical, epistemological, physical, aesthetic, or any other variety.  

Those caught up in duality have, at best, a highly limited form of wisdom that applies only to very limited worldly situations.  Their wisdom, if they can be said to have any, is represented by the quail, cicada, and dove in the opening passage of the first chapter of the Zhuangzi, as opposed to the limitless wisdom of the Perfect Man (i.e., Perfect Person) / Sage / Holy Man (i.e., Holy Person), whose authentic wisdom is represented by the Peng bird, or Roc, in this passage.  That passage can be accessed here.

Sometimes Philosophical Daoism, and especially the Zhuangzi, is considered a foray into relativism or an example of skepticism in Chinese philosophy.  While the three major texts of Philosophical Daoism can all be read this way (the Daodejing can also be read as Rousseauian romanticism or simple nature mysticism, while the Liezi is plainly hedonistic in spots), I believe that all three are attempts to describe the way the world is experienced by those who have become in tune with the Dao, who have recognized the Dao that cannot be told and live in total awareness of the Dao at all times.  The Dao is ultimately indescribable, but the Zhuangzi (along with the other two texts to a lesser degree) successfully describes the way the world is experienced by those who have realized the Dao.  In my opinion, that is the primary purpose of the text (and the other two mentioned), although like everything related to the Zhuangzi and the other two major texts of Philosophical Daoism, that is up for debate.

RECOMMENDED READING:

The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu, translated by Burton Watson (the most famous and popular translation of the Zhuangzi into English, and my personal favorite).

A shortened version of the above, Chuang Tzu: Basic Writings, has almost all of the best (or most popular) chapters of the text.

One can find an English translation of the Zhuangzi with Chinese characters at http://ctext.org/zhuangzi.  

My favorite English translation of the Daodejing is the translation by Stephen Addiss and Stanley Lombardo.  It balances the lyrical nature of the text with a serious scholarly attention to the difficult task of translating ancient Chinese into modern English. 

Another famous English translation of the Daodejing is by D.C. Lau.

Stephen Mitchell also has a translation of the Daodejing that many people like.  It is less literal (in fact it takes great liberties with the original text in spots), but generally captures the brilliance of the original, and flows better than many other translations.

A.C. Graham's translation of the Liezi is the most well-known English translation of that book.   

Finally, Livia Kohn's Daoism and Chinese Culture does a great job situating these texts in the context of Chinese history and Daoist religious, alchemical, magical, divinatory, monastic, and self-cultivation traditions, and provides an informative overview of those traditions.

Introduction to the Blog

The purpose of this blog is to provide a comparative account and analysis of various spiritual and ethical ideas from around the world. 

I am not an expert in all spiritual and ethical ideas, so I will try to limit my posts to what I know.

In this introductory post, I feel obliged to provide a few definitions, and to clarify the transliteration systems I will be using for terms from Sanskrit, Chinese, and other non-Western languages.  I do not consider this necessary with Greek terms, even though they were originally in a language with a non-Latin script.

"Spirituality": To be honest, I do not like this word.  Its meaning is quite amorphous, and its connotations are almost always uncertain.  However, other words that could potentially serve as alternatives, such as mysticism, yoga (originally, it meant more than just body and breath exercises), metaphysics, and religion, are equally problematic.  In this series, "spirituality" and "spiritual" connote the theory and practice of awakening to higher or more expansive modes of consciousness than the ordinary waking state, whether through union with a divinity, concentration on a specific idea, thing, or phrase, contemplation of the nature of reality, a mindfulness or awareness practice, or any other means.

"Yoga": despite its modern connotations limiting it to physical exercise and breath control (even Hatha Yoga, upon which all or virtually all modern Western yoga practices are based, was not originally limited to these two things), yoga literally means union and/or discipline (it is, in fact, a cognate of the modern English word "yoke").  The early forms of it in classical India included what we would call meditation, concentration, contemplation, morality, and ritual observances.  In the sense in which I will use it, it can refer to all of these things.  In fact, it can refer to everything aimed at achieving "spiritual" goals as I define the term.  (I realize that it is problematic to apply this term outside of its original South Asian context, just as it is problematic to apply terms like spirituality or religion to non-Western phenomena, but without such use of terms to translate or interpret the practices and beliefs of multiple cultures, it would be virtually impossible to understand anything in the world that did not occur in one's culture without first becoming fluent in the linguistic and cultural patterns of every culture and sub-culture and sub-sub-culture, and, heck, every particular family and every particular individual, in the world.)

"Ethics": this refers to the theoretical dimensions of morality.  Ethics is the study of the basis for evaluating actions, ideas, people, and other sentient beings as good or evil, or good or bad.  It is the study of the basis of all value judgments that do not concern inanimate objects and non-sentient life-forms.  Value judgments that concern inanimate objects, non-sentient life-forms, and even the mere form or structure of ideas, people, and other sentient beings is covered by the branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.  In my look at various ethical alternatives, I will do my best to analyze the practical dimensions of each variety of ethical theory.  I will refer to these practical dimensions as "morality."  My look at various moralities will be descriptive first, and evaluative later.

When transliterating Chinese, I will use the Pinyin system rather than the Wade-Giles system.  In the Pinyin system, the capital of China is translated "Beijing," while in the Wade-Giles system it is transliterated "Peking."  The (mythical?) founder of Daoism (which would be spelled Taoism if I were following Wade-Giles conventions) is Laozi rather than Lao Tzu in the Pinyin system.

When transliterating Sanskrit and other South Asian languages of the Indo-Aryan branch of the Indo-European family, I will not use diacritical marks.  I will also avoid the use of double vowels to connote longer as opposed to shorter vowels because, frankly, I don't think it aids in the correct pronunciation of words unless one constantly refers to a pronunciation guide, which makes reading tedious. Thus, if you want to know how to pronounce these words correctly in their original languages, you will need to look elsewhere.