‫ۨٷۙۦٰڷۣۚڷۺۨۙ۝ۣۗۑڷۗ۝ۨٷ۝ۧۆڷ۠ٷۺۣېڷۙۜۨڷۣۚڷ۠ٷۢۦ۩ۣ‪Ђ‬‬ ‫ۘۢٷ۠ۙۦٲڷڽڷۢ۝ٷۨ۝ۦ‪ψ‬‬ ‫ۆې‪ۛҖЂ‬ۦۣ‪ۘۛۙғ‬۝ۦۖۡٷۗ‪۠ۧғ‬ٷۢۦ۩ۣ۞‪ҖҖ‬ۃۤۨۨۜ‬ ‫‪ẺỀẽẹẬặΝẺằΝếẳẰΝẺỄẬặΝẾẴẬếẴẮΝẺẮẴẰếỄ‬ڷۦۣۚڷۧۙۗ۝۪ۦۙۧڷ۠ٷۣۢ۝ۨ۝ۘۘۆ‬ ‫‪ẺằΝύẽẰẬếΝẽẴếẬẴẹΝΤΝẽẰặẬẹắ‬‬ ‫ۙۦۙۜڷ۟ۗ۝۠‪Ө‬ڷۃۧۨۦۙ۠ٷڷ۠۝ٷۡٮ‬ ‫ۙۦۙۜڷ۟ۗ۝۠‪Ө‬ڷۃۣۧۢ۝ۨۤ۝ۦۗۧۖ۩ۑ‬ ‫ۙۦۙۜڷ۟ۗ۝۠‪Ө‬ڷۃۧۨۢ۝ۦۤۙۦڷ۠ٷ۝ۗۦۣۙۡۡ‪Ө‬‬ ‫ۙۦۙۜڷ۟ۗ۝۠‪Ө‬ڷۃڷۙۧ۩ڷۣۚڷۧۡۦۙے‬ ‫‪́ẬẺẴẾẸΝẴẹΝẴẾếẺẽỄΝϋẾẾẬỄẾΝẴẹΝẺẹẺỀẽΝẺằΝẴỀΝẾΥỀẹάỄẬẹέ‬‬ ‫‪ғ‬ۺۢۢۙێڷۢ۝ۡٷ۞ۢۙ‪ψ‬ڷۺۖڷۘۙۨ۝ۘٮڷ‪ẺỀếặẰắẲẰΝếỀắẴẰẾΝẴẹΝẬẺẴẾẸғ‬‬ ‫‪ғ‬ڿڼڼھڷۃ۟ۦۣﯦڷ۫ۙ‪І‬ڷۘۢٷڷۣۣۢۘۢۋڷۃۙۛۘۙ۠ۨ۩ۣېڷ‪ғ‬ڼۂھڷۃ۝۝۝‪‬ڷ‪ۤۤғ‬‬ ‫ۢۢۙ‪ψ‬ڷ‪ғ‬ۆڷۧۙۡٷ‪Ђ‬‬ ‫‪Ғ‬ڷڿۀ‪Ң‬ڷۤۤڷۃہڼڼھڷۦۣۙۖۨۗۍڷ‪Җ‬ڷۀڼڷۙ۩ۧۧٲڷ‪Җ‬ڷہڽڷۙۡ۩ۣ۠۔ڷ‪Җ‬ڷۘۢٷ۠ۙۦٲڷڽڷۢ۝ٷۨ۝ۦ‪ψ‬ڷۨٷۙۦٰڷۣۚڷۺۨۙ۝ۣۗۑڷۗ۝ۨٷ۝ۧۆڷ۠ٷۺۣېڷۙۜۨڷۣۚڷ۠ٷۢۦ۩ۣ‪Ђ‬‬ ‫‪Ң‬ۀ‪Ң‬‬ ‫ہڼڼھڷۦۙۖۡۙۨۤۙۑڷۂڽڷۃۙۢ۝ۣ۠ۢڷۘۙۜۧ۝۠ۖ۩ێڷۃۂۂڿہڼڼہڼڿڿہڽڿ‪Ң‬ڿڽۑ‪Җ‬ۀڽڼڽ‪ғ‬ڼڽڷۃٲۍ‪ө‬‬ ‫ۂۂڿہڼڼہڼڿڿہڽڿ‪Ң‬ڿڽۑٵۨۗٷۦۨۧۖٷ‪ۛҖ‬ۦۣ‪ۘۛۙғ‬۝ۦۖۡٷۗ‪۠ۧғ‬ٷۢۦ۩ۣ۞‪ҖҖ‬ۃۤۨۨۜڷۃۙ۠ۗ۝ۨۦٷڷۧ۝ۜۨڷۣۨڷ۟ۢ۝ۋ‬ ‫ۃۙ۠ۗ۝ۨۦٷڷۧ۝ۜۨڷۙۨ۝ۗڷۣۨڷۣ۫ٱ‬ ‫ۤۤڷۃہڽڷۃۘۢٷ۠ۙۦٲڷڽڷۢ۝ٷۨ۝ۦ‪ψ‬ڷۨٷۙۦٰڷۣۚڷۺۨۙ۝ۣۗۑڷۗ۝ۨٷ۝ۧۆڷ۠ٷۺۣېڷۙۜۨڷۣۚڷ۠ٷۢۦ۩ۣ‪Ђ‬ڷ‪ғ‬ۀہڼڼھڿڷۢۢۙ‪ψ‬ڷ‪ғ‬ۆڷۧۙۡٷ‪Ђ‬‬ ‫ۂۂڿہڼڼہڼڿڿہڽڿ‪Ң‬ڿڽۑ‪Җ‬ۀڽڼڽ‪ғ‬ڼڽۃ۝ۣۘڷ‪Ң‬ۀ‪ҒҢ‬ڿۀ‪Ң‬‬ ‫ۙۦۙۜڷ۟ۗ۝۠‪Ө‬ڷۃڷۣۧۢ۝ۧۧ۝ۡۦۙێڷۨۧۙ۩ۥۙې‬ ‫‪Ң‬ڽڼھڷۦۤۆڷۀھڷۣۢڷڼڽھ‪ғ‬ڽڽڽ‪ғ‬ڿڽڽ‪ғ‬ڼڿڽڷۃۧۧۙۦۘۘٷڷێٲڷۃۆې‪ۛҖЂ‬ۦۣ‪ۘۛۙғ‬۝ۦۖۡٷۗ‪۠ۧғ‬ٷۢۦ۩ۣ۞‪ҖҖ‬ۃۤۨۨۜڷۣۡۦۚڷۘۙۘٷۣۣ۠ۢ۫‪ө‬‬ Reviews of Books 543 It is a pity that Eskildsen has not learned more from his colleagues who study Chinese Buddhism, many of whom have had to deal with rather similar hagiographic materials and their associated problems of interpretation. There are many instances of Quanzhen’s close family resemblance to Buddhism in the sources: the prevalence of terms like “sam . sāra” or gong’an (kōan); the many parallels with Chan literature (the genre of yulu [recorded sayings], for example, is common to both traditions); and the paraphrases and what appear to be silent quotations from Chan texts. These examples are briefly noted, but not pursued at any length. Interesting parallels and possible connections with Buddhist practices such as self-immolation (pp. 59–60) and self-mummification (p. 146) are not fully developed – the scholarship cited on mummification has been superseded by more recent studies in Japanese and English. There appear to be relatively few typographical errors: “Zhongguo duojiao shi” (p. 212 n.87) should read “Zhonguo daojiao shi”; “wolfsbane plane” (p. 168) should read “wolfsbane plant”; “sidai” (p. 216 n.47) should read “sida”. I am not sure why Dostoyevski’s The Brothers Karamazov appears in the bibliography – I could not find this work mentioned or cited in the book. Despite its limitations, this book makes a significant advance in the study of Quanzhen. It will help to orient scholars to the abundant sources and at least some of their themes. It lays open an impressive array of primary texts and demonstrates that this phase in the history of Chinese religions offers fertile ground for scholarly investigation. I hope it will inspire a new generation of scholars to produce the kind of critical scholarship which the sources demand. Everyone interested in Taoism will want to read this book and will find much to ponder within. James A. Benn McMaster University Daoism in History: Essays in Honour of Liu Ts’un-yan. Routledge Studies in Taoism. Edited by Benjamin Penny. pp. xiii, 290. Routledge, London and New York, 2006. doi:10.1017/S1356186308008699 As many academics and publishers will know, a collection of essays in the form of a festschrift does not always guarantee top quality scholarship, but this particular volume is not one that should be passed over just because it celebrates the life and work of one person. In the book a significant number of leading lights in the study of Daoism have offered serious, original, well-developed and detailed studies of interesting and important topics. The papers collected here are the results of a conference held at the Australian National University in 1999. While the delay between the conference and publication of the volume in 2006 may mean that some recent scholarship is not represented in the Notes and Bibliography, Daoist studies does not yet move at such a rapid pace that these omissions cause significant problems. The range of scholars represented here is admirably international—there are contributors from Australia, France, Italy, Japan, Britain, and the United States—and most of the authors are Liu Ts’un–yan’s admirers rather than his students. It is worth noting that although Liu’s most significant contributions to Daoist studies have concentrated on the literature of the Ming dynasty, the papers in this volume (including Liu’s own essay, “Was Celestial Master Zhang a Historical Figure?” which takes up a sizeable part of the book, pp. 189–253) focus on much earlier periods of Daoist history. The significance of Liu’s work for the field is detailed with warmth and humour by the editor, Benjamin Penny, in an introductory essay and appreciation entitled “On Dreaming of Being Lefthanded: Liu Ts’un-yan and Daoist Studies”. Inevitably, perhaps, given that both Liu and Penny live and work in Australia, the Introduction contains a learned reference to cricket. On reading of Liu’s early life, it is sobering to reflect that our connections to traditional China have not quite been severed, 544 Reviews of Books but continue to be transmitted by those scholars who were born into a world on the cusp of modernity. Penny tells us, for example, that Liu’s father had two concubines, and that he learned to read using the traditional primers like the “Three Character Classic” (Sanzi jing), but he also enjoyed visits to the cinema. Penny’s Introduction also uses his account of Liu’s career to briefly illuminate the history of Daoist studies in China and the West. As companions to Liu’s lengthy and erudite essay on the first Celestial Master, the other essays in the book uphold equally high scholarly standards. The contribution by Peter Nickerson on early Chinese mortuary ritual is particularly noteworthy, and exemplifies the close attention to detail found throughout the volume. He considers here Daoist death practices in the context of what we know about much earlier Chinese funerary rituals. He shows that while ancient death rites focused on separating the living and the dead and showed a concern about pollution, later Daoist materials provide evidence of a fear of revenant ghosts, as well as a tendency to model the afterlife in bureaucratic terms, and the development of exorcism rituals. This richly detailed and well-documented chapter offers sophisticated new paradigms for understanding the preoccupations of early Daoists regarding the post-mortem state. We await his forthcoming book with great interest. Two contributions to the volume focus particularly on early Daoism’s complex relations with Buddhist materials and ideas. T.H. Barrett writes on the Taoist Dhammapada, and Stephen Bokenkamp on Viśvantara jātaka in Taoist and Buddhist translation. Barrett shows how the Ge family, well-known to scholars for its role in the production of texts important in the Shangqing and Lingbao traditions, was also involved in adapting Buddhist works for Daoist ends. Along the way, he also stresses the Daoist affiliations of the Sūtra in Forty-two Sections, an important early text long claimed for the Chinese Buddhist tradition. Bokenkamp focuses on another scripture that was widely circulated in Buddhist China and describes how Daoists adapted this popular tale of one of the Buddha’s former lives for their own needs. Christine Mollier draws on the fourth-century demonology, the Demon Statutes of Nüqing, to offer a dense and closely-argued study of early Daoist concepts of demonological taxonomy, ideas of evil, and related exorcistic practices. Since the text she uses resembles “an enormous set of police records listing everything that the imagination can conceive of in the way of demons” (p. 83), the reader can easily imagine the range of colourful and fascinating material that is on offer in this chapter. Maeda Shigeki describes some peculiarities of the Daoist adaptation of Buddhist concepts of karma, especially their incorporation of the chengfu (“inherited burden”) concept of evil inherited from one’s ancestors. The problem under discussion is neatly summed up in the subtitle to this chapter: “Is the karma of the parent visited upon the child?” A perennial issue in Daoist studies has been when and how the shift of emphasis from outer alchemy (waidan) – the production and consumption of actual elixirs of immortality – to inner alchemy (neidan) – which is more concerned with the processes of the mind than with the ingestion of drugs – occurred. Here, Fabrizio Pregadio examines early use in the Shangqing tradition of alchemical images in association with inner meditational procedures. His careful and detailed examination of the textual record shows that the move from outer to inner alchemy was a more complex and subtle process, with roots much deeper and more entwined in the earlier tradition, than we might previously have imagined. In recent years, scholars have become much more comfortable with the images and graphic elements that are found everywhere in our textual sources. Franciscus Verellen’s chapter on the talismans, diagrams, illustrations, and charts found in Daoist scriptures will therefore find a ready and appreciative audience. Verellen surveys the practical ends for which these images (some of which are reproduced in the book) are employed in the Taoist tradition. This chapter will be particularly useful to those seeking a manageable scholarly introduction to images in the Daoist canon for classroom use. It is clear, concise and informative, and further primary and secondary resources are usefully indicated in the notes. While the scholarly content alone will no doubt determine whether one purchases this book, there are some comments that should be made about its form. For one thing, the printing is a little Reviews of Books 545 cramped – especially in the endnotes, where a magnifying glass may be required to decipher the tightlycompressed text. The Chinese characters for the book (there are many of them of course) appear in a single glossary – this will necessitate a good deal of flicking back and forth as one reads. There is a single bibliography for the whole book which is not a problem in itself, but, rather exasperatingly, no Chinese characters are supplied for the numerous pre-modern works that appear in it. Given these limitations, which have presumably been insisted upon to keep the cost of production down, the price of the volume is by no means cheap (£70). But, if nothing else, this excellent, intelligently-edited set of erudite essays will send the reader back to Liu Ts’un-yan’s earlier work, and that can be no bad thing. Dr Penny and the other contributors are to be congratulated for having produced a significant contribution to Daoist studies. James A. Benn McMaster University The Hongzhou School of Chan Buddhism in Eighth- through Tenth-Century China. By Jinhua Jia. pp. xv, 220. Albany New York, State University of New York Press, 2006. doi:10.1017/S1356186308008687 Typical! You wait decades for a book on the particularly crucial phase in Chan/Zen history represented by the Hongzhou school, and then two come along at once. Jia Jinhua’s book of 2006 is closely followed by Mario Poceski’s Ordinary Mind as the Way: The Hongzhou School and the Growth of Chan Buddhism (Oxford, 2007). But I shall not compare these works in this review; there is certainly plenty of room for very different approaches to the source material and the specialist will no doubt want to read both the books in any case. We have long known that this developmental period of Chan contains within it a significant turn in the history of East Asian Buddhism, but how and why that turn occurred has been difficult to determine due to the fact that the records available to us passed through the hands of later Song dynasty editors. We have come to suspect that these people doctored the sources in order to construct a kind of Chan mythos that was of immediate polemical use in Song times, but that concealed or distorted the earlier shape of the tradition. So, the relative thinness of scholarly studies of this period of Chan history is not because that historical moment is uninteresting, but because there are real problems with the data. Jia’s book, therefore, will be read closely by those in the field as she attempts to deal with the knotty issues of what we can know for certain about the key actors and events given the heavily compromised state of the sources. Specialists will particularly appreciate her encyclopaedic coverage of primary and secondary materials and her attempts to isolate and then analyse a body of reliable data. I suspect, however, that most scholars will be reluctant to accept all of her findings uncritically. The structure of the book is straightforward, and has a roughly chronological framework that starts in Chapter One with an evaluation of the evidence that can reliably be used to construct a biography – (709–788). Chapter Two deals with of the ‘founder’ of the Hongzhou school, Mazu Daoyi the lives of Mazu’s major disciples and provides, in a substantial table, a new list of 145 monks whom he taught at some point. Chapter Three attempts to determine what parts of the received texts may be safely attributed to the Hongzhou school, and what parts are later accretions. In Chapter Four, Jia discusses Hongzhou doctrine and religious practice as they can be reconstructed from the core materials identified in the previous chapter. Chapter Five describes the process by which Hongzhou school ideology came to be accepted as Chan orthodoxy. Chapter Six explores the later history of the school and the way in which this history was recounted in Chan genealogies. There is also an appendix which contains an annotated translation of Mazu’s “authentic or relatively datable discourses” (p. 119).