Absurdism

[Angrboda]

Ive been meaning to study Taoism more indepth. An absurdist would approach the idea of ancestor spirits and immortals as something to laugh at as absurd. They would point out the lack of "furniture spirits" of past furniture your ancestors owned, and ask why they were not being revered as well?

It's important to understand that there are essentially three separate Taoisms, and blends of them.

1) The lesser Tao, which is primarily based upon the Laozi and the Zhuangzi, which many people consider more a philosophy than a religion. Ancestor worship, saints and gods are not really a part of this (and spirits, ala the Shinto kami are quite foreign).

2) The greater Tao, which formed over the centuries through incorporation of monastic heirarchies, alchemy, "hygiene" [the use of foods and herbs to achieve immortality], gods and saints, and all manner of whatnot. The official canon of greater Taoism consists of nearly 1500 texts, and I doubt whether many have read or embraced the entire corpus, outside of churches and monasteries.

3) Folk Taoism, being that segment of Chinese folk religion which is based on the greater and lesser Tao. It is here, if anywhere, you will find gods, saints and "the immortals" being given prominence. Chinese folk religion tends to blend Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism together in much the same way that a health consumer would go to a different specialist depending on what's troubling them.

Anyway, I follow the lesser Tao, and while I consider it a religion because of the normative nature of its metaphysics, spooks, gods and dead ancestors are not really a part of it. As a historical matter, Tian [roughly translated as 'heaven'] is mentioned in the Laozi, but not as a foundational concept, and given the vagueries and complexity of the concept in Chinese philosophical tradition preceding the hundred schools period (when Taoism initially flourished), it's best not to read too much into it.

Re: absurdism, I guess I would need a fuller exposition to consider. I'm unconvinced that you would so cavalierly dismiss the adjusted reality that eternal suffering might present. And to be more philosophically precise, I'm not certain that what I understand absurdism to be given your presentation does not commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. Regardless, such considerations will have to await another day; I have committed myself to conducting a round table discussion on the various philosophies of truth next week, and I barely understand them myself. (Oy vey, what did I get myself into!)