Komjathy, Daoist Tradition:
An Introduction 2013
by Louis Komjathy
by Louis Komjathy
Table of Contents
Part 1: Historical Overview
1. Approaching Daoism
2. The Daoist Tradition
Part 2: The Daoist Worldview
3. Ways to Affiliation
4. Community and Social Organization
5. Informing Views and Foundational Concerns
6. Cosmogony, Cosmology, and Theology
7. Virtue, Ethics and Conduct Guidelines
Part 3: Daoist Practice
8. Dietetics
9. Health and Longevity Practice
10. Meditation
11. Scriptures and Scripture Study
12. Ritual
Part 4: Place, Sacred Space and Material Culture
13. Temples and Sacred Sites
14. Material Culture
Part 5: Daoism in the Modern World
15. Daoism in the Modern World
==
3 Ways to affiliation
“Ways to affiliation” refers to the traditional ways in which individuals have become Daoists. Such paths also relate to the ways in which Daoism has become a tradition, especially the emergence of new movements and lineages. In addition, it draws our attention to the ways in which Daoists have established and extended parameters of inclusion and participation, a topic discussed throughout the present book.
Daoist ways to affiliation are diverse and complex. While there can be no doubt that lineage and ordination have occupied a major place in the Daoist tradition and throughout Daoist history, overemphasis on these institutional dimensions of Daoist religious identity may obscure one’s understanding. Considered comprehensively, Daoism is a tradition comprised of ascetics, hermits, ordained householder and celibate priests, monastics, as well as the larger lay membership, and there are diverse models of community within its contours (see Chapters 4 and 8). While many Daoist priests and monastics have located themselves in specific movements and lineages, and in the process privileged lineage affiliation and ordination, many “ordinary Daoists” did not. These were individuals and families who made up the vast majority of Daoists throughout Chinese history, and who supported the clerical elite, temple networks, and monasteries. While little has been written on the lives of “ordinary Daoists,” their own paths into the tradition deserve consideration. This includes the ways in which they expressed their own religiosity and sense of commitment. In many cases, this occurred under the guidance of Daoist leaders as well as established Daoist families. However, we do not know the specific motivations for their affiliation. Much of their lives probably centered on the cultivation of basic Daoist commitments, including ethical reflection and application (see Chapter 8), and on involvement with the larger Daoist community. Here we must recognize that the situation of Daoism in traditional Chinese contexts was radically different than in the contemporary world, wherein Daoism has become a global religious tradition.
Daoist identity and adherence
Similar to the question “What is Daoism?”, too much ink has been spilt on the question of “What is Daoist?” and “Who is a Daoist?”. We must, nonetheless, attempt to gain some conceptual clarity. On the most basic level, a Daoist is an adherent of Daoism, a member of the indigenous Chinese and now global religious community. As discussed below and in Chapter 16, we may, in turn, make a distinction between “Daoist adherents,” those with formal commitment to and/or affiliation with the religious tradition, and “Daoist sympathizers,” those who find some aspect of that tradition appealing (see Komjathy 2004).
There are many “ways to affiliation” in the Daoist tradition. Traditionally speaking, these have included lineage, revelation, mystical experience, and ordination. Such dimensions of the tradition have set parameters for inclusion and participation. However, many of the most important “Daoists” in history were not originally Daoists; according to traditional accounts, they received revelations and mystical experiences that empowered them to establish new paths and transmit new teachings. Many of these individuals had no formal standing or training within the tradition before the associated revelations and mystical experiences; they were retrospectively incorporated into the Daoist tradition. So, while lineage and ordination are centrally important in Daoism, there have been Daoists, including hermits and ascetics (see Chapter 4), who lived on the margins of the established institution.
To claim Daoist identity is to claim, by definition, religious adherence and affiliation. As we have seen, Daoism is a religious tradition deeply rooted in traditional Chinese culture. So, to be a Daoist is to participate, in some way and on some level, in Daoism. This, of course, assumes understanding of and experience with that tradition. In a traditional Chinese context, such a statement would be relatively unproblematic, as such individuals might be part of Daoist families or communities, would have access to Daoist teachers and sacred sites, and would understand the various types of adherence in the tradition, including the corresponding commitments and responsibilities (see Chapters 4 and 8). They would be much more likely to understand the ways in which Daoists define their tradition, to recognize different forms of participation and social location, and to have direct experience with living Daoists and lived forms of Daoist religiosity. Spiritual direction as well as formal instruction and training would also be available. In the modern world, the situation is different. Especially in Canada, Europe, and the United States, most individuals have no access to such “resources.” They are most likely to have found “Daoist identity” through non-Daoist sources and popular constructions. They have different intellectual genealogies (see Chapter 16). As documented throughout the internet and in popular presentations, such individuals most frequently associate “being a Daoist,” or “being a Tao-ist” in keeping with their own self-representations, with believing in the Dao and following the principles of the Daode jing. They are most likely to equate “real Daoism” with so-called “philosophical Daoism,” which was “lost” by the “Daoist religion.” They thus, either explicitly or implicitly, denigrate the tradition from which they construct personal identity. Such popular and inaccurate constructions will be discussed in Chapter 16, so here we may focus on actual Daoist views.
Drawing upon the ethnographic study of religion, we may utilize the principle of self-identification for identifying Daoists (Komjathy 2004). Under this approach, anyone who identifies himself or herself as Daoist is, at least provisionally speaking, considered such (see also Chapter 16). This approach to Daoist religious identity is relatively straightforward in traditional Daoist contexts. There one would find ordained and lineage-based Daoist priests and monastics as well as “ordinary Daoists” and Daoist families who participated in the life of an identifiably Daoist community. The context, with its corresponding activities and commitments, would make “identifying Daoists” relatively straightforward. In a modern Chinese context, one could even discuss religious identity and affiliation with the individuals in question. However, this exercise becomes more challenging in pre-modern contexts. It assumes that the individual uses indigenous terms approximated by the Western category of “Daoist.” Such is frequently not the case as one’s local community may be more significant than an abstract designation like “Daoism” (referring to the tradition as a whole). That is, many of the individuals in question would speak about being a member of something like Shangqing or Quanzhen. As these are Daoist movements, our identification of them is relatively unproblematic. In addition, the relative importance of a unifying name like “Daoism” (daojia-daojiao) varies depending on context. For pre-modern Chinese Daoists, and especially in the early and early medieval periods, the claim of Daoist identity and affiliation was most often invoked as a distinction from Buddhists and Confucians, and it most often occurred in the context of Chinese court politics, specifically in attempts to secure patronage and increase power and cultural capital. In a pre-modern context, Daoist self-identification as such was less frequent. However, that context, coupled with historical understanding and institutional parameters, makes self-identification unnecessary. We may identify them as “Daoists” because they clearly were Daoist adherents and members of the religious tradition (see also Chapter 12; cf. Kirkland 2004; Silvers 2005).
As mentioned, in the case of the historical study of Chinese Daoism, the topic of religious identity and affiliation assumes indigenous Chinese terms. Some of these include daoren, daoshi, daozhang, huoju, and jushi, among others. These terms relate to types of religious identity and affiliation as well as degrees of adherence covered in other chapters. They also have corresponding commitments, obligations, requirements, and responsibilities. Daoren (lit., “person of the Dao”) may refer to anyone committed to and affiliated with the Daoist tradition. It refers to a “Daoist” in the most generic sense of the word. Daoren may refer to the whole spectrum of Daoist religious adherence, including ordained priests, “ordinary adherents,” and individuals who claim or exhibit Daoist affinities. In technical usage, daoshi (lit., “adept of the Dao”) refers to ordained Daoists, whether priests or monastics (see also Kirkland 2008a). Daoist priests may be married householders, associated with Zhengyi Daoism, or monastics, associated with Quanzhen Daoism. As discussed below and in Chapter 13, there are different types of Daoist ordination and different understandings of clerical identity. Daozhang (lit., “elder of the Dao”) is also used to designate Daoist priests and monastics (daoshi ), but it has a variety of meanings. In the most technical sense, daozhang refers to an ordained Daoist priest who has been trained and is qualified to perform Daoist ritual. This is primarily a Zhengyi definition, and in that context such priests are also call lushi (“register adepts”) based on their formal receipt of registers (see Chapter 13). In the context of modern Zhengyi Daoism, especially in Taiwan, priests also make a number of other distinctions (see, e.g. Saso 1972a, 1978; Schipper 1993). Returning to the term daozhang, it is also used by contemporary Quanzhen Daoist monastics and laypeople as an honorific form of address for ordained Daoists. It may be used as a generic form of address to Daoist priests and monastics, or it may be added to a surname, as in Chen daozhang (Daoist Elder Chen). Like chujia (lit., “leave the home”), huoju (lit., “fire-dwelling”) is a sub-type of daoshi. It indicates a married and householder Daoist priest, usually affiliated with Zhengyi. This designation may be implicitly or explicitly monastic, as it assumes monasticism as normative. Similarly, jushi (lit., “householder adept”) usually designates initiated lay Daoists; in the case of modern Quanzhen, this term is often used for householders who are lay disciples of a specific teacher or lineage. All of these terms derive from specific periods and often have contextspecific meanings; they also tend to privilege institutional expressions of Daoist religious affiliation, identity, and adherence. Other related terms include “female Daoist” (kundao; nüguan; see Chapter 4), “immortal” (xianren; see
Chapter 6), “recluse” (yinshi; see Chapter 4), “renunciant” (chujia; see Chapter 4), as well as various ritual appellations (see Chapter 13). This is not to mention “teachers” (shifu; see below and Chapter 13), whose qualities deserve careful investigation.
From these indigenous Chinese terms, we can see that the English term “Daoist” and other Western cognates obscure as much as clarify Daoist religious identity. On the one hand, most of the major indigenous Chinese Daoist technical terms do, in fact, recognize the importance of the Dao. For daoren, daoshi, and daozhang, the Dao, at least ideally, is their ultimate concern. By extension, the most basic meaning of “Daoist” is someone who reveres the Dao. At the same time, Daoists make a distinction among types of affiliation and degrees of adherence. Students of Daoism are sometimes surprised by this, given the apparently universal nature of the Dao. We may make a number of initial points. As discussed in more detail in Chapter 6, dao is a Chinese character and a Daoist cosmological and theological concept. It is both culturally and linguistically Chinese, and a specifically Daoist name for the sacred. Perhaps in contrast, theologically speaking, it exists beyond the confines of the Daoist tradition. As one Chinese Quanzhen Daoist commented to me, “Daoism may cease to exist, but the Dao will not.” From this perspective, the “Dao” indwells in each and every being, and it is possible for someone to be aligned with the Dao outside of the Daoist tradition. However, that is not a Daoist path, a path associated with the Daoist tradition. Moreover, on a theological level, one may understand Daoism as the tradition that transmits the Dao. It is a community of practice that orients one towards the Dao and provides direction concerning such realization. These points draw our attention to the contributions and limitations of tradition and of lineage. The indigenous Chinese concepts also problematize the Western category of
“Daoist.” From a Daoist perspective, there are types of Daoists, including ordained priests and monastics (daoshi ). These are the community elders, spiritual elite, and religious leaders. They are those who have fully dedicated their lives to the Daoist tradition. There are corresponding commitments and responsibilities (see Chapters 4 and 8). While Daoist adherents (Daoists), including ordained priests and monastics, have traditionally recognized various forms of affiliation and participation, it is not anything goes. To be a Daoist is to recognize and support the religious tradition which is Daoism.
Reverence for the Dao is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for Daoist religious affiliation. From a more traditional Daoist perspective, the Dao is one of the external Three Treasures (wai sanbao), which include the Dao, the scriptures, and the teachers (see Chapter 5). In contemporary China, Daoists have attempted to set basic doctrinal requirements, possibly under the influence of Christianity, such as belief in Laojun (Lord Lao) and acceptance of the Daode jing as authoritative. Rather than take a normative or sectarian stance, we may rather identify patterns from the tradition. Generally speaking, Daoism is not a tradition based on orthodoxy or orthopraxy (cf. Saso 1972a, 1978), at least not under the control of a centralized institution or authoritarian interpretive community. While there are foundational Daoist views (see Chapters 5–7) and representative practices (see Chapters 8–13), Daoist religious commitments are diverse. There are also many models of Daoist practice and attainment (see Chapter 1), many Daoist paths to the Dao. Daoists have tended to emphasize the importance of affinity, community, connection, embodiment, lineage, place, tradition, transmission, and so forth. Primary forms of Daoist religious practice include ethics, dietetics, health and longevity techniques, meditation, scripture study, and ritual. Primary forms of Daoist religious experience include mystical experience, revelation, and spiritual direction. There are also various forms of Daoist community (see Chapter 4), with a strong emphasis on the importance of place (see Chapter 14).
An additional point involves conversion to Daoism. Historically speaking, Daoism has not been a missionary religion, and in this respect resembles Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Orthodox Judaism, where religious identity and ethnic identity are nearly synonymous, and conversion is either a matter of personal affinity or actively discouraged. Chinese Daoists have tended to understand Daoist religious identity and Han ethnicity as interlinked. To be Daoist is to be Chinese; it presupposes Chinese cultural, linguistic, and perhaps ethnic identity (see Chapters 1 and 16). While some “non-Han” peoples, such as the Ba and Yao and a small minority of Koreans, converted to Daoism in earlier Chinese history (see Chapters 2 and 16), they always accepted the necessity of cultural assimilation on some level, especially in terms of ritual and scriptural uses of language. This pattern continues in the modern world, where many Chinese Daoists have a higher degree of respect for “foreign converts” who are rooted in the tradition, including facility in spoken and written Chinese.
At the same time, beginning in the Period of Disunion and from the Tang dynasty to the present, Daoists increasingly adopted the Buddhist-influenced belief in karma and reincarnation. This challenges institutional and ethnic constructions of Daoist identity, and opens up the possibility that earlier Chinese Daoists have been reborn as members of other ethnicities in other countries. Contemporary Daoists also frequently speak of “predestined affinities” (yuanfen). That is, an individual’s affinity with Daoism may be both existential and theological, may come from a place both within and beyond the momentary. Thus, to fully understand Daoist affiliation, identity, and adherence requires knowledge of the Daoist tradition in general and actual Daoist views in particular.
Lineage
Lineage has occupied a central place in the Daoist religious tradition from its earliest beginnings in the Warring States period (480–222 BCE). Here lineage refers to a particular line of spiritual ancestry, a line passed from teachers to students. In Daoism, this line may be biological, spiritual, and/or institutional. Daoist lineage is about connection, connection to the Dao and to a specific religious community and teacher. It is genealogical in the sense that one remembers and remains committed to ancestral origins. In this way, Daoist lineage affiliation and recollection might be understood as one expression of the Daoist principle of “returning to the Source” (guigen) (see Chapter 5)—the source of the teachings, the community, and the tradition.
Like any religious tradition, Daoism may be mapped according to its conception of the sacred, the names that designate that tradition, as well as the specific movements that comprise the tradition. The diagram of Daoist locatedness on the following page is a cosmological one that privileges the Dao, the sacred or ultimate concern of Daoists (see Chapter 6). From this perspective, the Dao manifests in/as/through the cosmos, world, life, and self. This suggests that it is possible for “non-Daoists” to have an affinity with the Dao, but there are specific paths and forms of relationship that are specifically Daoist, that are connected to the Daoist tradition (see also Chapters 1 and 2). Through tradition the Dao is re-membered and expressed. Moreover, Daoist communities provide spiritual guidance for “returning to the Source.” Viewed from a Daoist perspective, the Dao is also that from which of all individual beings originate and in which they participate. The Dao is their innate nature (see Chapters 5 and 7). Finally, viewed from a socio-historical and cultural perspective, the Dao might be located in the innermost circle, as it is a Chinese character ( 道 ) and Daoist cosmological and theological conception (see Chapter 6). To invoke it is to invoke the tradition on some level.
FIGURE 2 Daoist Locatedness
The traditions of the Dao, the specific communities, movements and lineages that comprise Daoism, also receive other designations. These are usually associated with particular “founders,” revelations, scriptures, and often places. Such movements are streams flowing into and out of the larger tradition, with the latter comparable to a river flowing towards the ocean of the Dao. Lineages are the tributaries that flow into and out of the streams of the Daoist movements. These are usually associated with major teachers or systems of practice. Members of specific movements and lineages in turn often understand their affiliation in terms of ancestry (see Yao and Zhao 2010: 33).
The earliest evidence of Daoist lineages is found in the Zhuangzi (Book of Master Zhuang) and other texts of classical Daoism. Harold Roth has labeled these early Daoist master-disciple communities as “inner cultivation lineages” (see, e.g. Roth 1996, 1999a; also LaFargue 1992), and careful study and reading shows that they were at least as diverse as the movements of organized Daoism. In addition to the textual evidence discussed below, we know about these earliest Daoist lineages through the compilation and transmission of classical Daoist texts (see also Schipper 2000, 2008). This point specifically relates to the Laozi (Lao-tzu; Book of Venerable Masters) and the Zhuangzi (Book of Master Zhuang), both of which are anonymous multi-vocal anthologies with a variety of textual and historical layers.
For example, the Laozi, more commonly known as the Daode jing (Tao-teching; Scripture on the Dao and Inner Power), is usually read in the thirdcentury CE redaction of Wang Bi (226–49). This standard, “received edition” consists of 81 verse chapters. However, there are not only many editions, but also two early archaeological manuscripts: the Mawangdui silk manuscripts (dat. ca. 168 BCE) (see Henricks 1989), and the Guodian bamboo slips (dat. ca. 300 BCE) (see Henricks 2000). These recent archaeological discoveries and philological research reveal the Laozi as an anonymous multi-vocal anthology with a variety of textual and historical layers (Lau 1963; LaFargue 1992; Kohn and LaFargue 1998). There is no single author. There is much to recommend the view that the received text is an anthology of earlier (perhaps 5th and 4th c. BCE) oral traditions that were later (by at least 168 BCE) codified into a “coherent” text. Thus, one may tentatively identify at least five phases in the historical compilation of the received Daode jing: (1) oral traditions, including mnemonic aphorisms; (2) collections of sayings; (3) early anthologies; (4) codified, classified, and edited anthologies; and (5) fully integrated and standardized editions. For this reason, we should translate the title Laozi as Book of Venerable Masters, rather than the more conventional Book of Master Lao. The received text is thus a collection of teachings from various teachers and communities living between the fifth century BCE and the second century BCE. In combination with the material history of “books” in ancient China (see Chapters 12 and 15), the very fact that the teachings, practices and experiences contained in texts such as the Laozi were compiled and transmitted points to an early Daoist religious community. Members of this early Daoist community sought to embody and transmit its values.
Scholars have also studied the Zhuangzi as an anthology derived from various Daoist “families” or “schools” (jia).1 One might also choose to refer to the latter as strata, voices, or lineages. The received text, the thirty-three chapter redaction of the Xuanxue representative Guo Xiang (d. 312), is conventionally divided into three sections: (1) Inner Chapters (1–7), (2) Outer Chapters (8–22), and (3) Miscellaneous Chapters (23–33). While the Inner Chapters are attributed to Zhuang Zhou (ca. 370-ca. 290 BCE), the namesake of the Zhuangzi, the remaining twenty-six chapters are quite disparate. This has led some scholars, such as A. C. Graham, Liu Xiaogan, Victor Mair, and Harold Roth, to attempt to categorize them. Following Victor Mair’s schema, the classical Daoist inner cultivation lineages documented in the pages of the Zhuangzi include the following: (1) Primitivists (Chapters 8–10; parts of 11,
12, and 14); (2) Individualists (Chapters 28–31); (3) Syncretists (Chapters 12– 16, 33); (4) Zhuangists (Chapters 17–22); and (5) Anthologists (Chapters 23– 27, 32) (Mair 2000, 37). Although there are debates about how best to categorize the chapters, and about which chapters or sections of chapters belong to which lineage, modern scholarship indicates that the Zhuangzi is an anthology of multiple early Daoist teachers and communities. These teachers and communities were committed to cultivating the Dao, but they often disagreed on the most efficacious methods and on the extent of its application, specifically in the realm of social engagement and political involvement. If one were more daring, one might also use these lineage distinctions to interpret the disparate layers of the received Daode jing.
Another noteworthy feature of the Zhuangzi is the presence of various teachers and students. Some key Daoist masters who appear in the text include Songrongzi (Master Dwelling-in-Beauty; Chapter 1), Liezi (Master Lie; Chapter 1), Lian Shu (Joined Brother; Chapter 1), Nanguo Ziqi (Adept Dissimilarity of South Wall; Chapters 2, 4, and 24), Changwuzi (Master Enduring Hibiscus; Chapter 2), Cook Ding (Chapter 3), Bohun Wuren (Uncle Obscure Non-identity; Chapters 5, 21 and 32), Nüyu (Woman Yu; Chapter 6), Huzi (Master Gourd; Chapter 7), Thief Zhi (Chapters 10 and 29), Guangchengzi (Master Expansive Completion; Chapter 11), Tian Zifang
(Adept Square Field; Chapter 21), Gengsang Chu (Chapter 23), Xu Wugui (Ghostless Xu; Chapter 24), Zeyang (Sudden Yang; Chapter 25), Lie Yukou
(Chapter 32), and, of course, Lao Dan (a.k.a. Laozi; Chapters 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, etc.) and Zhuang Zhou himself (see also Mair 1998). Of these, Ziqi is identified as a member of the Nanguo (South Wall) community, which also included other adepts such as Ziyou (Adept Wanderer; Chapter 2), Zikui
(Adept Sunflower; Chapter 6), and Yanchengzi (Master Flourishing Completion; Chapter 24), an alternate name for Ziyou. We may, in turn, create corresponding lineage charts such as the one on the following page.
If we then wish to understand classical Daoism on a deeper level, specifically in terms of lineage-based teachings, we would read the relevant texts much more carefully. For example, when Nanbo Zikui (Adept Sunflower of Southern Elders) asks the female master Nüyu (Woman Yu), rendered as “Woman Crookback” by Burton Watson and also translatable as “Feminine Self-reliance” or the “female recluse,” about Daoist practice, she recounts her instructions to Buliangyi (Divining Beam-support).
NÜYU’S INSTRUCTIONS TO BULIANGYI
“I began explaining and kept at (shou) him for three days, and after that he was able to put the world outside himself. When he had put the world outside himself, I kept at him for seven more days, and after that he was able to put things outside himself. When he had put things outside himself, I kept at him for nine more days, and after that he was able to put life outside himself. After he had put life outside himself, he was able to achieve the brightness of dawn, and when he had achieved the brightness of dawn, he could see his own aloneness (du). After he had managed to see his own aloneness, he could do away with past and present, and after he had done away with past and present, he was able to enter where there is no life and no death.” (Zhuangzi, Chapter 6; see also Daode jing, Chapter 20)
CHART 2 Examples of Classical Daoist Inner Cultivation Lineages
Following these practice instructions, most likely stages of realization attained through Daoist apophatic meditation, Zikui asks Nüyu, “Where did you learn this?” Nüyu in turn traces her lineage: It begins with Yishi (Copying-the-Beginning); extends from Canliao (Merged Solitude) to Xuanming (Mysterious Obscurity), Yu’ou (According-with-Songs), Xuyi (Anticipated Application), Niexu (Whispered Oath), Zhanming (Revering Luminosity), and a grand-disciple of Luosong (Repeated-Recitation); and then becomes transmitted to a disciple of Fumo (Aided-by-Ink), who is the teacher of Nüyu (see also Schipper 2000). It is open to debate if any of these names refer to real people; one might prefer to understand them as symbolic representations of spiritual insights and religious commitments. However, even if the names are imaginary, many of the stories and teachings appear to derive from actual master-disciple communities, from early Daoist lineages. Especially noteworthy here is the fact that the text identifies the later part of the lineage as deriving from a “grand-disciple” (lit., “grandchild”; sun) of
Luosong (Repeated-Recitation) and from a “disciple” (lit., “child”; zi ) of Fumo (Aided-by-Ink). Here is a prototypical lineage construction that would become central in organized Daoism. In addition, a number of the early Daoist masters receive various honorific titles designating an “elder.”
Although the personages of the Zhuangzi are often identified as “characters” in some kind of proto-fiction (see Mair 1998; Kirkland 2004, 33– 9, 126–7; cf. Campany 2002, 98–100),2 I would thus suggest that in many cases they were either actual Daoist adepts or characters based on actual individuals, many of whom would have been community elders. It is especially noteworthy that we find the classical Chinese grammatical construction related to lineage connection: teachers are identified by their surname or religious name followed by “master” (zi ), while their disciples are identified by a nickname preceded by “adept” (zi ), the same character. That is, when one is a student, zi precedes a nickname; when one becomes a teacher, zi is attached to one’s surname or religious name. This relationship is determined by context, whether textual or social.
These various details demonstrate that classical Daoism was a religious community, a series of master-disciple lineages (see also Roth 1996, 1999a: 173–203). It consisted of individuals and communities, albeit diverse and only loosely associated ones, aimed at “cultivating the Dao.” In this sense, they were individuals oriented toward the Dao (“Daoists”) and part of an emerging tradition of the Dao (“Daoism”). That tradition had foundational views, values and commitments, practices, and models of attainment, some of which are discussed in the chapters of the present book. We might, in turn, understand the indigenous category of daojia, “Family of the Dao,” as referring to these inner cultivation lineages (see also Roth 1996, 1999a). Evidence of its own sense of community, as an alternative to other early Chinese cultural movements, may be found in Chapters 15, 23 and 33 of the Zhuangzi and in Chapter 41 of the Daode jing. The former includes a hierarchical ordering of practice models, with Chapter 15 beginning with five inferior forms of practice, including health and longevity practitioners, and culminates with the privileged and advocated Daoist approach (see Chapter 10 herein). This is the classical Daoist commitment to apophatic meditation and mystical praxis. We also find an emphasis on the importance of practice and attainment in Chapter 41 of the Daode jing.
CLASSICAL DAOIST DEGREES OF
ADHERENCE AND COMMITMENT
When the highest adepts hear about the Dao, They are diligent in their practice of it. When the middle adepts hear about the Dao, They wonder whether or not it exists. When the lowest adepts hear about the Dao, They laugh loudly and mock it.
If they did not laugh, it would not be the Dao.
(Daode jing, Chapter 41; also Chapters 15, 21 and 23)
As this passage indicates, the early Daoist community, like any religious community, consisted of people with varying degrees of affinity and commitment. So, we find some unnamed “venerable master” complaining, like so many Daoists after him, about his fellow adherents not understanding and practicing the teachings (Daode jing, Chapter 70). These adherents are referred to as “adepts” (shi ), which eventually became the technical term for an ordained Daoist priest in organized Daoism. With various degrees of formality, lineage remained central to both early and later organized Daoism. Unfortunately, at present, we do not have much information on the fate of the classical inner cultivation lineages, including the degree to which such lineages survived into the Han dynasty. We do know that lineages and communities of Fangshi (“formula masters”), or magico-religious practitioners, occupied a central place in the Han, but little work has been done on the origins and influences of these networks (see DeWoskin 1983; Csikszentmihalyi 2000, 2002).
Some hints at connections with classical Daoist lineages come from a number of sources and cultural developments. First, Lie Yukou (“Master Lie”), the figure mentioned in five chapters of the Zhuangzi, became the basis of the pseudonymous Liezi (Book of Master Lie; DZ 733), which was most likely compiled around the third century CE. Second, the Shenxian zhuan (Biographies of Spirit Immortals), one of the most important early Daoist hagiographies (biographies of saints) partially compiled by Ge Hong (283–343 CE), includes an entry on Guangchengzi (see Campany 2002), a figure mentioned in the Zhuangzi, the Huainanzi, and later Ge’s Baopuzi neipian (Inner Chapters of Master Embracing Simplicity; DZ 1185) (see also Little 2000: 177). Moreover, in texts such as the second-century Laozi bianhua jing (Scripture on the Transformations of Laozi; DH 79; S. 2295), Guangchengzi became identified as an incarnation of Laojun (Lord Lao), the deified Laozi.
Thirdly, Ge Hong also represents an important Daoist lineage. He was the grandnephew of Ge Xuan (164–244), a central figure in the formation of the Taiqing movement of external alchemy and later associated with the Lingbao movement. Ge Xuan traced his lineage through an obscure Fangshi named Zuo Ci (ca. 220-ca. 260 CE). According to Ge Hong, the Taiqing lineage was transmitted from Zuo Ci through Ge Xuan to Zheng Yin (ca. 215-ca. 300), Ge Hong’s own master. These details draw our attention to two unanswered questions: (1) Who were Zuo Ci’s teachers and how far back can this Fangshi lineage be traced?; (2) Was the inclusion of Guangchengzi and similar figures in the Shenxian zhuan an attempt to claim ancestral connections with the classical Daoist inner cultivation lineages? If so, were these actual or retrospectively constructed?
While Liezi, Guangchengzi, and Baopuzi are familiar names in Daoist history, there are also obscure and previously unidentified lineages. These lineages partially remain concealed in the annals of history because of various assumptions at work in Daoist Studies, most notably a neglect of continuities and connections among apparently distinct teachers, practitioners, and communities. For example, one possible bridge-figure between the classical inner cultivation lineages, Han-dynasty Fangshi lineages, and the beginnings of organized Daoism is Heshang gong (Master Dwelling-by-the-River). A semi-legendary figure, the real identity of Heshang gong is unknown, but he is identified as a recluse, most likely during the Later Han dynasty (25–220). He is most well known as the attributed author of the Laozi zhangju (Chapter-andVerse Commentary on the Laozi; DZ 682), one of the most influential Daoist commentaries (see Chapter 12). Drawing upon the work of Alan Chan (1991b), the “legend of Heshang gong” points towards two distinct Daoist lineages that became conflated during the early medieval period. The first line is the most complex. It begins with Yue Yang (fl. 408 BCE), passes through Yue Yi (fl. 284 BCE), his ancestral descendent, Anqi Sheng (fl. 260 BCE), Ma Xigong (d.u.), Yue Xiagong (d.u.), Yue Jugong (Yue Chengong; fl. 230), and finally arrives at Tian Shu (fl. 210 BCE), who in turn becomes the teacher of
Cao Can (d. 190 BCE).
There are a number of noteworthy dimensions of this lineage. First, Yue Yi was an adherent of Huang-Lao, a syncretic political philosophy that combined elements of Daoism and Legalism and that became highly influential during the Early Han dynasty. Second, Anqi Sheng was a famous Fangshi and legendary immortal, who eventually became associated with both Taiqing and Shangqing. That is, this lineage indicates multiple source-points and crosspollination. As interesting in terms of geography and migration, the members of the Yue and Tian families eventually relocated to the state of Qi and Hanzhong. The former was the location of the Jixia Academy, which played a major role in the development of classical Daoism (see Chapter 2). The latter was a key center of the early Tianshi (Celestial Masters) movement (see Kleeman 1998). All of these details point towards the importance of particular, previously unidentified Daoist families (see also below). As Alan Chan suggests, “the Way of the ‘Old Lord’ (Lao-chün Tao [Laojun dao]) as it is reflected in the Ho-shang Kung legend may be regarded as a transition from the Huang-Lao school of the early Han to the later Taoist religion” (1991b: 125).
The second line associated with Heshang gong traces the lineage from Xu Laile (d.u.) to Ge Xuan. As discussed above, Ge Xuan was a key figure in the emergence of Taiqing. As is the case for Guangchengzi, Ge Hong’s Shenxian zhuan contains a biographical entry on Heshang gong. Regardless of the accuracy of the actual lineage, these details demonstrate a “sense of tradition” and further connections with Fangshi lines. All in all, the combined dimensions of the “legend of Heshang gong” reveal key lines of transmission and major Daoist families. One of these families, the Yue, goes back to a time contemporaneous with the classical Daoist inner cultivation lineages. Moreover, we find the intersection of ancestral lines, spiritual lineages, and geographical proximity among the Yue, Tian, Ge, and Li families. This occurred in Qi and Hanzhong, key locations for the emergence of organized Daoism. Moreover, the “legend of Heshang gong” includes the claim that the associated commentary on the Daode jing was transmitted to four individuals: Wu Guang (d.u.), Xianmen Zigao (d.u.), Qiuzi (d.u.), and Emperor Wen (r. 179–157 BCE), with Xianmen Zigao and Qiuzi being major Fangshi (Chan 1991b: 123). Moreover, the Gaoshi zhuan identifies Heshang gong as “an ancestor of the Family of the Dao (daojia zhi zong)” (cited in Campany 2002: 307).
These are just some details that reveal the importance of lineage in the formative moments of organized Daoism and that hint at a greater degree of connection between the emergence of an institutionalized tradition and the earlier inner cultivation lineages. As discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, most of the major Daoist movements trace their origins to specific teachers, including divine beings (see also Chapter 6). With respect to early organized Daoism, there was also a sense of connection and succession among many of the most important movements.
CHART 3 Lineage Connections in Early Organized Daoism
During this period Daoists used the term daojia as a designation for the Daoist religious tradition in general and for the Daoist clergy in particular. On the one hand, Daoists were members of a spiritual lineage that emphasized the transmission of a tradition, but on the other hand, early organized Daoism was comprised of actual families. In keeping with the Chinese term, we might speak of these groups of ancestrally related individuals as “families of the Dao.” In early organized Daoism, the Zhang family, associated with the hereditary, patrilineal position of the Celestial Master, became especially prominent. This is so much the case that some scholars, partially under Christian-influenced constructions of religion and later Taiwanese Zhengyi influence, would (problematically) identify Zhang Daoling (fl. 140s CE), the first Celestial Master, and/or Zhang Lu (d. 215), his grandson and the third Celestial Master, as the “founder of Daoism.” In fact, such individuals are more appropriately understood as “founders of the Tianshi movement;” our account of the origins of Daoism must be plural, rather than singular. With respect to the actual position of the Celestial Master, the Tianshi movement claims a line of succession from Zhang Daoling to the present Celestial Master. Although the development and characteristics of this line are complex, and although the line was most likely broken and then reconstructed during the Tang dynasty (Kirkland 2008b), members of the contemporary movement identify a continuity between Zhang Daoling, the first Celestial Master, and the most recent Celestial Masters: Zhang Yuanxu (1862–1924; 62nd), Zhang Enpu (1904–69; 63rd), Zhang Yuanxian (1930–2008; 64th) (Kleeman 2008), and possibly Zhang Jiyu (b. 1962; 65th).3
While early organized Daoism evidenced the central importance of both actual biological families and spiritual lineages, later organized Daoism shifted from a householder model of community to a monastic one (see Chapter 4). In that context, Daoists developed lineage-based name systems. In contrast to their Chinese Buddhist counterparts, who change their surname to Shi (Śakya) upon ordination, Daoist monastics retain their ancestral surname, but change their given name. In some cases, religious names are self-chosen; in other cases, they are bestowed by one’s teacher. An example of the former is the Quanzhen founder Wang Zhe’s (1113–1170) adoption of the religious name of Chongyang (Redoubled Yang). This name indicates Wang’s connection to the earlier immortals Zhongli Quan (fl. 2nd c. CE?) and his student Lü Dongbin (b. 798?), whose religious names are Zhengyang (Aligned Yang) and Chunyang (Pure Yang), respectively.
Regarding religious names bestowed by one’s teacher, a good example appears in contemporary Quanzhen. In contemporary mainland China, this monastic order consists of seven primary lineages, each of which is associated with one of the Seven Perfected, Wang Zhe’s senior disciples (see Chapter 2). Each lineage has its own associated 100-character lineage poem (paishi ), which are often hand-written by one’s teacher and transmitted during ordination. They are also memorized by Quanzhen monastics, as they are used to identify other Daoists’ lineage. Let us take the example of the Longmen lineage poem, specifically characters thirty through forty.
世 景 榮 惟 懋 希 微 衍 自 寧
Shi Jing Rong Wei Mao Xi Wei Yan Zi Ning
World Bright Flourish Only Mindful Rare Subtle Overflow Natural Serene
Suppose that a particular adherent’s teacher is a member of the 30th generation (dai ), his or her religious name would begin with Shi. This teacher’s students would receive religious names beginning with Jing. The latter’s students would, in turn, receive religious names beginning with Rong, and become part of the 33rd generation. In this imagined expression of Longmen lineage affiliation, the individuals might be named Shiqing (Global Clarity), Jingshi (Bright Recognition), and Rongzhao (Flourishing Illumination). From the latter’s perspective, he or she would be a “disciple” (dizi; tudi ) of the former: Shiqing would be his “master-grandfather” (shiye), and Jingshi would be his “master-father” (shifu). Here we see the continued use of terms from family ancestry, but in a monastic setting in which ordinary family life and biological reproduction have been renounced. After Quanzhen Daoists learn another monastic’s name, they will frequently inquire concerning the names of that person’s master-grandfather and master-father. If the characters correctly line up according to the lineage poem, then the claim of lineage affiliation is accepted.
Revelation and mystical experience
Revelation and mystical experience also have been ways to Daoist religious affiliation. These categories are most often associated with “religious experience,” but they are also important for understanding how Daoist identity and tradition have been established. Revelation refers sacred communications between hidden dimensions of the cosmos, usually gods or divine entities, and human beings. Revelation usually results in the recipient claiming some special status and privileged position with respect to the sacred, and this position involves a spiritual message or teachings deemed essential for humanity. Mystical experience refers to an experience of that which a given individual or community identifies as sacred. There is no single, essential, and “ultimate” form of mystical experience; there are, rather, many types of mystical experiences, which differ according to the community and tradition involved and which assume different soteriologies and theologies.
Many influential Daoist religious movements originated in revelations or mystical experiences. Zhang Daoling (fl. 140s CE?), the founder of the Tianshi movement, received a revelation from Laojun (Lord Lao). Yang Xi (330–86), a spirit medium hired by the southern aristocratic Xu family, received a series of revelations and spiritual transmissions from a variety of Daoist gods and Perfected; in concert with his own spirit journeys to Daoist sacred realms and hidden regions of the cosmos, these revelations became the foundation for the emergence of the Shangqing movement. Wang Zhe (1113–70) had a number of mystical experiences with immortals, which may be considered a primary influence on the formation of Quanzhen, a Daoist renunciant community and subsequent monastic order. For the moment, one key point must be emphasized: none of these individuals were ordained Daoists, and none of them probably had physically embodied Daoist teachers. That is, the “founders” of many of the most important Daoist religious communities were not “Daoists” strictly defined. These details suggest that there are multiple source-points for entry into the Daoist religious tradition, including not only lineage and direct association with Daoist teachers and communities, but also divine communications and mystical experiences.
According to traditional accounts, in 142 CE Zhang Daoling received a revelation from Laojun, the “deified” (divine form of) Laozi and anthropomorphic manifestation of the Dao, on Mount Heming (Crane Cry; Dayi, Sichuan). During Lord Lao’s revelation, Zhang was appointed as terrestrial representative, the “Celestial Master,” and given healing powers as a sign of his empowerment. The movement became patrilineal, passing from Zhang Daoling to his son Zhang Heng (d. 179) and then to the latter’s son Zhang Lu (d. 215). Following this precedent, the position of Celestial Master ideally passed from father to son within the Zhang family.
THE FOUNDING REVELATION OF TIANSHI DAOISM
Suddenly a celestial being descended, accompanied by a thousand chariots and ten thousand horsemen, in a golden carriage with a feathered canopy. Riding dragons and astride tigers, they were too numerous to count. At times the being referred to himself as the
Scribe below the Pillar [Laozi], sometimes others called him the Lad from the Eastern Sea. He transmitted the Covenant of Orthodox Unity Newly Revealed to [Zhang Dao]ling. Having received this, Ling was able to heal illness. (Taiping guangji 8; adapted from Kleeman 1998: 67; see also Bokenkamp 1997: 171, 215)
Similarly, Shangqing Daoism traces itself to a series of revelations from divine beings. There is an account of the Shangqing revelations in the Zhen’gao (Declarations of the Perfected), an anthology of the original Shangqing revelations compiled by Tao Hongjing (456–536).
THE INITIAL REVELATIONS OF SHANGQING DAOISM
The first appearance of the scriptures of the Perfected of Shangqing occurred in the second year of the Xingning reign period of the Jin Emperor Ai, the first year of the sexagesimal cycle [364]. It was then that Lady Wei of the Southern Marchmount [Wei Huacun], the Primordial Goddess of Purple Vacuity and Highest Perfected Directress of Destiny, descended from the heavens and bestowed these texts to her disciple Yang, Household Secretary to the King of Langye, [who was concurrently] Minister of Instruction. She had him transcribe them in standard script (lishu) for transmission to Xu [Mi] of Jurong, Senior Officer to the Defensive Army, and his son [Xu Hui], Assistant for Submission of Accounts. The two Xus in turn set to work at transcribing them again, put them into practice, and attained the Dao. (Zhen’gao, DZ 1016, 19.9b; adapted from Strickmann 1977: 41)
In the 360s, members of the aristocratic Xu family, Xu Mi (303–76), the younger brother of Xu Mai (300–48), and the former’s son Xu Hui (341-ca. 370), hired the spirit medium Yang Xi (330–86?) to establish contact with Xu Mi’s wife, Tao Kedou (d. 362).
FIGURE 3 Yang Xi Receiving Revelations from Wangzi Jin
Source: Tongbo zhenren zhentu zan, DZ 612
Through a series of revelations, Yang Xi described the organization and population of the subtle realms of the cosmos, particularly the heaven of Highest Clarity. In the process, Yang came in contact with the deceased female Celestial Master libationer Wei Huacun (251–334), the “Lady Wei of Southern Marchmount” mentioned above. Here Nanyue (Southern Marchmount) refers to the southern sacred peak of Hengshan (Mount Heng; near Hengyang, Hunan). The revelations were, in turn, written down by Yang Xi and the Xu family in a calligraphic style that seemed divine. Early Shangqing Daoism reveals another path to Daoist identity and religious affiliation: through a series of revelations, members of Shangqing established a new Daoist community and movement. In its formative moments, Shangqing’s claim to religious authority and Daoist pedigree derived from three sources: (1) Secret teachings bestowed by various divine beings, including a former Tianshi libationer; that is, the connection with Daoism, via Tianshi, came not from the terrestrial Tianshi community, but from connection with its early ancestors, now divine beings; (2) Access to higher sacred realms, and thus more advanced spiritual insights; specifically, Shangqing refers to the middle of the Three Heavens (santian), which is located between Yuqing (Jade Clarity; highest) and Taiqing (Great Clarity; lowest); and (3) Possession and understanding of revealed scriptures. Such patterns continued in later movements in Daoist religious history.
Daoist movements have also been established through the transformative effect of mystical experiences. One of the most famous examples is that of Wang Zhe, the nominal founder of Quanzhen (see Eskildsen 2004; Komjathy 2007a, forthcoming). In 1161, at the age of forty-eight, Wang had a mystical encounter with one or more Daoist immortals, sometimes identified as the immortals Zhongli Quan and his spiritual disciple Lü Dongbin (see Chapter 6). This occurred on a bridge in Ganhe (near present-day Huxian, Shaanxi). The Quanzhen tradition claims that one of these immortals transmitted a “secret formula in five sections” (miyu wupian) (see Komjathy 2007a).
These details regarding Daoist revelations and mystical experiences demonstrate that there are diverse ways to religious identity in the Daoist tradition. From a certain perspective, revelation and mystical experience may be seen as alternatives to organized and institutionally sanctified forms of religious inclusion. While such phenomena may support tradition, they also force members of that tradition to make space for new expressions. The importance of revelation and mystical experience problematize easy explanations about Daoist religious identity and affiliation based solely on institutional frameworks. Some Daoists have found their connection through things such as lineage and ordination, but other Daoists have discovered this through revelation and mystical experience.
The key point here is that many founders of major Daoist movements were not ordained Daoists, and had no formal standing within the tradition. In some sense, many of them were not even “Daoists” (members of the Daoist religious tradition); rather, they were incorporated into its historical annals retrospectively. The major “ways” (dao) of Daoism most often derived from the religious experience of unique individuals, while the lineages (pai ) were created by descendants or disciples of these. While theologically speaking there may be almost an infinite number of paths to the Dao, not all paths may be recognized as Daoist, that is, as authentic expressions of Daoist religious orientations. Daoist ways to affiliation have recognizable patterns and characteristics especially in terms of the virtue (de) and numinous presence (ling) that is manifested in the individual.
Ordination
As Daoism became more complex in its membership and organization, Daoists began creating integrated models of religious participation and ordination systems. This partially occurred under the influence of Buddhism, specifically through the Daoist adaptation of Buddhist monasticism.
Tang dynasty Daoists created one of the earliest fully integrated ordination systems, and there was also an increasing systematization of monasticism. As documented in the seventh century Fengdao kejie (Rules and Precepts for Worshipping the Dao; DZ 1125; Kohn 2004b), one of the earliest Daoist monastic manuals, the ordination system included seven ranks. The first three ranks were those of lay masters, while the last three were monastic, and the middle rank (Disciple of Eminent Mystery) signified a transitional stage that could be held either by a householder or a renunciant (Kohn 2003a, 2004b). Ordinations into these ranks began early, with Daoist children initiated first into the Celestial Master level and receiving registers of protective generals. After that, each level required extended training, the guidance of an ordination master, and community sponsors. Once established, Daoists could serve as priests in larger communities, take up residence in a hermitage to pursue selfcultivation, or remain in a monastic institution to perform rituals both in-house or for lay donors, pray for the empire, and continue to strive for greater purity and immortality (ibid.). That is, to be a Daoist in the late medieval period meant to participate in a tradition, to have commitments to the religious community, and to locate oneself in a hierarchically ordered training regimen. One’s authority and affiliation were partially determined by this. The same is true with respect to lineage connections, or relationships to spiritual ancestors, in the larger tradition.
CHART 4 Seven Ordination Ranks of the Tang Monastic System
Daoists continued to reformulate norms of affiliation throughout Daoist history. One enduring model was that of the Longmen lineage of Quanzhen Daoism advocated by Wang Changyue (1622?–80). Although the Longmen lineage is most often traced to Qiu Chuji (1148–1227) and his supposed lineage-successor Zhao Xujing (Daojian [Resolute-in-the-Way]; 1163–1221), the official, “orthodox” Longmen lineage was codified by Wang Changyue and his successors (see Chapter 2). While abbot of Baiyun guan in the late 1600s, Wang systematized the Longmen ordination system and monastic regulations into three levels.4
CHART 5 Three Ordination Ranks of the Longmen Lineage
The first level, open to both monastics and laypeople, centered on the Five Precepts and Ten Precepts of Initial Perfection; the second level, specifically for monastics, consisted of the Three Hundred Precepts of Medium Ultimate; and the third level was less clearly defined, but included the Ten Virtues of Celestial Immortality and the Twenty-Seven Virtuous Activities of Celestial Immortality (see also Chapter 8). According to Longmen accounts, Wang Changyue compiled, or at least disseminated, the three corresponding monastic manuals, namely, the Chuzhen jie (Precepts of Initial Perfection; JY 292; ZW 404), Zhongji jie (Precepts of Medium Ultimate; JY 293; ZW 405), and Tianxian jie (Precepts of Celestial Immortality; JY 291; ZW 403), as guidebooks for Quanzhen monastic life. They evidence a late-imperial Longmen monastic hierarchy, with the ethical requirements, expectations and types of adherence becoming increasingly strict as individuals progressed through the levels of commitment.
Although there are many self-identified Longmen communities throughout the modern world, many with only tenuous connections with the mainland Chinese lineage, that lineage remains one of the most visible organized communities in contemporary Daoism as Longmen monastics function as administrators for most major Daoist sites in mainland China (see Chapters 14 and 16). For present purposes, Longmen is fascinating for the way in which it preserves a monastic system based on ordination and lineage. In addition to its employment of large-scale public ordination ceremonies, which recommenced at Baiyun guan (White Cloud Temple; Beijing) in 1989 (Wang 2006: 149), Longmen is noteworthy for a number of features. First, its ordinands receive the three precept texts and monastic manuals mentioned above. They ideally study and apply the ethical commitments and values advocated in the texts
(see Chapter 8). Second, like most of the major Quanzhen lineages in contemporary China, Longmen ordinands receive religious names (faming; paiming) based on the corresponding lineage-poem (paishi ) contained in the Xuanmen gongke (Liturgy of the Mysterious Gate), the contemporary
Quanzhen liturgy that is usually chanted in the morning and evening at Quanzhen temples (see Chapter 13). The Longmen lineage poem consists of one hundred Chinese characters, and ordinands receive a “generation-name” (dai ) based upon their master-father’s (shifu) name.
As we saw in the example of the hypothetical Daoist master Shiqing (Global Clarity) and his disciple Jingshi (Bright Recognition) and granddisciple Rongzhao (Flourishing Illumination), this naming convention indicates not only Longmen lineage-affiliation but also relationship to a particular teacher. This coupled with possession of the lineage poem and the three monastic manuals, and sometimes of ordination certificates (see Schipper 1993: 68–9; Kohn 2004c: 87), in combination with adherence to the core Quanzhen commitments to celibacy (no sex), sobriety (no intoxicants), and vegetarianism (no meat), indicates that the person’s claim to lineage affiliation is verifiably authentic. This process is sometimes complicated by corruption in the monastic order (one can buy ordination certificates for the right price), fabrication of lineage, and lack of corresponding study, training, and attainment. Nonetheless, if we understand lineage and ordination as paths to a religious vocation, then we are forced to ask much more difficult questions. These questions take one into the Daoist tradition as a path to spiritual transformation and as an all-encompassing religious way of life.
FURTHER READING
Daoist Foundation. n.d. “Lineage.” www.daoistfoundation.org/lineage.html [Accessed June 1, 2012].
Kohn, Livia. 2003. Monastic Life in Medieval Daoism. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Kohn, Livia, and Harold Roth, (eds) 2002. Daoist Identity: History, Lineage, and Ritual. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Ōzaki Masaharu. 1986. “The Taoist Priesthood: From Tsai-chia to Ch’u-chia.”
In Religion and Family in East Asia, edited George DeVos and T. Sofue, 97–109. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Saso, Michael. 1972. “Classification of Taoist Orders According to the Documents of the 61st Generation Heavenly Master.” Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnography 30: 69–79.
—1974. “Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy in Taoist Ritual.” In Religion and Ritual in Chinese Society, edited by Arthur Wolf, 325–48. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Schipper, Kristofer. 1985. “Taoist Ordination Ranks in the Dunhuang Manuscripts.” In Religion und Philosophie in Ostasien, edited by Gert Naundorf et al., 127–48. Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann.
Silvers, Brock. 2005. The Taoist Manual: Applying Taoism to Daily Life.
Nederland, CO: Sacred Mountain Press.
.jpg)
