166
JULIAN F. PAS
cannot be touched by its defilements. The gods of the folk religion are seen as more human in this (and other) respects. They need worship and offerings for their continued existence. They are susceptible to dangers and impurities. This shows that these concepts have been created by the common people in a simple fashion. Neither the higher deities of Taoism nor the Buddhist Holy Ones share this vulnerability. Unless, perhaps, even here there is a wrong interpretation by the author. Is it correct to say that the gods can be polluted? I have some doubts. If gods are really efficacious, they do not have to fear human pollution, or pollution by evil spirits. I believe that gods are kept away from the presence of evil spirits as a sign of honour; it would be an insult to their sacredness (just as the common people are not brought into the presence of emperors). Wherever there is a special need of bringing the two together, as in cases of exorcism, the gods are called down to chase the evil spirits away. Why is that not polluting as well? In such cases, the element of irreverence is absent (as when criminals are brought into the presence of high mandarins for judgment and sentencing).
The same sense of respect for the hierarchical status is present in the chronomantic ordering of sacrifices. The higher the status of the gods, the earlier in the day they are served (p. 154).
On pp. 168-169, several confusions occur: Taoist priests are said to perform in Buddhist temples, while Buddhist monks are invited to Taoist temples. The examples cited do not warrant this, for the so-called Buddhist temple is not really a Buddhist temple, while the Matsu temples cited are not Taoist either. The author conveniently follows the official appellation from the gazetteers, which he has criticized in a previous chapter.
On p. 174, there is another example of 'sublime distortion'. The author tries to explain the folk saying that "Taoists do not offer the service for feeding the hungry ghosts, and Buddhist monks do not offer the li-tou service", already quoted on p. 165. Factual observations contradict the saying. The author's explanation is that “individual ancestral services such as chin-chu and chin-t'a are only offered... in "Buddhist" bone temples, and by Buddhist priests (p. 174), whereas the community temples do not allow this to take place: the god's purity must be safeguarded. First, the statement is incorrect as far as chin-chu services are concerned; these normally