BOOK REVIEWS
225
rank in a number of groups) and even the White Lotus itself — all listed by the author (I am here using his translations and romanizations) — had a systematically worked-out theology, exegeses existing independently of any other Chinese religion, a mother goddess unknown in any other Chinese pantheon, and they looked for the coming of an incarnate buddha, Maitreya, who is to preside over a millennial age. They had elaborate ranks with elaborate religious qualifications, and indeed in many cases it would appear by examination of such ranks, as well as theology and lines of patriarchal succession that they are offshoots of each other. This is certainly claimed to be the case by leaders of some of these messianic organizations living overseas in contemporary times (Topley 1963). Such groups attracted the frustrated intellectual as well as the poorer member of society who might find a home in one of their residential, commonly vegetarian, halls. They had a dialectical approach to the social and ideological contradictions they saw in their society and culture: in some ways more Confucian than the Confucians who urged self-cultivation as a requirement for good government by the official, they made a necessity of a virtue and demanded this qualification for an administrative position in their own organizational hierarchy. And here is an important point. They offered a social and ideological system which was a complete challenge, not just to existing leadership but the form of society itself. Social organization would be unnecessary when the millennium came, because people would act from intuitive knowledge of the right way to behave. Virtue would be the only qualification for the decision-maker and its own reward. There would be no poverty and no contradictions. Such notions are not of course without parallel in secular China today. Is it really true, as the author suggests that they 'contributed to the survival of outdated ideas and beliefs'? Or might they have not paved the way for certain contemporary Chinese ways of thinking? All this requires much more serious thought, as does also, the particular nature of their militant involvements: what role in military activities and strategy-planning would a leader of this kind of organization have a man whose position appears to depend on religious rather than social achievements; on intellect rather than physical prowess (Topley 1968: 35, 38)?
J
There was then another kind of grouping which was different. It used religious concepts and symbols but had no separate theology or exegeses. No religious qualifications were necessary for leader-