164
JULIAN F. PAS
So far so good: I can agree with some factual statements expressed here but do not understand the logic of the author's reasoning, as, for instance, expressed in his conclusion (pp. 167-168);
"Life and death, and the idea of pollution and purity show a remarkable consistency in ordering the religious concepts of the Taiwanese, be they ordinary folk or priests. The fact that they apply equally to Buddhists and Taoists shows that there is an underlying reality behind the apparent diversity of the two religions. I would say that this is evidence that the distinction between life and death services is as analytically useful as the distinction between Taoism and Buddhism in trying to understand the manner in which the average Taiwanese townsman understands his religion."
Not digressing about the curious statement about "the apparent diversity of Buddhism and Taoism", I'd like to point out that the author is trying to punch open doors. Here we come to the central theme of this book: the author has rejected the traditional three-fold division of Chinese religion as inadequate and unworkable, but overlooks the possibility that the popular religion is in fact a totally different entity. He does not have to prove that according to the folk religion the universe is divided into two realms: life and death, pure and impure. On the one hand, this division is part of their world view: on the other hand, it should not be over-emphasized; and equally the classification of temples based on ritual purity and impurity should not be over-emphasized either. Philosophically and historically speaking the author's "thesis" is very shaky. This chapter is full of inaccuracies and subtle distortions and, in my view, the conclusion built on them has no validity.
From a philosophical viewpoint, the argument is weak. Although the author states that "the symbolic universe of Taiwanese religion is too rich..." and that he will examine only "a few of its major features" (p. 136), he does not fulfil his promise. He has not attempted to explain to us the general religious world view of Taiwan's folk religion. The yin and yang concepts are part of this, but are not the only major feature. Besides, even the yin-yang philosophy has not been treated well. He over-states the dichotomy whereas in Chinese philosophy there is no such strict dichotomy but rather polarity. As a result, he also over-states the dichotomy of pure and polluted, of life and death. At least the author should have explored
!
I
164
JULIAN F. PAS
So far so good: I can agree with some factual statements ex- pressed here but do not understand the logic of the author's reason- ing, as, for instance, expressed in his conclusion (pp. 167-168);
"Life and death, and the idea of pollution and purity show a remarkable consistency in ordering the religious concepts of the Taiwanese, be they ordinary folk or priests. The fact that they apply equally to' Buddhists and Taoists shows that there is an underlying reality behind the apparent diversity of the two religions. I would say that this is evidence that the distinction between life and death services is as analytically useful as the distinction between Taoism and Buddhism in trying to under- stand the manner in which the average Taiwanese townsman understands his religion."
Not digressing about the curious statement about "the apparent diversity of Buddhism and Taoism", I'd like to point out that the author is trying to punch open doors. Here we come to the central theme of this book: the author has rejected the traditional three- fold division of Chinese religion as inadequate and unworkable, but overlooks the possibility that the popular religion is in fact a totally different entity. He does not have to prove that according to the folk religion the universe is divided into two realms: life and death, pure and impure. On the one hand, this division is part of their world view: on the other hand, it should not be over- emphasized; and equally the classification of temples based on ritual purity and impurity should not be over-emphasized either. Philosophically and historically speaking the author's "thesis” is very shaky. This chapter is full of inaccuracies and subtle distor- tions and, in my view, the conclusion built on them has no validity.
From a philosophical viewpoint, the argument is weak. Although the author states that "the symbolic universe of Taiwanese religion is too rich..." and that he will examine only "a few of its major features" (p. 136), he does not fulfil his promise. He has not attemp- ted to explain to us the general religious world view of Taiwan's folk religion. The yin and yang concepts are part of this, but are not the only major feature. Besides, even the yin-yang philosophy has not been treated well. He over-states the dichotomy whereas in Chinese philosophy there is no such strict dichotomy but rather polarity. As a result he also over-states the dichotomy of pure and polluted, of life and death. At least the author should have explored
!
I
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.