From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Taoism  
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Taoism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taoism-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Further Texts & Thoughts[edit]

I noted this article survived edits/commentaries and I plan to expand the concepts/precepts of xiuzhen, nejingtu & xiuzhentu further, from at least two sources- yearbooks 2002~2004 from a temple and other chinese publications of neixiu jing, all in Chinese and no western translations. Grateful of comments from the Wiki-editors on this as agreeable to avoid efforts deleted as not-sourced from english-writings.ACHKC (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You've already been informed at least once that WP sources must be reliable and verifiable. Resources like Chinese-language temple yearbooks are obviously unacceptable. There are thousands of English-language publications on Daoism, and if you can't find even one that supports your personal interpretations of xiuzhen, perhaps that means this topic is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. I've looked up xiuzhen in many books and articles about Daoism, but can't find anything with the exception of book titles like Xiuzhen shishu 修真十書. If that weren't bad enough, the few references you've cited in this article are shamelessly fabricated, see below. Keahapana (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Bogus references?[edit]

I've checked these citations and all of them (with one possible exception) appear irrelevant to xiuzhen "cultivation of perfection". Among the 8 footnote references, 3 are valid but immaterial to the topic and 5 appear to be spurious fabrications.

Notes [4], [5], and [6] are legitimate references. [4] cites Creel (1982:5) who distinguishes "contemplative" and "purposive" Taoism. [5] cites Creel (1982:7) who discusses "Neo-Taoism", "religious Taoism", and "Hsien Taoism". [6] cites Fowler (2005:4) who differentiates Daojia "philosophical" and Daojiao "religious" or "ritualistic" Taoism. These categorizations are already discussed under the Taoism article, but none of these authors mentions xiuzhen. These 3 citations only support attacking the "scholarly myths" straw man that every authority in Daoist studies has ignored xiuzhen.

The other five appear to be faked citations. Notes [1], [2], and [3] purportedly reference xiuzhen as "the principle technique in the Taoist quest for immortality", "documented since the Yellow Emperor," and "supported by many Taoism scholars". Although [1] Maspero (1981:211) is unavailable to me, [2] cites Creel (1982:40) who criticizes Maspero (1981:211, an interesting coincidence?, cf. fn. [94] under Taoism) whether immortality was secondary to mystic union. [3] cites Robinet (1981:3-5) who defines "philosophical", "religious", and "purposeful" or "practical" Taoism versus "popular religion". Note [7] cites Robinet (1981:20) who discusses Taoists in society, but doesn't say that Taoists "never viewed themselves as belonging to" a religion. Note [8] cites Robinet (1981:16) who treats the Taoist in the cosmos, the "return" leitmotif, and geometric schemas, but doesn't mention "Sift Texts" or Deyi 得一.

If I'm being too harsh, I apologize. Perhaps Maspero discusses xiuzhen. Could somebody with access to Taoism and Chinese Religion please check page 211? Or perhaps you accidentally cited wrong page numbers 5 times. If so, please correct them. On the other hand, if there are no verifiable scholarly references that sustain your personal research on xiuzhen, perhaps the article should be recommended for merger or deletion. Best wishes. Keahapana (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Again thank you both, Keahapana & strawman, possible misunderstanding here about the first 3 references, now reduced only to Robinet's, the quest of immortality is a subject supported by many scholars, Xiuzhen is but a namesake for immoratlity quest, two sentences, not meant to imply although it could suggest Maspero, Creel and Robinet supported that Xiuzhen as the Taoist immortality quest. It is a tade reactionary to say these were fake or fabricated references in that regard(can we lift the starting captions then?). Keahapana is also right to say of the current literature available, only Xiuzhen Shishu validates the namesake of Xiuzhen. This is another subject relating to Taoism and the immortality quest that needs airing- looking only at the annals many subject-matter have been outdated, unintelligible and much lost. Taoists and adepts communicate weekly by fuji or planchette writing today to have updates on some of these lost messages. This is the fluid or dynamic aspect of the Taoism and of Xiuzhen, incidentally Xiuzhen has been a term traceable at least to the 1300 CE Daoism Handbook p.435 Livia Kohn but should in fact have been much earlier...ACHKC (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back. Perhaps the misunderstanding was yours, and you didn't realize that the purpose of reference citations is to validate content. For instance, Robinet (1981:4, para. 2) discusses the arbitrary dichotomy between empirical and theoretical approaches to immortality. She does not "support" the "quest for immortality". Many scholars have studied, discussed, analyzed, and written about 仙 practices, but can you name a few of the "many" alleged quest supporters? I'm amused that you even manage to misquote me (from 21 May 2008 above). I was suggesting reasons why "this topic is unsuitable for an encyclopedia" – not that "of the current literature available, only Xiuzhen Shishu validates the namesake of Xiuzhen." Huh?
The "starting captions" at the top of this article are there for good reasons. It egregiously violates Wikipedia standards about original research, unverified claims, unpublished synthesis, inadequate citations, quality, etc. If you are willing to alter the content to accord with these principles, the tags will be removed.
Let's take the lead sentence as an example: "Xiuzhen (修真) is the principal technique in the Taoist quest for immortality, a historical subject documented since the Yellow Emperor (2697-2598 BCE)." Where's your "principal technique" reference? Why do you think xiuxhen isn't even listed in the 仙學辭典, 道教大辭典, Chinese-language Wikipedia, or The Encyclopedia of Taoism? The 中华道教大辭典 cross-references it to xiudao 修道, a more commonly used word which, unlike xiushen can be found in most Chinese dictionaries. The Yellow Emperor is a mythical or legendary figure, not a historical one. As you know, many Chinese texts, Daoist and otherwise, are falsely attributed to Huangdi to fake a patina of antiquity. I'm not aware of any modern scholars or historians who accept these fabled 27th century BCE dates. You cite Kohn's 1300 CE for the first record of xiuzhen, which you blindly dismiss because you imagine it "should in fact have been much earlier". That would leave something like, "Xiudao (修道 lit. "cultivation of the Way") or xiuzhen (修真 "cultivation of perfection) is a technique in Taoist neidan style internal alchemy".
As I've offered before, If you still don't understand basic WP policies and guidelines, I'd be glad to point you in the right direction. It's your choice. Keahapana (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)