Daoism in History: Essays in Honor of Liu Ts'un-yan Edited by Benjamin Penny
Daoism in History: Essays in Honor of Liu Ts'un-yan Edited by Benjamin Penny is part of a new series of books about Taoism of "high scholarly standards". It was very enjoyable, unfortunately due to time constraints I wasn't able to read all the essays in it. While very informative about Taoism, particularly early Taoist thought, there was very little that was useful to me as dissertation research, though there were several articles that were both fun and interesting.
The most useful article was a reprint, and translation of Liu Ts'un-yan's 2000 essay "Was Celestial Master Zhang A historical Figure?". His essay cross examined all the historical sources about Zhang Ling as well as Taoist sources. Liu established a clear methodology for dealing with Hagiographies and bibliographies accounts. The dating of Hagiographical accounts is obviously very important, when more than one account of the same person has been written it's important to check them against each other as well as other existing secular historical sources. He points out that later hagiographies "make claims that are baseless when checked against the standard histories when in fact they are based on earlier hagiographic accounts" (189). Liu clearly shows the progress and changes in different accounts. In addition to the biographies he also looks at many Taoist texts.
One of the more interesting things was the use of the word "eunuch" in the early writings of Taoism. In this case the word was used as a title to defeat demons, as was other Imperial titles. The fact that it was a Eunuch, Liu states, shows the immense power that the eunuchs held at the end of the Han dynasty. It was quite interesting as Eunuchs have almost totally been ignored as a social and political group by modern historians.
In the end Liu concluded that Zhang Ling was indeed and actual historical figure and presented sound historical evidence in support of his argument.
There was an excellent article by Peter Nickerson, "Let Living and Dead take Separate paths: Bureaucratization and textualization in early Chinese Mortuary ritual". I wish I had read it before my exams as it would have been a perfect source. He succinctly summed up lots of the recent archaeological evidence on early Chinese beliefs as well as presenting his own scholarly arguments. He dealt with death pollution, calling the soul as well as the tomb contracts.
Liu stated that the hagiographies could be used "as literary creations or as "scriptures" hat are grounded in belief rather than historical evidence, then their value as historical texts is clear" (189).
The other article I read was Christine Mollier's article "Visions of Evil: demonology and orthodoxy in early Taoism" was a fascinating look at the different concepts of demonology in early Taoism, and interpretations of these beliefs. One of the key things about early Taoism was the belief that sickness was caused by sin, therefore if a person was sick, and you performed the ritual to cure them and they did not recover the fault was with the ill person for not changing their ways, no one was allowed a second healing attempt! It was also thought that the disabled were such because of demonic influences as well as foreigners. When reading so much in praise of Taoism, it was interesting to see that in many ways they are just as messed up as any other religion. They also demonized the local religious cults and forbid worship and sacrifice among their deities.
Unfortunately I wasn't able to read the other articles, which looked at early Taoist inner alchemy, karmic retribution, and comparing Buddhist and Taoist stories of the Buddha. I shall definitely recommend Nickerson's article to my professor for next years students to read, and make photocopies of both it and Mollier's articles for my own records. An interesting and detailed look at early Taoism.
The most useful article was a reprint, and translation of Liu Ts'un-yan's 2000 essay "Was Celestial Master Zhang A historical Figure?". His essay cross examined all the historical sources about Zhang Ling as well as Taoist sources. Liu established a clear methodology for dealing with Hagiographies and bibliographies accounts. The dating of Hagiographical accounts is obviously very important, when more than one account of the same person has been written it's important to check them against each other as well as other existing secular historical sources. He points out that later hagiographies "make claims that are baseless when checked against the standard histories when in fact they are based on earlier hagiographic accounts" (189). Liu clearly shows the progress and changes in different accounts. In addition to the biographies he also looks at many Taoist texts.
One of the more interesting things was the use of the word "eunuch" in the early writings of Taoism. In this case the word was used as a title to defeat demons, as was other Imperial titles. The fact that it was a Eunuch, Liu states, shows the immense power that the eunuchs held at the end of the Han dynasty. It was quite interesting as Eunuchs have almost totally been ignored as a social and political group by modern historians.
In the end Liu concluded that Zhang Ling was indeed and actual historical figure and presented sound historical evidence in support of his argument.
There was an excellent article by Peter Nickerson, "Let Living and Dead take Separate paths: Bureaucratization and textualization in early Chinese Mortuary ritual". I wish I had read it before my exams as it would have been a perfect source. He succinctly summed up lots of the recent archaeological evidence on early Chinese beliefs as well as presenting his own scholarly arguments. He dealt with death pollution, calling the soul as well as the tomb contracts.
Liu stated that the hagiographies could be used "as literary creations or as "scriptures" hat are grounded in belief rather than historical evidence, then their value as historical texts is clear" (189).
The other article I read was Christine Mollier's article "Visions of Evil: demonology and orthodoxy in early Taoism" was a fascinating look at the different concepts of demonology in early Taoism, and interpretations of these beliefs. One of the key things about early Taoism was the belief that sickness was caused by sin, therefore if a person was sick, and you performed the ritual to cure them and they did not recover the fault was with the ill person for not changing their ways, no one was allowed a second healing attempt! It was also thought that the disabled were such because of demonic influences as well as foreigners. When reading so much in praise of Taoism, it was interesting to see that in many ways they are just as messed up as any other religion. They also demonized the local religious cults and forbid worship and sacrifice among their deities.
Unfortunately I wasn't able to read the other articles, which looked at early Taoist inner alchemy, karmic retribution, and comparing Buddhist and Taoist stories of the Buddha. I shall definitely recommend Nickerson's article to my professor for next years students to read, and make photocopies of both it and Mollier's articles for my own records. An interesting and detailed look at early Taoism.