168
JULIAN F. PAS
"the worship of Kuqn-yin is not unknown in Matsu temples either” (p. 185). This is a gross understatement: as I already mentioned, many famous Matsu temples (and perhaps even most) have a secondary hall dedicated to Kuan-yin.
To summarize my comments on Chapter IV: although there is a great amount of correct factual materials, their interpretation is rather shaky: a critical analysis undermines the author's theories. His neglect of a sound historical and philosophical basis leads him to many fallacies and contradictions.
Chapter V, "Ritual Services in Temples" (pp. 189-237) comes as a surprise: the author has already dealt with these services in Chapter IV. After a while it becomes clear that he now considers them from the aspect of generating income. The main thesis of this chapter, as I see it, is to point out that the two types of temples (here reduced to community temples and "bone temples") have each a different center of gravity in their ritual life; community temples, deriving their main income from li-tou rituals are oriented toward life, whereas the "bone temples" are death-oriented: their main source of revenue are the rituals for the dead. I do not understand what the author intends to prove: there is no need to prove the obvious: community religion is naturally oriented towards protection of the living and also naturally (but secondarily) tends to protect itself from evil influences, such as for instance the threats posed by revengeful ghosts. That Buddhism emphasizes services for the dead is both historically conditioned and a simplification. A great number of Buddhist temples have found in these services a means of livelihood, but there is more to Buddhism than being a national undertaker.
On p. 191, the author examines the income of a group of temples in the Tamsui-Peit'ou area. I wonder why he uses the "official classification" system: it is incorrect and totally misleading. For example, the Ch'ing shui Lung-shan temples are not Buddhist; the three Matsu temples are not Taoist, and the Hsing Tien T'ang is not really a Confucian temple.
In a previous context I have pointed out the author's strange sense of causality: another example is given on p. 196:
"Because the gods in the temples have well defined areas of control over which they extend their protective influences, par.
Page 195
Page 196
168
JULIAN F. PAS
"the worship of Kuqn-yin is not unknown in Matsu temples either” (p. 185). This is a gross understatement: as I already mentioned, many famous Matsu temples (and perhaps even most) have a secondary hall dedicated to Kuan-yin.
To summarize my comments on Chapter IV: although there is a great amount of correct factual materials, their interpretation is rather shaky: a critical analysis undermines the author's theories. His neglect of a sound historical and philosophical basis leads him to many fallacies and contradictions.
Chapter V, "Ritual Services in Temples" (pp. 189-237) comes as a surprise: the author has already dealt with these services in Chapter IV. After a while it becomes clear that he now considers them from the aspect of generating income. The main thesis of this chapter, as I see it, is to point out that the two types of temples (here reduced to community temples and "bone temples") have each a different center of gravity in their ritual life; community temples, deriving their main income from li-tou rituals are oriented toward life, whereas the "bone temples" are death-oriented: their main source of revenue are the rituals for the dead. I do not under- stand what the author intends to prove: there is no need to prove the obvious: community religion is naturally oriented towards pro- tection of the living and also naturally (but secondarily) tends to protect itself from evil influences, such as for instance the threats posed by revengeful ghosts. That Buddhism emphasizes services for the dead is both historically conditioned and a simplification. A great number of Buddhist temples have found in these services a means of livelihood, but there is more to Buddhism than being a national undertaker.
On p. 191, the author examines the income of a group of temples in the Tamsui-Peit'ou area. I wonder why he uses the "official classification" system: it is incorrect and totally misleading. For example, the Ch'ing shui Lung-shan temples are not Buddhist; the three Matsu temples are not Taoist, and the Hsing Tien T'ang is not really a Confucian temple.
In a previous context I have pointed out the author's strange sense of causality: another example is given on p. 196:
"Because the gods in the temples have well defined areas of control over which they extend their protective infuences, par.
Page 195Page 196
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.