Sacred Unity

Hinduism is the South Asian religion. The core conception of Hinduism is “the sacred unity in mundane and sacred multiplicity” (Magagna, 2016). One sacred unity, but multiplicity is the part of unity. Multiplicity implies humans with different interests and ideas, and gods with different aspects. The salvation means unity with the whole, narrowing the gap coming from multiplicity. In this sense, even in the mundane, the sacred life is the important issue. That is, the unity of the mundane becomes the sacred unity.

Taoism is the East Asia religion (Magagna, 2016). Taoism is a salvation religion, focused on master of the dynamic process. Tao means totality of dynamic existence. It means all existence is changing in definite patterns. Thus, concentrating

the whole, the believers should improve the spiritual and physical being to see the whole situation. Knowledge helps to master the incipient changes. The incipient change is important because if the beginning of the change is notified, the action would be changed, and then the results of the action differentiate the whole situation.
The Hinduism identifies no distinction between the sacred and the mundane. Much Indian life is permeated with religious symbols, structures and institutions. However, at the same time, Hindu belief and practice are hidden while they focus on the “inside of families and neighborhoods” (Magagna, 2016). It indicates the cost of fusion. While the mundane subordinated to the sacred, Hinduism experienced corruption of the faith and distortion of the goal. On the other hand, Taoism asserts the original unity is “the emptiness, and formless, the Void” (Oxtoby and Segal, 2013). It encourages “self-cultivation for the sake of harmony in the universe” (Oxtoby and Segal, 2013). It means Taoism more focuses on self rather than the relationship with others. Harmonization in Taoism means ‘doing nothing’, wuwie, maintaining “a state of mind or being in which one can be so permeated by the Way that one acts in concert with it, free of self, intention, or ulterior motives” (Oxtoby and Segal, 2013). In other words, Hindu traditions and Taoism are similar in the doctrine of faith is synergism, and both established de-centralized institutions. However, in terms of the balance of power between church and states, the local institutions of Taoism made the sacred subordinated to the mundane while the local institutions of Hinduism, as each centralized institutions, made the mundane subordinated to the sacred, giving impossible goals for people being more than human.
Hinduism and Taoism are similar in their faith as doctrine: synergism (Magagna, 2016). Under this doctrine, Hinduism and Taoism have been developed as social religion to influence and be influenced by other religion. Synergy means mixing things together to increase the power and the productivity (Magagna, 2016). Taoism facilitated synergism and institutional interpretation because of “emphasis on mastering the whole” (Magagna, 2016). It drove the cooperation between Taoist and Buddhist, as the whole, to arise rebellion as collective action for religion and politics. To illustrate, a movement group, “the White Lotus Society” included Buddhists and Taoist, and it played a “substantial role in the overthrow of the Mongolian Yuan dynasty” (Oxtoby and Segal, 2013). On the other hand, Hinduism was cultural influenced from the Middle East and India, and “encompasses an amazing plurality of traditions”, Oxtoby and Segal states. It means Hinduism and Taoism, under the synergism, because of the faith of doctrines, Hinduism and Taoism could open to adaption and innovation, socially, technologically, and politically.
Without no bright line, Hindu Traditions and Taoism both could design the de-centralized governance, which means The Hindu Traditions and Taoism are low barriers to entry and exit, do not insist state monopoly, but facilitate adaptation and innovation (Magagna, 2016). Actually, Taoist and The Hindu Traditions show how decentralization facilitates innovation. For example, Oxtoby and Segal state, especially Northern India in the twelfth century, “cultural influences from the Middle East and India gave rise to extraordinary innovations in all the arts, from music and dance to poetry and architecture” (Oxtoby and Segal, 2013). The Hindu Tradition also facilitates the adaption of technology “from astoronmy and astrology to music and dance, from phonetics to plants” (Oxtoby and Segal, 2013). Oxtoby and Segal state they act the “essential in the practice of their religion” (Oxtoby and Segal, 2013). In the same vein, Taoist revised and developed technologies of salvation by adopting Buddhism and Confucianism. Specifically, medicine and medical knowledge was accumulated with the concerns for the health. Likewise, interpenetrating boundaries and de-centralized governance become their political institutions.
However, the characteristic of de-centralized governance is costly to organize collective action and maintain orthodoxy. Thus, the Hindu Tradition and Taoism established local religious institutions. Typically, religious leaders lead local religious institutions. Local religious institutions are important since although faith is powerful in people lives, it requires the place to be practice. Community religious institutions allow religious people to practice their worship, and prove their identity, and recognize their sources of collective action and social networks. In this way, religious leaders are acted as the source of collective action, in order to mobilize the people for political action. For this reason, local religious institutions were the key element that diverged between the features of two religions and between South Bhakti (a Hindu mass movement) and the Hindu Tradition.
That is, the emergence of local institutions changed the structural design of the religion and the relations with the state. In local Hindu institutions, politically, socially, and economically, the mundane are subordinated to the sacred. In Taoism, the sacred are subordinated to the mundane.
The subordination caused the problem: the cost of fusion. All religions feature the fundamental division of labor distinction that becomes institutionalized between the sacred and the mundane (Magagna, 2016). The sacred means the bodies of peoples’ life while the mundane means their everyday life, such as work, wealth, and power, and war. In this way, the sacred also indicates the church whereas the mundane indicates the state: the priest and the prince. Taking one step further, the priest indicates the religion, and the prince indicates the political and government. The sacred, such as temples, focused on worship, salvation, and doctrine, while the mundane focused on social and political order, and economic regulations. They are different part of society. Thus, one cannot be absorbed by the other without destroying the importance of the distinctions. In general, the costs are the corruption of the faith, distortion of goals, and manipulation. Distortion means confusion of goals. When the sacred become subordinated to secular goal, it emerges the power maximization of the rulers. When the mundane become subordinated to sacred, people have to be more than human by giving impossible goals. When two regulatory claims, each from religion and politics, are cooperated, then it would turn out the balance of power. Otherwise, it would make conflicts between social morality and social order.
In this sense, in Hinduism, the mundane become subordinated to sacred, and people have to be more than human by giving impossible goals with the corruption of the faith (Magagna, 2016). Local Hinduism are responsible for the costs because, before the emergence of Hindu mass movement, the state and the religion seemed to be separated without making confusion. Specifically, when the believers in Hinduism are asked about their religion, “they generally refer not to Hinduism but rather to their particular caste, community, or linguistic group” (Oxtoby and Segal, 2013). However, the traditional Hinduism was “open to people of every caste, from high to low” (Oxtoby and Segal, 2013). It means people had become more influenced by the centralized local Hinduism, rather than traditional Hinduism. They were identified in their local ritual and local Hindu principles. Furthermore, Oxtoby and Segal (2013) state, “The supreme being is believed to also reside in the local temple”, and “[s]pecific teachings very depending on sectarian tradition, regions, and community”. These two statements indicate that the religious ritual and practice are not unified with Hindu traditions. Rather, they are designed, changed, and innovated in local institutions, barely extended and influence to other regions. Moreover, “the rules were not followed strictly in all regions of India, and the caste system was far more complex and flexible” (Oxtoby and Segal, 2013). It means that, in some local area, religious rules or ritual were not forced, and their sacred duties were not compulsory. It depended on local institutions rather than global institutions as a whole. In addition, Hindu traditions did not discriminate the low-caste. They even “made explicit their contempt for the caste system” (Oxtoby and Segal, 2013). Thus, Hinduism has been transformed from more de-centralized institution to the centralized institution. It is influenced by local Hindu institutions; it means their development of from collective action to religious politics, and political religion.
“Local manifestation is extremely important in Hinduism. Every village has its own deity” (Oxtoby and Segal, 2013). Especially, south Bhakti influenced the mundane, social morality, and political religion. Bhakti developed the local religious institutions into political religion by subordinating to the sacred, the religion. According to Oxtoby and Segal (2013), South Indian created “an entirely the new type of Hindu devotion (bhakti) emerged and spread throughout India”. Especially, the bhakti movement was “a major shift in Hindu culture” because, from temple to temple, devotees traveled and used Tamil language and literature, which were different from Sanskrit, the class language. It means the South Bhakti changed the tradition of Hinduism. Powerful devotional works were reinforced, and far more guidance was offered. Especially, “the empirical self is ignored and denigrated” (Ho, 1995). It indicates the state became subordinated to the religion. The mundane became subordinated to the sacred. In this way, “Deities in Hindu temples are treated like kings and queens” (Oxtoby and Segal, 2013).
On the other hand, local Taoists were remained in de-centralized institutions although they were engaged in collective actions for religious politics and political religion.

The characteristic of Taoism is Taoism “does not exist in isolation: it shares the religious commons with a secular Confucianism, a devoutly committed Buddhism” (Oxtoby and Segal, 2013). In general, Taoism, Taoist collective practices, such as ritual, exercise, meditation, facilitates collective action for religion and politics. By using their books and rituals, local religious institutions began to create their political power and political issues. Local institutions are where their collective action began, and they are the place to establish the religious power. Specifically, the Celestial Masters and Yellow Kerchiefs are two main local institutions. The Celestial is the orthodox unity, which highlighted inner alchemy, emphasizing social stability. For the social stability, the orthodox unity focused on purification (Zhai) and renewal (Jiao) (Oxtoby and Segal, 2013). Oh the other hand, Yellow Kerchiefs is close to philosophy teaching, claiming inward training and long life. Eventually the Celestial Masters had the power over Yellow Kerchiefs during the Han period. It is because the Orthodox Unity operated “as a kind of celestial bureaucracy to whom believers could present their appeals just as they did to state bureaucrats in ordinary life” (Oxtoby and Segal, 2013). They established “a new relationship between the gods and humans”. The new relationship means that operations as a kind of celestial bureaucracy to whom believers could present their appeals just as they did to state bureaucrats in ordinary life” (Oxtoby and Segal, 2013). As the religion and as the priest, they engaged themselves in the mundane life, the state. It is the opposite direction with the local Hindu institutions. The religion passed over the authority to the state. The sacred empowered the mundane. In this way, “the

sect established a theocracy in the state of the Wei kingdom” (Oxtoby and Segal, 2013). According to the professor, Magagna, theocracy is the alternative to subordination model.
As has been noted, even in subordination models, the division of labor between the sacred and mundane is maintained in Hinduism and Taoism. In Hinduism, the religion took that all religious institutions make a specific claim to regulate secular power and institutions (Magagna, 2016). They, at minimum, claimed toleration, no interference with the faith. At the maximum, they claim enforcement of social religion and moral claims. The state makes regulatory claims on faith and religions institutions. In Taoism, the state make regulatory claims on faith and religions institutions. State claimed, at minimum, the maintenance of public order, and at maximum, doctrine and clergy. In return, religious institutions claim regulatory power over social religion of members, revenues, and right to address social conscience.
All things considered, South Asia religion, Hinduism, and East Asia religion, Taoism, are similar in terms of both of them are political religion and religious politics. Hindu traditions and Taoism are also similar in the doctrine of faith is synergism. However, they are different in terms of Hinduism took the state to make regulatory claims on faith and religion institutions while Taoism took all religious institutions to make a specific claim to regulate secular power and institutions: subordination model. The results might have been brought up from the their conception of the faith. Taoism pursued simplicity, stillness, and harmony, and the ultimate being with the cosmos. On the other hand, Hinduism emphasized the sacred responsibility and duties, and interaction with family, caste, and community. Taoism more concentrated inward salvation while Hinduism focused on the social relationships. The harmony that Taoism claimed was to make self the formless and the emptiness whereas the sacred unity Hinduism claimed was the practice of caste, social and religious duties. Even though Taoism and Hinduism shared the subordination model, the result might have been diverged because of the core conception of the religion.