“The Tao of Pooh is a light hearted wandering walk through the general teachings of Taoism using the characters of Winnie the Pooh as metaphoric means to contrast Taoist teachings with the extreme variants of other e philosophies, such as Confucian teachings and Buddhism.
This is done in the spirit of a famous Chinese allegorical painting entitled The Three Vinegar tasters. Hoff mentions and describes this very painting in the book. He did not make up this explanation and categorization of the three philosophies he merely tells the allegory as he was told it.
For an alternative reference and description of that painting you can check out the websites: http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/403vinegartasters.pdf
http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/japanese-confucianism.html
http://www.uuca.org/sources-of-wisdom-taoism
http://www.tai-chi-newcastle-nsw.com/vinegar_tasters.htm
To many of the reviewers of this book on Amazon this poking at the foibles of the characters to thus criticize the Confucists, or the Buddhists, in Hoff’s book seems to be such a radical idea and they, the critics, showed much hostility to Hoff’s writing. Clearly those reviewers failed to realize the history of China.
The rivalry of Taoist with Confucianism, goes as far back as the writings of Chuang Tzu wherein Taoism is continually contrasted with the rigidity of Confucian thinking.
Throughout Chinese history the three main philosophies of Confucianism , Taoism and Buddhism competed with each other. Sometimes it was academic and scholarly argumentation sometimes outright violent repression.
The period of Disunity in China was from around 200 thru 600 C. E., it was the period of the Three Kingdoms , the Sixteen States, and the Six dynasties. During this period Confucianism vied with Taoism and Buddhism for favor from the Chinese rulers. It was during this time that Confucianism and Taoism both attacked the teachings of the other two to win favor. For example: “Northern emperors twice repressed Buddhism. The first time, it was done one the advice of a Taoist priest and a Confucian minister, each of whom had both the ear of the emperor and personal reasons for disliking Buddhists. … The second repression resembled the first in several ways. Again, Taoists and Confucianists precipitated the attack by making the emperor suspicious of Buddhists.” [John T. Meskill, An Introduction to Chinese Civilization, D.C. Heath and Company, 1973pp 66-77]
“In politics for some eight centuries the church Taoists had one overriding objective: to win the Emperor’s favour and turn him against the Buddhists.” [Holmes Welch, Taoism: The Parting of the Way, 1965,p 151]
“This new book by Professor Livia Kohn is a fully annotated translation of a sixth-century anti-Taoist polemical text written by the official Zhen Luan during the reign of Emperor Wu (r. 560-78) of the Northern Zhou dynasty (556-81). The text, entitled Xiaodao lun [Laughing at the Tao], is one of many documenting the struggle for power and influence at court by rival Buddhists and Taoists. Acrimonious debates between the two began in the third century, when a Taoist named Wang Fou forged a sutra, the Huahu jing [Scripture of the Conversion of the Barbarians], in which Laozi is said to have traveled to the West and there, as the Buddha, convened the "barbarians" to Buddhism. Taoism was thus claimed to be superior to Buddhism. This was denied by the Buddhists, starting a debate that continued throughout the fifth and sixth centuries and later.” [Laughing at the Tao: Debates Among Buddhists and Taoists in Medieval China Princeton University Press; annotated edition edition (May 15, 1995)]
This competition continued on up to the Cultural Revolution of Mao when Communism repressed all opposing philosophies.
Though it is important to recall as well, that not all were hostile to the other’s teachings and ideas. “In contrast to the hostility of some Confucianists and Taoists who exploited such opportunities, there were always moderating tendencies as well, such as the habit of intellectual syncretism and tolerance of other schools of thought.” [Meskill, p. 76]
Another criticism by reviewers of Hoff’s book is his seeming attack on science and learning. This too is not a radical departure from traditional Taoism if one truly understands what Lao Tzu and Hoff means the seeming attacks are revealed into clarity. For example:
“Eliminate learning so as to have no worries” chapter 20 as translated by Ellen M. Chen.
“Therefore, when the sage rules: He empties the minds of his people.” Chapter 3 translated by Ellen M. Chen.
“In being enlightened and comprehending all, can you do it without knowledge?” chapter 10 translated by Ellen M. Chen.
So, it seems that the Taoist favors ignorance and is anti-intellectual. But this is to misinterpret Taoism. It is important to always recognize that the Tao is founding harmony, blending and balance. It favors the Yin over the Yang not because Yin is always better, but because people have the greater tendency to attack from Yang. So, to balance this tendency Lao Tzu emphasizes the opposite, in order to create the needed balance and harmony. The same with learning, it is not that he is against knowledge and study, he is against all philosophic beliefs that act with rigidity and claim exclusive possession of truth and claim to be superior to all other systems. That kind of knowledge is what Lao Tzu says we need less of. This rigid, exclusive claim to be the only truth is the kind of thinking he wants to empty the people of and says that the enlightened can do without. That is how both Hoff and Lao Tzu ‘attacks’ learning, knowledge, Confucianism and science.
Hoff uses the characters in Winnie the Pooh just as Chuang Tzu uses animals and creatures as metaphors and allegorical beings to tell teaching lessons of flexibility and an opposition to rigid thinking.
Hoff’s book is a wonderful introduction to the whimsy of Taoism once you understand and appreciate its approach. Always seek balance, flexibility, balance and harmony. There is no one way only the gentle meandering way of Pooh and of flowing water.
”
grayraven wrote this review Friday, January 6, 2012.
(
reply |
permalink )
