The Baiyun Temple (in Beijing) is considered a very holy place for the Daoist religion and one of the three main ancestral shrines linked to the Quanzhen Sect. In the 1930s, the current Head Monk of the Baiyun Temple was Chen Mingbin (陈明彬). As he was elderly, he decided to transmit this important position to ‘An Shilin’ (安世霖). However, there was a problem with this choice. Although An Shilin had been a Daoist priest since the age of 16-years-old – it was well-known that his knowledge of Daoist methodology was shallow, as he had spent most of his time flattering Chen Mingbin and gaining an unearned influence over the old master. Furthermore, An Shilin was unable (or unwilling) to keep the secular world at a suitable distance, and was known to get too involved in everyday affairs. As Chen Mingbin was becoming confused by An Shilin’s attention – he mistakenly rewarded this sophistry with temporal power in the temple hierarchy. Many of the other Daoist priest looked at this situation with alarm – as granting the wrong person such a powerful position could have disastrous consequences for the temple and the Quanzhen Sect!
A number of the Daoist priests complained about Shi Anlin’s appointment to Chen Mingbin – who did not listen. The Daoist priests then arranged a petition calling for the removal of An Shilin as the Head Monk and presented this petition to the local (Republican) authorities. However, the local authorities received a financial bribe from An Shilin – and the petition was ‘ignored’ without giving a reason. It was then discovered that the local authorities were demanding a ‘continuous’ and ‘regular’ payment from An Shilin (to prevent the petition being granted) and that An Shilin was ‘selling’ ancient treasures to the general public (usually held deep inside the temple) to make the payments! The Daoist priests continued to resist his presence for 16-years – but by 1943 An Shilin had joined forces with the corrupt Republican government and instead took every opportunity to punish and humiliate the Daoist priests of Baiyun Temple! An Shilin was now making so much money that he could bribe the local authorities and keep a large amount of money for himself! By 1945, the Japanese had been defeated – but the Republican government was reaching a new peak of oppressing the populace! The Daoist priest named ‘Li Zhihui’ (李至慧) - and other Daoist priests – reported the behaviour to the religious association of the Republican government – but the complaint arrived on the same day as An Shilin’s ‘payment’ buying his immunity! Another Daoist priest - ‘Xu Mingyi’ (许明义) - reported An Shilin to the Beijing government office – but yet again An Shilin purchased immunity through bribery!
Having no real skill in Daoist methods or practice, the Baiyun Temple was starting to suffer from the bad leadership of An Shilin and his assistant – Bai Quanyi! Neither one of them understood the ancient art of geomancy (风水 - Feng Shui) and had to ‘invite’ a Master from another temple to come to the Baiyun Temple and help decide where a ‘new’ toilet should be built! As these men were supposed to be the inheritors and leaders of the Quanzhen tradition – it was a very shameful reality that neither could carry-out these ancient rituals for themselves! The toilet was to be built in the Southeast corner to absorb ‘bad luck’! Unfortunately, these two priests hired unqualified ruffians to do this job – and as a consequence, they dug holes all over the temple grounds – giving the impression that they were digging graves for An Shilin to bury all the Daoist priests who had opposed his appointment!
Digging toilets or digging graves? Breaking-up the previously good energy-flow of the temple is not good the Daoist priests still living there – or the power of the ancestors! An Shilin and Bai Quanyi had held grudges for a very long time and perhaps they were preparing the ground for revenge! As An Shilin had been (illegally) selling the rescued animals looked after in the temple for ‘meat’ to the local people – and he was using this money to bribe officials. As this was the case, 36 Daoist priests – including Li Zhihui (李至慧) and Xu Mingyi (徐明义) - gathered together to decide what to do. It was collectively agreed that An Shilin and Bai Quanyi should be ‘sentenced to death’ in accordance with the old traditions of the Daoist temples. These 36 Daoist priests all signed the ‘death sentence’ document and waited for the evening (of November 12th) to arrive (the year was 1946). They then rushed into the bedrooms of both An Shilin and Bai Quanyi and tied their hands together and placed lime in their mouths. Led by a noose around the neck – both men were dragged to the tree situated behind the smaller ‘Qiu Zu’ (邱祖) Ancestral Shrine! Both men were in shock and tried to escape – but were beaten with sticks whilst being tied to the tree and doused in kerosene! The two bodies of the men were ‘lit’ - and the flames painfully spread – soon rendering the bodies of the two men lifeless! The next day, the 36 Daoist priests marched solemnly to the local police station and gave themselves up to the local police – explaining what they had done. However, under the Republican regime - bribery was all that mattered and as these Daoist priests were very poor – they could not afford to money needed to be released. Instead, all were arrested and tried in Court for ‘murder’. On December 14th (1946) the Court decided that 19 of the Daoist priests were sentenced to at least five-years in prison – whilst the others were allowed to return to the temple. Of the 19 Daoist priests who went to prison – as they could not afford the ‘bribe’ - the prison authorities committed many acts of terrible persecution and torture! So bad was this ongoing punishment that 8 of the Daoist priests eventually ‘died’ from their wounds. Later, after the founding of ‘New China’, the cases of the remaining 11 Daoist priests were re-examined and all were ‘pardoned’ and released. If the rules as laid-down by the law were followed properly during the Republican Era – then An Shilin and Bai Quanyi would have been suitably ‘punished’ and ‘removed’ from their post just to keep the peace when the initial complaints had been made. Although the Daoist priests should not have taken the law into their own hands – on the other hand – they were motivated by the need to ‘protect’ their spiritual lineage from worldly corruption. This is why corruption in the human character should be ‘uprooted’ from the mind and body so that it does not spread out into the environment and causes all kinds of trouble for other people.
Vincent Goossaert: The Taoists of Peking, 1800-1949 - a Social History of Urban Clerics, Harvard Asian Center, (2007), Pages 179-181
Vincent Goossaert present a certain 'view' of his interpretation of the events described in this article. Obviously, his version and the contemporary Chinese narrative do not always agree due to a natural difference of perspective. For interested Westerners, reading both versions will create a useful cross-reference of the details that unfolded in an entirely different culture. Goossaert, for reasons that he only knows, decides to 'leave out' certain details. He also makes an occasional 'incorrect' statement. For instance, he claims that after the Socialist Revolution of 1949, the 'new' Communist Authorities 'closed down' the 'Baiyun Temple'. This narrative fits nicely with the US Cold War ideology that Communist Bloc regimes are routinely 'oppressive' to religious practice. However, Chinese-language records clearly state that the temple was 'closed down' immediately after ALL the Daoist priests were arrested and imprisoned during mid-November, 1946. As there had been a 'killing' in the temple, and given that An Shilin had been slaughtering animals and selling meat in a temple whose spiritual discipline involved strict 'vegetarianism', the ethnic Chinese lay-community were no longer interested in donating money or visiting a place whose spiritual energy had been so thoroughly compromised! Therefore, it was the Republican Era local authorities which 'closed down' the Baiyun Temple during late 1946 - and not the 'Communist regime' as Goossaert suggests in or after 1949! Goossaert also states that the 36 Daoist priests 'signed' a document of 'death sentence' AFTER the two victims had been burned - when in fact Chinese-language texts clearly state that the 'death sentence' was 'signed' BEFORE the burning took-place - as the burning could not have taken place without such a document being already signed. Finally, Goossaert ignores the supposed 'digging of graves' which appears to have been the straw that broke the camel's back and initiated a cascade of fatal and deadly events!