even more significance if considered in conjunction with the pieces on Hinduism
collected by Alf Hiltebeitel in Criminal Gods and Demon Devotees(1989). The
debate regarding not just the manner in which the various components of
Chinese religion relate to each other—on which see Timothy Brook, ‘Rethinking
Syncretism’ (1993)—but also what those components are is likely to continue
for the foreseeable future. In any case, there is no agreement as to the relation
between the traditional ‘Three Teachings’ and ‘popular religion’, on the one
hand, and ‘state religion’, on the other. To complicate an already complicated
situation, in Manufacturing Confucianism(1997) Lionel Jensen has maintained
that one of those components was indeed ‘manufactured’—Confucius by Jesuit
missionaries and Kongzi by the Chinese themselves. In any case, there is no
East Asian equivalent of ‘Hinduism’, and, as a result, ‘Chinese religion’ cannot
(yet?) serve as a means of asserting one’s cultural identity, despite the occasional
journalistic references to the role played by Confucianism in the economic
prowess of Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea, and Singapore. It may be mentioned,
however, that the author of this essay had the fortune of having a student born
in China, who, instead of improperly defining herself as ‘Daoist’, ‘Buddhist’ or
‘Confucian’, would say in a purely descriptive manner, ‘I am Chinese religion’—
the expression being used, it should be stressed, not because of any linguistic
insufficiencies on her part, but rather in the same manner in which one could
say ‘I am Christian’ or ‘Muslim’ or ‘Buddhist’.
Daoism.For years, all one could find in English about Daoism, other than
translations of the Daodejing, was Welch’s Taoism: The Parting of the Way
(1957); a number of Creel’s essays, collected in What is Taoism?(1970); and
a couple of collective volumes, including Facets of Taoism, edited by Welch
and Anna Seidel (1979). The situation has changed radically, so that now, in
addition to the uninterrupted flow of translations of the Laozi, one has access
to a large number of studies. They include the indispensable Daoism Hand-
book, edited by Livia Kohn (2000), many of whose contributors are based in
the United States (which is not the case with the contributors to The Taoist
Canon, 2004); Kohn is also the author of Daoism and Chinese Culture(2001),
one of the several overviews of this tradition now available. Less an overview
than an often polemical attempt to rethink the field of Daoist studies is Russell
Kirkland’s Taoism, The Enduring Tradition(2004). Seeking to counteract
generalized misconceptions about the connection between the Daodejingand
the entire Daoist tradition, he writes:
for the most part, Taoiststhroughout history modelled their lives on the
teachings found in the Tao te chingand the Chuang-tzuto about the same
extent that Christians, from the time of Jesus’s crucifixion to the present
day, have modelled their lives on the teachings contained in Jesus’s
parables.
(2004: 69)
1111
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1011
1
2
3111
4 5 6 7 8 9
20111
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
30111
1
2
3
4
35
6
7
8
9
40111
42222
3
411
NORTH AMERICA
263
