Those who teach Taoism at university level have long suffered from a lack of good quality material in English that can give students access to the most significant Taoist institution of late-imperial and modern China, that of the Quanzhen (Complete Realization) tradition. This volume, a heavily revised and updated version of Eskildsen's MA thesis of 1989, will thus find a ready and appreciative audience. However, while readers will benefit from the rich data relating to the foundational figures in the history of the movement, they may find themselves frustrated by Eskildsen's apparent reluctance to engage with the sources in the depth and breadth of analysis that they require.
For Eskildsen, “the early Quanzhen masters” are the founder Wang Zhe (also known as Wang Chongyang, 1113–1170) and some of his first-generation disciples. In order to present their “teachings and practices”, the author has expended much energy in translating a large quantity of documentary material related to Quanzhen that survives in the Taoist canon. Because of the amount of primary texts it contains (and because this material outweighs the analysis) the book might be better approached as a sourcebook for the study of early Quanzhen than as a monograph. I suspect the volume will be consulted most frequently for that purpose, and will be much appreciated by scholars and students as a repository of valuable sources rendered in (mostly) plain English.
The book essentially divides up the various sources of different genres (biographies, poems, records of teachings and sayings) and assigns them to different headings, thus producing the following ten chapters: (1) Introduction; (2) Cultivating Clarity and Purity; (3) The Asceticism of the Quanzhen Masters; (4) Cultivating Health and Longevity; (5) Visions and Other Trance Phenomena; (6) The Miraculous Powers of the Quanzhen Masters; (7) Death and Dying in Early Quanzhen Taoism; (8) The Compassion of the Early Quanzhen Masters; (9) Rituals in Early Quanzhen Taoism; (10) Conclusion.
But it is by no means an easy matter to translate the Quanzhen sources in the hope that they will somehow speak for themselves (despite the author's avowed intention, p. 18). Although, regrettably, Eskildsen does not address the provenance and history of his sources in any sustained manner, it is clear that the attributions of texts to Quanzhen authors are not always secure; thus it is not certain that some of the documents quoted here were actually composed by Wang Zhe, or even by some later figure who shared his perspectives on teaching and practice. Those sections of the book devoted to “inner alchemy” (neidan) are particularly compromised in this regard, as the texts used (Chongyang zhenren jinguan yusuo jue and Dadan zhizhi) seem to be later works only attributed to Wang and his disciple Qiu Chuji (1143–1227). So, while there is a good deal of evidence on display here, one must ask whether it is always evidence of what early Quanzhen masters – or even later ones – thought and did.
Eskilden's translations are fluid and readable; he supplies ample documentation in the endnotes, and the index makes it easy to locate relevant passages. But his analysis of the sources is rather unsophisticated, and too often he resorts to rather uncritical paraphrase or précis of the passages he has just rendered at length. This is a pity, especially as the material is so fascinating and varied. For example, the apparent obsession shown throughout the sources with the dangers of sex, fears of the depletion of semen, and “leaking” (nocturnal emissions?) cries out for a more sophisticated analysis within a broader historical and cultural context.
The sources are often contradictory (perhaps because they were not always written by the authors to whom they are attributed) and/or obscure. Eskildsen does not deal with these problems consistently, and leaves many loose ends trailing. In particular, he has difficulty with the hagiographical material upon which he draws so extensively. He is not always able to offer logical or convincing explanations for the kinds of behaviour attributed to Wang in the hagiographies: for example, he theorises that Wang may have been prone to demonic possession, because some sources describe him as singing and dancing wildly (pp. 109–110). It is not clear how this evidence might square with descriptions of post-mortem appearances of Wang in which he also sings and dances (see, e.g., p.123). Are we to imagine that the Quanzhen founder continued to be possessed even after his death?
Eskildsen is perhaps too trusting of his sources, assuming that hagiographical materials, even those produced centuries after the figures they describe, tell us something substantial about how real people actually thought and acted. This assumption lends itself to a rather pious mode of writing, as if the author were producing yet another layer of hagiography. Early in the book, for example, he assures us that “the Quanzhen masters led very austere lives” (p. 2), rather than, perhaps, “the sources tell us that ‘the Quanzhen masters led very austere lives’”. The following lines from the conclusion to Chapter 2 (p. 38) are rather typical of the author's eulogistic tone: “The Quanzhen masters taught and practiced a path of self-cultivation that was simple yet strenuous. It consisted of keeping the mind clear and pure while carrying out virtuous acts of humility and compassion”. Part of the reason for his writing in this way is that he is arguing against what he perceives as a more sceptical perspective on Quanzhen practice. But, in fact, it would be hard to find any scholars today who hold the view of Quanzhen he appears to attribute to the field at large (see, e.g., p. 202 n. 7).
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 “saṃsāra” 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.
