Priests studying in Russia for mission in China?

[Ryan]

I read some news items from a few years back, that said that about a dozen Chinese Orthodox were studying in a Russian seminary, with a view to hopefully serving parishes in China. Has anyone heard any recent news about this, or about mainland Chinese Orthodoxy in general?

[Peter]

Hello Ryan,

Here are a couple of links to get you started,

http://www.saintjonah.org/services/chinese.htm

http://www.orthodox.cn/index_en.html

Hope this helps,

In Christ,

Petros

[Scott Pierson]

The book "Christ the Eternal Tao" has a section on Orthodoxy in China. Its a really good read too. It looks into the Tao Te Ching from an Orthodox perspective. The basic gist is that early taoism teached a doctrine simmilar to the greek logos doctrine which in turn has areas of agreement with Christian doctrine (sort of a pagan old testament looking forward to Christs advent in a way). It also points out some of the ethical similiaritys and such. It claims that the early religion of China was monotheistic* and that polytheism was a later degeneration. It does all that without falling into synchretism ( or labeling another religion as being equal to Christianity) like most books of that nature do. It has a lot of good information on hesycashm as well and is worth reading for that alone.

*another interesting ancient monotheistic religion to read up on is Zoroastrianism. R.C. Zaehner has a good book on that topic. It would only make sense that the first religions were monothestic (and why certain reformers like Zarathustra and Ankenaton would try to bring back the old ways as they understood them to be) seeing as how Adam and Eve knew for a fact that God was real and that He was one. And you can see from history how certain peoples preserved hints of that primordial revelation.

[Ryan]

As someone who's studied Daoism for a while, I'd have to say that the interpretation that Daoism was originally monotheistic, but later degenerated into paganism, is probably derived from a common misinterpretation by Victorian academics and Confucian scholars. They divided Daoism into "philosophical Daoism" and a later "religious Daoism." Actually the philosophical school of Laozi never called themselves Daoist- they were considered Daoist retroactively, by the "religious" Daoists, who incorporated the philosophy of Laozi along with various shamanic and alchemical practices.

The Dao De Jing is a very vague book, and this has allowed commentators to interpret it in some very different ways, but no ancient Chinese commentator that I know of has interpreted it in a monotheistic way. While it is possible that Laozi's Dao could be interpreted like the Logos of the Greeks, it also includes ideas of Yin and Yang and emanations from the Dao that would be distinctly incompatible with Christian doctrine. Chapter 4 states that the Dao existed before "di", which is usually interpreted as divine beings. Chapter 50 hints at the quest for immortality that later characterized Daoism.

Daoism as a pagan religion in fact follows the Dao De Jing to a surprising degree. I don't want to diminish the value of the Dao De Jing, it's a beautiful book, and there are even many beautiful and fascinating things in Daoism itself, but these are the products of a culture that is infused with paganism through and through.

[Scott Pierson]

I'd have to say that the interpretation that Daoism was originally monotheistic

The book doesnt claim that Daoism was originally monotheistic in fact it specifically states that Lao tzu didnt understand the personal nature of the Tao/ logos. He did appear to believe in a single absolute principle but he didnt understand that the absolute is also personal. It does say that the early Chinese tradition (long before the birth of taoism) was monotheistic. Interestingly enough in Chinese translations of the Bible "the Word "/ "Logos" is often translated as Tao (in the begining was the Tao and the Tao was with God...)


The Dao De Jing is a very vague book, and this has allowed commentators to interpret it in some very different ways

I have noticed that... the wildely divergent ways of understanding it that is.


it also includes ideas of Yin and Yang
That may be. The book doesnt claim that every aspect of the religion is compatible.

[Scott Pierson]

The book doesnt claim that Daoism was originally monotheistic

I guess I was wrong when I said that I was just skimming through the book again and he does claim him to be a monotheist. I guess they are using the word in a broader way then I usually do to include those who hold to a single impersonal absolute ( which I guess could be termed God).

The book is really good. It discusses the understanding of the fathers in regards to prechristian faiths. Both the truths to be found in them as well as their limitations and the unique and superior nature of Christianity. It looks at both greek philosophy and Taoism in that regard. I think its author entended it to help bring people who grew up Christian but later went over to eastern religions back to the Church.

[Ryan]

I should just check out the book for myself... it seems like it would be very illuminating, whether I agree with it fully or not. It definitely sounds like something to get us thinking in a very interesting direction. How long is the section on Chinese Orthodoxy by the way? I remember seeing this book in a store years ago, and thinking it was probably some weird new age thing about how all religions are the same... obviously that's not what it is.

I notice that the book has two Chinese illustrators, are they also Orthodox?

I guess I'm sort of sceptical because Daoism is often badly misinterpreted in the west, often in Protestant ways, particularly through a weird application of "sola scriptura"that says only the Dao De Jing and the book of Zhuangzi are "real" Daoism, which was a completely arbitrary assertion. This narrative goes on to say that Daoism was later corrupted by pagan beliefs and priesthood, rituals, etc.- again, a very Protestant view. Which is not to say that Hieromonk Damascene subscribes to this scheme.

I will get this book though, thanks for the recommendation.

[Kris]

I should just check out the book for myself... it seems like it would be very illuminating, whether I agree with it fully or not. It definitely sounds like something to get us thinking in a very interesting direction. How long is the section on Chinese Orthodoxy by the way?


Hi,

The appendix on Chinese Orthodoxy is about 17 pages.



I guess I'm sort of sceptical because Daoism is often badly misinterpreted in the west, often in Protestant ways, particularly through a weird application of "sola scriptura"that says only the Dao De Jing and the book of Zhuangzi are "real" Daoism, which was a completely arbitrary assertion. This narrative goes on to say that Daoism was later corrupted by pagan beliefs and priesthood, rituals, etc.- again, a very Protestant view. Which is not to say that Hieromonk Damascene subscribes to this scheme.


I must confess to not having read the whole thing; only about half. I started reading it a while ago, then I put it down for some reason, and I just haven't got round to finishing it. But the half I did read was excellent.

I think Fr. Damascene has based most of his research on that of the late Fr. Seraphim Rose, who prior to his conversion to Orthodoxy was active in Buddhism and Taoism, studying under traditional Chinese sages.

In fact, he learned both ancient and modern Chinese (not sure which dialect) and spoke it so well most Chinese people couldn't tell he was American when they closed their eyes (I'm sure his biography is exaggerating this just a little - I've yet to hear an American speak a foreign language without an accent - but it shows he was pretty good).

He used his skills to translate many Taoist texts from their original Chinese into English, and believed strongly that any religion should be followed in its original form (hence his later conversion to Orthodoxy).

So, assuming Fr. Damascene was faithful to Fr. Seraphim's work, I don't think you'll find the Western misrepresentation (atleast not to the same extent) you're worried about.

In XC,
Kris