Lineages Embedded in Temple Networks: Daoism and Local Society in Ming China by Richard G. Wang

Richard G. Wang's book presents a new approach to the history of Daoism in Ming China, a formative period in the institutional development of the religion. While earlier studies of Ming Daoism have focused largely on the thought and teachings of select Daoist masters, the formation and development of Daoist sects, the interactions between the state and Daoist priests, and the political consequences of such engagements, Wang examines the formation of religious lineages through their interactions with the Ming state, the official state-sponsored Daoist institutions and temples, as well as local temples and the mercantile, official, and literary elites supporting them. He argues specifically for the importance of the local in shaping Ming Daoism.

Wang draws and builds on the groundbreaking work of scholars such as Kristof Schipper, John Lagerwey, Kenneth Dean, Barend Ter Har, David Faure, Michael Szonyi, Zheng Zhenman, and Vincent Goossaert, not only in the new concepts and approaches they had developed in the study of Daoist histories, from lineage to temple networks (and their connections), "central temples," liturgical frameworks, and the importance of the local and region, but also the new types of primary source materials they had consulted in developing these new perspectives and frameworks, namely local inscriptions and epigraphy, genealogies, ritual registers and manuals, and prefaces to different editions of specific scriptures or scriptural compilations.

Wang focuses on the career of a prominent early Ming Daoist Master, Liu Yuanran, who enjoyed the favor and patronage of the first five Ming emperors, and the highest imperial Daoist titles in the realm. Summoned to the imperial court in Nanjing toward the end of Ming Taizu's reign because of his local fame in the Jiangxi region for his efficacy in rain rituals and his medical knowledge, he was tasked by successive Ming emperors with conducting various important rituals and undertaking various missions to state-sponsored or important local/regional temples and sacred mountains. He was able to garner a large following of disciples both through his imperial status and his ritual prowess and medical knowledge. His disciples and granddisciples rose to the highest positions in state Daoist agencies, state-sponsored temples, and important central temples in local and regional networks through the Ming empire. He became an important figure in the religious lineages they constructed in central temples in different parts of China, from the early Ming onward, not only in the two imperial capitals, Nanjing and Beijing, but also in Tianjin, Jiangxi, Maoshan, and Yunnan. Liu even became a major rival to the Heavenly Master institution at Longhushan, the foremost Zhengyi center in Ming China. His disciples and granddisciples competed with successive Heavenly Masters and their disciples for key positions in Ming state Daoist agencies.

In Wang's analysis, the early to mid-Ming was a critical period in the compilation of religious lineages of Daoist elite masters and clerics. The creation of Liu Yuanran's lineage, and also his incorporation into lineages being developed in different Daoist schools and traditions during the early to mid-Ming dynasty, reflected a wider phenomenon in the early Ming, parallel to the growing dominance of biological lineages in local society in certain parts of China, with both using genealogical poems to define relationships within the lineage and across different generations. They became important sources for the charting of the networks of various Daoist schools and traditions during the Ming and the relationship between the different traditions and schools.

Wang charts the expansion of Liu's Qingwei Zhengyi lineage and network to different parts of the Ming empire. The Zhengyi tradition was in the ascendancy vis-à-vis Quanzhen during the Ming dynasty, due to the latter's close association with the Yuan dynasty. It was Qingwei Zhengyi Daoist priests who played an important role in the transformation of Qingyunshan into the second most important state-sponsored Daoist sacred mountain and pilgrimage in Ming China after Wudangshan and the site of important imperial rituals, especially during the Jiajing reign, commissioned by this emperor and his successors. The mobility of these priests, as Wang reminded us, was somewhat atypical of Zhengyi priests, who tended to be more locality-based in transmission and succession. Although Liu's Qingwei lineage did not seem to have been prominent in Qingyunshan, the role of the Qingwei Zhengyi Daoist priests highlighted the importance of this particular school in the Ming court and official state Daoist hierarchies and agencies during this period.

Liu's Qingwei lineage and network extended outside of the imperial capital, as seen in the preeminence of his disciples in the Tianfei palace in Tianjin and his incorporation into its lineage. In Maoshan, Liu's Qingwei lineage came to intersect with the existing Qingwei lineage there with his inclusion in the religious genealogies of key Qingwei temples where his granddisciples became abbots and the use of generational names from the genealogical poem of Liu's lineage. In Yunnan, to which he was exiled sometime after 1422, he also managed to build a following of disciples, with two shrines dedicated to him in Kunming and Baoshan, respectively, with a local lineage named after his imperial title "Changchun" in Kunming, with him as the patriarch. Like in other localities, he had gained a reputation for rain rituals and medicine, as well as specializing in talismans and registers, as well as the subduing of spirits and ghosts, centered on the Thunder Rites.

The faming (Daoist ordination name) of Shao Yizheng, one of his most prominent disciples, also initially matched the lineage poem of the Changchun lineage before it was later changed. Shao was remembered to be a contemporary of another disciple of Liu Yuanran who became a prominent member of the Changchun lineage. There were interesting overlaps in the disciples or granddisciples included in the Changchun and Liu's Qingwei Zhengyi lineages from outside Yunnan, although they had never been to Yunnan. Another Changchun Lingbao (Qingwei) lineage was also created in Baoshan. The Changchun lineage in Kunming was also central in the expansion of Xuning'an, although Daoist priests of the Quanzhen Longmen lineage became increasingly influential there from the sixteenth century onward. Nevertheless, members of the older Changchun lineage continued to reside there much later.

Despite his Qingwei lineage and transmission, as well as the ritual and liturgical framework, Liu Yuanran was also incorporated into clerical and temple lineages outside of the Zhengyi Qingwei school during the Ming dynasty. Liu's name was included, along with that of his teacher, Zhao Yizhen, in the lineages of Quanzhen temples such as the White Cloud Abbey and Fuji Abbey in Beijing and Suzhou, respectively. He also came to be associated with the later genealogies of the Jingming school that were compiled during the early fifteenth century, being recognized as the sixth patriarch, with his teacher the fifth, first in Nanjing in the Jiangnan area, and later in Nanchang, the center of the Jingming school, in Jiangxi. The Xishan Cloister, long associated with the Jingming school founder Xu Xun, was also renovated by Taizu for Liu Yuanran, suggesting a certain public knowledge of his ties with the school. There was also evidence, Wang argues, for Liu's familiarity with Jingming ritual liturgy and his being in favor of its emphasis on loyalty and filial piety as the foundations of personal cultivation. The Jiangnan ancestry of his most prominent disciple, Shao Yizheng, was also seen as a possible link, while Wang noted how various granddisciples of Liu Yuanran had also worked to spread this association of Liu with the school through their writings.

In Wang's analysis, although the connections with the Ming emperors and court and Liu's incorporation into official Daoist hierarchies created by the state were central to the expansion of his influence and status and his religious lineage in the Ming empire, local dynamics in terms of his interactions and engagements with local temples and communities, and the efficacy of his ritual powers and medicinal knowledge and skills were all instrumental in the expansion of his lineage and their predominance in the leadership of state-sponsored and local Daoist temples in Ming China. Wang's study of Liu Yuanran's career and lineage networks highlights the fluidity of the boundaries between Daoist traditions and schools that have very much structured our study and understanding of Daoism today, showing how they changed over time and emphasizing their need to be understood in their respective historical contexts.

The Daoist institutions examined in the study were, as Wang continually reminds us, very much economic, political, and sociocultural configurations, as seen in their landholdings and revenue (from harvests) and the different arrays of sponsorship and patronage networks in different localities. Their patrons ranges from the Ming emperor and state Daoist agencies, military lineages and families, to local mercantile, landed gentry, and scholarly elites, sailors, and other groups in different parts of Ming China.

Ultimately, Wang's book is also a study of Ming China from the perspective of the Daoist elites and Daoism, beyond the emphasis on the state (the court elites and local/regional bureaucratic elites) and the local scholarly gentry elites that have dominated most histories of the Ming. It provides a kaleidoscopic view of Ming China from the perspective of religion, state, and local society, with religion at the center. The book surveys the imperial capitals of Beijing and Nanjing to port cities (Tianjin), coastal regions (Jiangnan), hinterland areas (Jiangxi), and distant inland frontier regions (Yunnan). It provides rich accounts of the intersections between state religion, popular religion, and Daoism in Ming China on the local and regional level (including the intersections between Daoist institutions/ritual traditions, popular festivals and processions, and local communities).

In as much as Liu Yuanran and his lineage, alongside other competing lineages, schools, and traditions through their mobility, networks, and agencies, had to negotiate and mediate between the Ming emperor, the state, and local power elites (bureaucratic, mercantile, and gentry) in their efforts to promote their respective lineage, scriptural/liturgical frameworks, and other interests in different parts of Ming China, the emperor and state elites relied on Liu and other religious elites to mediate with the heavens, the environment, and the spirit/world for the welfare of the realm, and in the case of the emperor, his concerns for legitimacy and male heirs. In this way, religion, state, economy, and society were closely intertwined. By centering religion and Daoism, this work brings a new frame and approach to the study of Ming China, and by grounding this study in the history of lineages and the economic, political, and sociocultural structures of Ming society, it brings new socially embedded perspectives to the study of Daoism, not only during the Ming dynasty, itself a historical gap that needs filling, but also in the longue durée.