Is Confucianism really a religion?

[Silverbackman]

Confucianism is more of a ethical system than a religion. It has no metaphysical concepts (correct me if I'm wrong), no God, or a concept of an afterlife. It is more or less like a moral idealogy than a religion. At least Taoism at least has metaphysical concepts.

So why is Confucianism considred a classical religion?

[jiii]

I think Confucianism, although certainly embroiled in the realm of moral or ethical biases, was a religion. In fact, Confucius mentioned the 'Tao' numerous times in his works...sometimes even more so than Chuang-Tzu and Lieh-Tzu.

A funny way to look at it is that Confucianism was a type of over-zealous Taoism. Of course, it was exactly this over-ambitious and strangely insistive aspect of Confucianism that gained Confucius many spots in Chuang-Tzu in which he was the butt of jokes and portrayed as the melodramatic, though always noble, student-master. Even Taoism, however, oftentimes cites Confucius as relatively wise...though this could arguably be a somewhat sarcastic way of putting words into the Masters mouth.

Nonetheless, Confucianism is a pretty distinguishable thread of Eastern Philosophy or thought, and it is quite clear that during the dynasty of 'A Hundred Schools of Thought' each Master won the unmoving spiritual devotion of his followers. I suppose that even if Confucianism doesn't look like much of a religion on paper, it was quite religious in practice during its more popular and steadfastly-studied age.

[Silverbackman]

So basically Taoism and Confucianism are complementary to each other and more like one religion or what?

In any case my understanding is that Confucianism is more or less an ethical philosophy, can someone tell me the metaphysical concepts in Confucianism as well as stuff geared more to religion? Otherwise you might as well say Marxism is a religion.

[jiii]

Heh, I see what you're saying.

Well, from my understanding, both Taoism and Confucianism share the same original shamanistic roots (the 'tao' is suspected to be a concept that derived much earlier than discernable 'Taoism'). It seems that the reason that 'Confucianism' ended up being named after Confucius, whereas Taoism was not named after an individual man, was that Kung Fu Tzu's teachings were essentially his particular ethical/moral 'take' on Taoist teachings and principles and metaphysical concepts. The two really do go hand in hand, which is likely why Confucius is mentioned so many times in Chuang-Tzu and Lieh-Tzu. Confucius didn't have a foot to stand on without the metaphysical postulations and more poetic teachings of Taoism. I suppose that if you look at Confucianism as a stand-alone doctrine, it IS more of an ethical code. After all, this is why Chuang-Tzu and Lieh-Tzu criticize him so much...because his specialty in historic accounts was found mostly in his 'sermons', which the Taoists considered to be quite one-sided, and so contrary to the 'non-grasping' attitude of their doctrine and their 'wei wu wei' in practice. The Taoists saw Confucius as a man that, perhaps out of over-zealous compassion, tried to simplify Taoism into more of a mental construction that would win popular support out of its less 'esoteric' attitudes...though, they felt that he, even if unintentionally, betrayed their religion by doing this. However, Confucius' teachings weren't a standalone doctrine really, which is why he wrote so much about the 'tao'. Confucianism in comparison to Taoism, is somewhat similar to, say, Buddhism versus Zen Buddhism. However, unlike the latter mentioned pairing, the Taoists quite often suggested that Confucius was something of a 'lost' student of Taoism. You be the judge :-)

[Silverbackman]

Well then another important question would be did either Confucias or Lao claim to have divine revelation from God, in fact did they ever even mention God? In fact did they claim to make a religion, or did people later on call the two religions?Or did they only mean to set up an ethical system on life, and as well anwer a few question unknow at the time?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Silverbackman,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

Well then another important question would be did either Confucias or Lao claim to have divine revelation from God, in fact did they ever even mention God? In fact did they claim to make a religion, or did people later on call the two religions?Or did they only mean to set up an ethical system on life, and as well anwer a few question unknow at the time?

it is worth bearing in mind that during the time which Kung Fu Tze arose, this period of Chinese history is called the "Warring States Period" and, in most respects, was a breakdown of the social fabric of Chinese society.

many of Kung Fu Tzes teachings are, therefore, geared towards the re-establishment of the social order for the peace and prosperity of beings.

as Jiii has indicated, in many of the Taoist texts, Kung Fu Tze is portrayed as being wise, but not a Sage.

having said that.. let me address your questions.

no, neither tradition claims to be a revelation from any sort of divine being as we would typically understand the concept. whilst it is true enough that the Yellow Emperor is considered to be divine, the Chinese view of divinity is not what we find in the Western religous traditions.

there is a lay manual in China called the Secret of the Golden Flower and, herein, the Three Schools are brought into harmony with each other. the three schools being Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism. there are two extant translations of this book, one by a German named Wilhelm and one by Thomas Cleary. if you have the opportunity to read this text, i would highly recommend the Cleary translation.

metta,

~v

[jiii]

I think an interesting note on this topic is found in Chuang Tzu. I don't recall the details of the story, but the more notable portion (I have sort of rewritten it from memory, but have tried to remain as close to the original story as I could). This doesn't really shed any light on the finer points of our talk, but I believe it is simply pertinent in a very loose way.

=====

A disciple of Confucius was being asked about the Tao by a layman, of sorts, and was responding with the various traits that one who has 'grasped the Tao' might exhibit. After the disciple finished answering all of the questions, he was asked," Why don't you embody these traits?" The disciple responded shortly that he did not have enough courage to do so, or something along those lines. The next question was," Well, does your master embody all of the things you have told me about the Tao?" The disciple responded," Well, not exactly. My Master (referring to Confucius) is a man that, although able to, is also able not to."

=====

Of course, this was a Taoist characterization of Confucius. The Taoists typically suggested, in one way or another, that "once a man has realized the Way", as they call it, "he can no longer do anything else." This might provide an idea as to how the Taoists felt about Confucius.

I'm not really willing to interpret this any further, as it would be very easy to draw bogus conclusions...but I think it is an interesting sidenote to our talk here.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste jiii,


agreed. it is rather difficult for us moderns to have a real understanding of the cultural millieu in which the traditions arose except through rather dry and academic history texts and so forth.

perhaps it isn't all that surprising to see that the traditonal Taoist veiw would assert that Confucian praxis were good, but not quite the same. equally, one would expect to find the counter assertion from the Confucious school... and we do.

overall, and perhaps this is simply my own method of inetegration, i think that each of the traditions has an exoteric and esoteric aspect. in the exoteric aspect, the traditions can be rather dissimilar, whereas in the esoteric aspect, the traditions can be in harmony.

just my view, of course

metta,

~v