Page 366 - The Encyclopedia of Taoism v1_A-L

DAO SHI 327

have seldom had such opportunities, for historical, social, political and cul-
tural reasons. The exiguity of such contact has impoverished, and sometimes
skewed, scholarly depictions of the daoshi. Moreover, the disdain with which
most modern Chinese (especially the educated) and virtually all Westerners
have looked upon all practitioners of living Taoist traditions has sometimes
resulted in depictions of the Taoist priesthood that are focused solely upon
past eras or upon sociological data. One thus rarely finds depictions of the
ordained representatives of organized Taoist traditions that demonstrate
how those representatives can be understood as fulfilling the deepest spiri-
tual ideals of the Taoist heritage. A depiction of daoshi that is accurate and
properly nuanced must overcome such inherited dichotomizations as *DAO]IA
and *DAO]IAO, or "mystical" and "liturgical," and must place the daoshi in
his or her proper context within the vast continuum of ideals, practices, and
institutions that Taoism encompasses. Furthermore, one must beware some
writers' tendency to confuse literary images with historical data, or to con-
flate modern phenomena with data from ancient or medieval texts, thereby
creating anachronistic amalgams that are false and misleading. In addition,
some writers have used the term "priest" (or "master") as an indiscriminate
translation for a variety of historical and contemporary Chinese terms, further
muddling our understanding of the realities involved.

Historical overview. The term daoshi is first attested in Han-dynasty texts. In
some, it appears as a vague appellation for idealized persons of ancient times,
i.e., as a literary figure, comparable to *Zhuangzi's *zhenren (Real Man, or Per-
fected) or zhiren ¥.A (Accomplished Man). Other Han texts use the term for
living people with uncommon abilities, i.e., as a synonym for *fangshi. Based
on such usages, formulators of later Taoist institutions forged the word into
a technical term, which would serve as a standard designation for any person
ordained into a specific, elevated rank of the clergy.
Yet, the institutions of the Taoist priesthood evolved slowly and fitfully; and
only recently have scholars begun analyzing pertinent texts and unraveling the
evolution of Taoist clerical institutions. From the earliest days of the *Tianshi
dao organization, participants had been ranked hierarchically, with certain
terms (like *jijiu or libationer) reserved for members of the higher levels. But
Taoist leaders of the fifth century, like *Kou Qianzhi and *Lu Xiujing, saw
their tradition's ranks as muddled and disordered when compared to the ranks
of Buddhist contemporaries. They therefore began trying to standardize and
elevate the Taoist clergy. Idealized rankings of clerical categories appear in
late Six Dynasties texts, like the Chujia yinyuan jing ill * ~ tU: ~~ (Scripture on
the Causes of Becoming a Renunciant; CT 339; see Benn 1991, 185- 86 n. 41).
Much fuller were the seventh-century *Fengdao kejie (Codes and Precepts for
Worshipping the Dao), which outlines the standards expected of the daoshi,