The historical significance of the formation of Buddhist schools during the Sui and Tang Dynasties

ABSTRACT

The formation of Buddhist schools during the Sui and Tang Dynasties is the most significant achievement in the Sinification of Buddhism and holds profound significance in the history of civilization. This article takes ‘Fulfilling the Threefold Training’ as the core of the sectarian concept and explores the Sui and Tang Dynasty Buddhist schools within the three major dimensions of truth, sanctity and daily life. It discusses various elements such as the Division of the Buddha’s teaching, Dependent Arising, meditative contemplation, patriarchal tradition and monastic discipline. The formation of Buddhist schools was based on a methodology of inheritance, interpretation and innovation, representing a civilization exchange of ‘difference and unity.’ Simultaneously, the formation of these schools signifies the central role of Mahāyāna Buddhism in China, contrasting with the peripheral position of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India, presenting a mutual civilizational learning of ‘periphery and center.’

KEYWORDS:

• Buddhist schools
• Fulfilling the Threefold Training
• history of civilization
• difference and unity
• periphery and center

In the study of Chinese Buddhist history over the past century, the concept of ‘schools’ has become an important paradigm and has achieved significant academic success. At the same time, there has been an ongoing debate among scholars regarding the existence of schools in Sui (581–618) and Tang (618–907) Dynasty Buddhism. The questioning of Sui and Tang schools is based on the absence of certain elements in the sectarian concept. According to Lan Richang 藍日昌, the concept of daichuan yiren 代傳一人 (succession by one person) in the sectarian view does not align with the master-disciple relationships of the Tang Dynasty. The notion of daichuan yiren was first introduced by the Heze Shenhui 菏澤神會 (684–758), and it was a proposition put forward to elevate his own status. It was not a commonly accepted idea at the time.¹ Sun Yinggang 孫英剛 points out that the analysis of Sui and Tang schools has been heavily influenced by Japanese research, which, in turn, is based on Japanese Buddhist schools. Japanese Buddhist schools have had a profound influence on politics, economics, society, culture and other fields, with some schools even becoming independent political forces. However, such a situation never occurred in China during the Sui and Tang periods.² On the other hand, the discussion supporting the formation of Sui and Tang schools involves explaining their elements. Tang Yongtong 湯用彤 (1893–1964) emphasizes that a school is a religious group with a founder, transmission of teachings, followers, doctrines and rules.³ Yan Shangwen 顏尚文 divides schools into two categories: first, doctrinal schools, which involve only the school’s doctrine and its lineage, along with subtle awareness of its factions; and second, sectarian schools, which encompass doctrine, lineage systems, dedicated monasteries, organizational structures and a strong sense of faction, lineage founders and transmission.⁴ The former category refers to doctrinal schools during the Northern and Southern Dynasties, such as the Nirvāṇa School (Niepan zong 涅槃宗), Dilun School (Dilun zong 地論宗) and Shelun school (Shelun zong 攝論宗), while the latter category includes schools from the Sui and Tang Dynasties, such as Chan School (Chanzong 禪宗), Vinaya School (Lüzong 律宗) and Tiantai School (Tiantai zong 天台宗). He believes that the fundamental factors of a school are its doctrine and lineage, but he also mentions that schools’ create unique doctrines and methods of practice.’⁵ Kamata Shigeo 鎌田茂雄 (1927–2001) clearly states in the fourth chapter of the sixth volume of Chūgoku Bukkyō shi 中國佛教史 [Chinese Buddhist History] that, ‘the various schools of the Sui and Tang dynasties, as mentioned in this book, refer to schools that combine both doctrine (teaching) and observance (practice).’⁶ The central issue of the debate revolves around the understanding of ‘school.’ In the context of the Buddhist tradition’s perspective on ‘the Threefold Training,’ this article reevaluates the differences between Buddhism during the Northern and Southern Dynasties and the Sui and Tang Dynasties. It identifies the dimensions and elements of the ‘school’ concept and subsequently explores the cultural and historical significance of the formation of Buddhist schools in the Sui and Tang Dynasties.

1. Fulfilling the Threefold Training: the dimensions and elements of the ‘school’ concept during the Sui and Tang Dynasties

The most significant difference between Buddhism and other religions or philosophical systems lies in its emphasis on ‘the Threefold Training’ – precepts (Skt. śīla), concentration (Skt. samādhi) and wisdom (Skt. prajñā), which serves as the method for eliminating afflictions and attaining Nirvana. The twenty-ninth juan of the Za ahan jing 雜阿含經 (Skt. Saṃyukta Nikāya; Connected Discourses) states: ‘One who fulfills the Threefold Training is one who practices rightly as a monk’ (三學具足者, 是比丘正行).⁷ ‘Fulfilling the Threefold Training’ represents the ideal of the Buddha’s teaching, the common aspiration of his disciples in their spiritual practice, and shows it is fundamental for the ‘continuity of the Dharma’ (法久住) and ‘continuity of the Brahmacariyā (pure living)’ (梵行久住). According to the traditional Buddhist perspective of ‘Fulfilling the Threefold Training,’ when observing Buddhist schools in the Northern and Southern Dynasties period, it is evident that the Master primarily focuses on wisdom interpretation, while there might be some inadequacies in the domains of precepts and concentration practice. The discussion in juan fifteen of ‘Yijie pian’ 義解篇 [Section of Commentators] in Xu Gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳 [Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks] attributed to Daoxuan 道宣 (596–667), evaluates the three great masters of law of the Liang Dynasty – Fayun 法雲 (467–529), Sengmin 僧旻 (467–527) and Zhizang 智藏 (458–522), stating:

At that time, there were three great masters, namely Fayun, Sengmin, and Zhizang. These three were considered equals and were collectively known as sengjie (eminent monks). They annotated the Chenglun (i.e. Chengshi lun 成實論; Skt. Tattvasiddhi-Śāstra; The Treatise that Accomplishes Reality), and their scholarly abilities were on par with the ancients. However, as I examine the predecessors, there are still critical remarks. Why is this so? For example, when expounding and interpreting the Buddha’s teaching, some people consider scripture as fundamental. When excerpting phrases, speculating on meanings, there is often a risk of missing the point. When excerpting phrases, speculating on meanings, during such actions, there is a considerable likelihood of errors. Let alone forsaking the original for the trivial and casually quoting scriptures based on personal interpretation. During daily instruction and teaching, one might only create a series of xuanzhang (profound meaning, profound treatise) without reading the commentaries and treatises thoroughly. Even until old age, one may still be in such a position [teaching in this way]. It cannot be said that the teachings have been truly propagated. On the other hand, some people consider commentaries as fundamental. Indeed, they traverse within the forest of doctrines, treating their fingers as the moon (referring to treating treatises as doctrines), without violating the ways of the predecessors (like the predecessors writing treatises). When establishing Buddha’s teaching as scriptural text, there are already risks of errors, such as the five losses of the original. They go further to expound doctrines and promote teachings. However, the teachings in the scriptures serve as the basis for the reason (Skt. artha), and the reason becomes evident via the teachings in the scriptures. It is by relying on the scriptures that one comprehends the reason, and then individuals propagate the teachings. Following this process, there are still many errors, even without deviating from this approach, which would further hinder the alignment of the teaching and the reason. Therefore, during the Liang Dynasty, the three master debaters criticized each other’s statements as fallacious, scrutinizing the errors and omissions in their essays. There was no refined discourse. Seeking the reason through personal understanding or feelings, however, how can personal understanding be relied upon in the realm of the reason? Even if various doctrinal debates flourished during the Liang dynasty, becoming a prevalent trend, gaining renown among both clergy and laity, isn’t the person excelling in both practitioners and laymen none other than Zhizang of the Kaishan Monastery? Others may excel in doctrinal interpretation and follow various standard codes, and there were still more than ten outstanding individuals among them. However, adhering to performing detailed behaviors, yet in the cultivation of meditative practice, they did not achieve widespread fame. Therefore, they are only briefly introduced. 時有三大法師雲, 旻, 藏者, 方駕當途, 復稱僧傑, 挹酌成論, 齊騖先驅. 考定昔人, 非無臧否, 何以然耶? 至如講解傳授, 經教本宗, 摘文揣義, 情猶有失. 何得背本追末, 意言引用? 每日敷化, 但竪玄章, 不覩論文. 終於皓首, 如斯處位, 未曰紹隆. 若夫立文本宗, 誠遊義苑, 指月之況, 不爽先模, 隨文五失, 又開弘誡. 然則教為理依, 理隨教顯, 附教通理, 弘之在人. 准此承遵, 居然多惑. 寧乖此喻, 安得相符? 是使梁氏三師互指為謬, 審文紕亂, 可有致言. 義在情求, 情安倚伏其中? 縱達論宗, 肅成風素, 榮冠道俗, 行業相兼者, 則開善智藏, 抑其人乎? 餘則慧解是長, 儀範多雜, 非無十數翹楚, 遵修細行, 然定學攝心, 未聞於俗, 故略言也.⁸

Daoxuan was keenly aware that the focus of the scholars’ pursuits lay in the exposition of the teachings of the scriptures and reason. Through the method of establishing viewpoints and citing textual passages in their exegesis, the study of the scriptures was deepened to a certain extent, leading to a proliferation of viewpoints. However, the differing viewpoints of scholars and the phenomenon that there are no teachers constantly led to confusion. This departure from the true expression of doctrinal truth and the practice guidance created a phenomenon of ‘forsaking the original for the trivial.’

Daoxuan emphasized that ‘the teachings in the scriptures serve as the basis for the reason, and the reason becomes evident via the teachings in the scriptures.’ In the modern academic perspective, the intellectual history of classical texts should also be transformed into a conceptual history, including the inclusion of doctrinal discussions, to demonstrate the true dimension of Buddhist concepts. Daoxuan’s criticism of the scholars – that they ‘may excel in doctrinal interpretation and follow various standard codes’ but they performed inadequately in ‘the cultivation of meditative practice’ – contains a premise that Buddhist elites need to achieve the path to liberation through ‘Fulfilling the Threefold Training.’ This is also the sacred dimension of Buddhist concepts that academic research should focus on. Therefore, the doctrinal discussions and commentaries on the scriptures of the schools must be transformed into the construction of conceptual guidance for spiritual practice, in accordance with the ideal of ‘Fulfilling the Threefold Training.’ Sui and Tang Dynasty Buddhism not only inherited the rich intellectual resources of the Southern and Northern Dynasties’ (420–589) Buddhist schools but also reflected on and compensated for the shortcomings of the Southern and Northern Dynasties Buddhism based on the ideal of ‘Fulfilling the Threefold Training.’ The Vinaya school, with its core emphasis on ethical discipline, and the Chan school, with its foundation in meditation, are products of this reflection.⁹

‘The Threefold Training’ served as the classification method upon which the followers of Sui and Tang Buddhism relied to establish their ‘identity.’¹⁰ For example, Liu Zongyuan 柳宗元 (773–819), in his essay ‘Song Rui shangren gui Huainan jinsheng xu’ 送濬上人歸淮南覲省序 [Preface for Sending Eminent Monk Rui on His Return to Huainan to Visit His Parent(s)],’ stated:

As to the doctrine of Buddhism, filial piety is considered fundamental. Then, through various virtuous deeds, practitioners accumulate merit with the ultimate goal of returning to emptiness. The teachings of Buddhism have been widely disseminated in China, giving rise to different manners known as Chan, Fa (Dharma), and Lü (Vinaya), thus aiming to guide lost sentient beings, and have been widely respected and followed. 金仙氏之道, 蓋本於孝敬, 而後積以眾德, 歸於空無. 其敷演教戒於中國者, 離為異門: 曰禪, 曰法, 曰律, 以誘掖迷濁, 世用宗奉.¹¹

The titles of lüshi 律師 (Skt. vinayadhara; Master of the Discipline], chanshi 禪師 (Skt. dhyāyin; Chan Master) and fashi 法師 (Skt. dharmabhāṇaka; Master of the Law) were formed based on the emphasis of the ‘Threefold Training’ among Tang-era monks. This was a way to establish clear responsibilities among the monks through professional specialization.¹² Lüshi were monks dedicated to precepts and conferring the Vinaya responsible for upholding the Buddhist system. Chanshi referred not to chan monks but to those primarily practicing meditation and contemplation. Early adherents of the Dilun School, Tiantai School and Huayan School 華嚴宗 were often considered to be chanshi. Fashi were scholars of Buddhist scriptures, translators and expositors of Buddhist texts. Ennin 圓仁 (Jikaku Daishi 慈覺大師; 794–864), a Japanese monk, also classified ninth-century Chinese Buddhism based on the ‘Threefold Training.’ In Nittō guhō junrei kōki 入唐求法巡礼行記 [Ennin’s Diary: The Record of a Pilgrimage to China in Search of the Law], he described:

Those monks who expound on the principles of impermanence, suffering, and emptiness, guiding laymen and laywomen are called ‘Huasu fashi’ (Master of the Law Who Guide the secular) … Monks who wear patched robe and bring their minds from desires are referred to as ‘Chan Masters’ and are also called ‘daozhe’ (one who practices Buddhism). Those who observe the precepts are known as ‘Master of the discipline,’ and those who give teachings on precepts are called ‘Lü zuozhu’ (the prelate of Vinaya). 說世間無常苦空之理, 化導男弟子, 女弟子, 呼道化俗法師也 … 若納衣收心, 呼為禪師, 亦為道者. 持律偏多, 名律大德, 講為 ‘律座主.’¹³

Regarding the ‘Threefold Training,’ as the distinctive identities and professional specializations of monks, it has consistently garnered attention throughout later generations. As stated in juans 28 of the Jingde chuandeng lu 景德傳燈錄 [Record of the Lamp’s Transmission of the Jingde Era]:

The Master of the discipline, who initiates and transmits the root of Buddhism, namely the treasury of the Vinaya, discerns the behaviors of observing and violating precepts, comprehends situations of permission and prohibition, holds the deportment firmly, manages the threefold ceremony of karmavācanā and expounds the teachings of four fruits (Skt. caturvidhaṃ phalam) and original cause of all causes (Skt. ādi-Kāraṇatva). Without venerable monks of high virtue and advanced age, who would dare to undertake the responsibilities of a Master of the discipline rashly? The Master of the Law, seated on the lion-throne, pours forth eloquence like a flowing river, facing the public, unlocking the mysterious gate to the path of Buddhahood and the wonderful door to enlightenment, performing the non-substantiality of the three aspects of giving. Without venerable monks like the dragons and elephants, who would dare to assume the role of a Master of the Law? The Chan Master extracts the essential principles of the Dharma, pointing directly to the original nature of the mind, adeptly responding to the myriad changes, external phenomena and sentient beings. Integrating phenomena and the fundamental substance, enables people to realize the Buddha’s realm, break free from the entanglements of birth and death, and attain samādhi. Without wholeheartedly engaging in Chan meditation, one will always feel bewildered. When offering teachings according to the capacity and opportunity, the studies of precepts (Skt. ṡīla), concentration (Skt. samādhi), and wisdom (Skt. prajñā), differ. However, when one attains the true essence of Buddhism and forgets attachment to language, how does it differ from the path of the One Vehicle (Skt. ekayāna)? 夫律師者, 啟毗尼之法藏, 傳壽命之遺風. 洞持犯而達開遮, 秉威儀而行軌範. 牒三番羯磨, 作四果初因. 若非宿德白眉, 焉敢造次? 夫法師者, 踞師子之座, 瀉懸河之辯, 對稠人廣眾, 啟鑿玄關, 開般若妙門, 等三輪空施. 若非龍象蹴蹋, 安敢當斯? 夫禪師者, 撮其樞要, 直了心源, 出沒卷舒, 縱橫應物, 咸均事理, 頓見如來, 拔生死深根, 獲現前三昧. 若不安禪靜慮, 到這裏總須忙然. 隨機授法, 三學雖殊; 得意忘言, 一乘何異?¹⁴

In this passage, Dazhu Huihai 大珠慧海 (713?–812?) analyzes the different characteristics of Master of the Discipline, Master of the Law and Chan Master. Master of the Discipline focuses on upholding the Vinaya, while Master of the Law excels in teaching and explaining the sutras and doctrines. A Chan Master is skilled in meditation and direct realization. Despite their distinct expertises, Ven. Dazhu Huihai emphasizes that these specializations are bestowed based on individual aptitude differences but share the unified purpose of enlightenment and realization.

Examining the various Buddhist schools during the Sui and Tang dynasties with the principle of ‘Fulfilling the Threefold Training’ can reveal the underlying concepts, spiritual practices and institutional aspects of these schools. In this context, precepts relate to the rules and way of life, meditation pertains to the spiritual practices and way of life and wisdom involves the inner qualities and the conceptual world associated with it. From a methodological perspective in academic research, the study of Buddhist schools in the Sui and Tang Dynasties requires the approach of intellectual history. This is because schools encompass various elements such as canonical doctrines, lineage transmission of teachers, practices of spiritual cultivation, organizational structures and more. When researching Buddhist schools that emerged after the late Tang and into the Five Dynasties (907–979) and beyond, a comprehensive approach that combines intellectual history and social history is necessary. This is because schools began to serve as ‘identity’ in the realms of religious and social life during this period. Moreover, by dissecting the different forms of existence among sects in terms of concepts, institutional arrangements and way of life, it becomes possible to understand the similarities and differences among Buddhist schools in the Sui, Tang, Song (960–1279), Yuan (1271–1368) and subsequent periods.

In the context of research in the history of Buddhist concepts and social history, the pursuit of ‘Fulfilling the Threefold Training’ signifies that ‘sectarian Buddhism’ should encompass three major dimensions: truth, sacredness and way of life. Truth and sacredness belong to the realm of intellectual history, while way of life pertains to the domain of social history.

Firstly, in the ‘truth’ dimension of schools, the core concepts are the Division of the Buddha’s teaching (panjiao 判教) and Dependent Arising (Skt. pratityasamutpada). ‘Division of the Buddha’s teaching’ relates to the primary ideas concerning Buddhist doctrine, and each school holds different views on this concept. For instance, the Dilun School’s sizong panjiao 四宗判教 (the classification and interpretation of Buddhist teachings into four categories) and tongzong yuanjiao 通宗圓教 (interconnectedness and ultimate unity),¹⁵ the Tiantai School’s wushi bajiao 五時八教 (the five periods and eight teachings), Daoxuan’s huaxing erjiao 化行二教 (the two teachings of transformation and practice], and Fazang’s 法藏 (643–712) wujiao shizong 五教十宗 (the five teachings and ten schools). The various Buddhist schools of the Sui and Tang dynasties continued and integrated the systems of ‘Division of the Buddha’s teaching’ from the Southern and Northern Dynasties’ Buddhist schools. They also incorporated new achievements in sūtra translations and gained a fresh understanding of the history of Indian Buddhism.

‘Dependent Arising’ is a fundamental concept in Buddhism.¹⁶ The creative interpretations of ‘Dependent Arising’ by Buddhist scholars in the Sui and Tang dynasties, such as those from the Dilun School discussing ziti yuanji 自體緣集 (self-contained Dependent Arising) and fajie yuanqi 法界緣起 (Dependent Arising of the Dharma realm [Skt. dharmadhātu]),¹⁷ Jizang 吉藏 (549–623), referring to zhongdao yuanqi 中道緣起 (Skt. Madhyma-pratipada, Dependent Arising of the Middle Way) and Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597), emphasizing xing ju yuanqi 性具缘起 (Dependent Arising of inherent existence), as well as the fajie yuanqi 法界缘起 (Dependent Arising of the Dharma realm) proposed by Zhiyan 智儼 (602–668) and Fazang, represent the theoretical achievements of Chinese Buddhism rather than adhering to the original Indian Buddhist doctrines.

Secondly, in the ‘sacred’ dimension of ‘schools,’ the core concepts are meditative contemplation and patriarchal tradition. Liberation is the fundamental value in Buddhism, and the differences in practice are influenced by individual aptitude. In the first half of the ninth century, Zongmi 宗密 (780–841) described the state of Buddhism from its introduction to China until the early Tang Dynasty in juan one of his Yuanjuejing dashu 圓覺經大疏 [Great Commentary on the Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment]:

Regarding the spread of Buddhism in China, due to the distance from ancient sages and the increasing divergence of sources, coupled with vast geographical separations and diverse customs, there are numerous challenges in translation and dissemination, resulting in many errors and difficulties. The methods of transmission also vary among different schools. However, since the Wei and Jin dynasties, people have emphasized the contemplation of principle, placing importance on extracting profound meanings during scripture translations and focusing on the core when spreading doctrines. As a result, great virtuous individuals have emerged, and eminent monks have abounded. This trend continued until the Zhenguan era, during which the prosperity of name and form led to misunderstandings. Expediency was taken as if it were truth, leading to the distortion of the doctrine under the influence of heterodox views. 此土承襲者, 良以去聖時遙, 源流益別, 況方域隔遠, 風俗攸殊, 翻譯流通, 三難五失, 相承傳襲, 各黨其宗. 然魏晉已來, 猶崇理觀, 譯經貴意, 傳教宗心, 是以大德架肩, 高僧繼踵. 爰及貞觀, 名相繁興, 展轉澆訛, 以權為實, 致使真趣屈於異端.¹⁸

The Chinese Buddhist community, in response to the licentiousness and laxity brought about by an excessive focus on textual studies and a decline in faith due to an overemphasis on classical scholarship, was deeply concerned. This critique stems from the faithful devotion of Buddhist practitioners. Hence, the key to Chineseizing Buddhism lies in establishing a system of practice suitable for the Chinese disposition. This is also the fundamental significance of the emergence of practical schools like the Chan School, Vinaya School, and Jingtu School (Jingtu zong 淨土宗, Pure Land School).

Meditative contemplation represents the practice of the doctrine. The integration of the tradition of scriptures with meditation and other paths of practice reflects the sacred aspirations of ‘sectarian’ monks in the Sui and Tang dynasties. The combination of Prajñāpāramitā (the Perfection of Wisdom), Tathāgatagarbha (Buddha Nature), and meditative practices constitutes a significant feature of the Tiantai School and Chan School. The combination of Tathāgatagarbha and meditative practices is also a crucial feature of the Huayan School. Observing and recollecting the Buddha form important aspects of Pure Land School. The union of faith in the Dharma and the Tathāgatagarbha is a significant characteristic of Tantric School (Mizong 密宗, Esoteric Buddhism).¹⁹ The philosophy of zhiguan 止觀 (Skt. śamatha-vipaśyanā) in the Tiantai School, the fajie yuanrong 法界圓融 (perfect interfusion of dharmadhatu) in the Huayan School, and the dunwu 頓悟 (Skt. Subitism; sudden enlightenment) in Chan School represent the highest forms of Chinese Buddhist practice and have influenced later methodology of the Song-Ming Confucianism.

When Buddhist concepts entered into social life, certain sacred aspects of these concepts held more symbolic significance and pedagogical power than the doctrinal aspects. For example, as recorded in the ‘Qixia si gu dade Pi lüshi bei’ 棲霞寺故大德毗律師碑 [Inscription in Memory of the Late Great Master of the Discipline Pi at Qixia Monastery], Tanpi 曇毗 (723–797), in the fourteenth year of the Dali 大曆 era (779), shared his personal spiritual journey with the public, saying:

I have observed the precepts diligently and considered myself without disgrace in the scriptures, yet I still could not free myself from the fetters of the voice-hearers (Skt. Śrāvaka). Later, I delved into the intentions of Chan schools such as Caoxi and Niutou, contemplating and practicing earnestly. Suddenly, there was a realization in my heart. Therefore, I said: ‘A great man should awaken from within; it should be exactly like this.’ 吾以律從事, 自謂無愧於篇聚矣, 然猶未去聲聞之縛。既而探曹溪, 牛頭之旨, 沈研覃思, 朗然內得。乃曰: ‘大丈夫了心, 當如此.’²⁰

The flourishing of Chan Buddhism exemplifies Chinese monks’ aspiration for liberation, with institutional life under Vinaya regulations and the study and interpretation of scriptures all directed toward ‘liberation’ as the ultimate sacred goal.

In the mid-eighth century and onward, the Chinese Buddhist community experienced a decline in theoretical interests. Ge Zhaoguang 葛兆光 analyzed three main reasons for this phenomenon: firstly, the rise of the common intellectual class, including scholars and literati, led to a general reduction in scholarly interests within society, resulting in a simplification and pragmatism of knowledge. Secondly, widespread warfare made it difficult for large Buddhist monasteries that once served as centers of learning to maintain their previous grandeur. Thirdly, in a society undergoing profound changes, pure theoretical inquiry became an untimely luxury and a skill that seemed detached from faith.²¹ Influenced by the prevailing societal trends and the devastations of war, the extensive activities of translating scriptures, giving lectures, engaging in debates and writing commentaries on a large scale that occurred from the seventh to eighth centuries lost their support system after the mid-eigth century.²² This was an external factor that contributed to the decline in theoretical interest within Chinese Buddhism. The internal factor was the construction of Chinese Buddhism’s own theory of practice, particularly the Chan Master and Master of the Discipline who proposed and promoted paths to liberation suitable for the Chinese people. As recorded in juan two of the Chanyuan zhu quanji duxu 禪源諸詮集都序 [Preface to the Collected Commentaries on the Chan Source] by Zongmi:

Only the Chan school practices the direct transmission from mind to mind. As the mind is the source of the Dharma, what Dharma is not fully present in the mind? The meditative practices that seem to be limited to a particular school actually embrace the Threefold Training. 以心傳嗣, 唯達摩宗, 心是法源, 何法不備? 所修禪行, 似局一門; 所傳心宗, 實通三學.²³

In this context, ‘Fulfilling the Threefold Training’ is transformed into a mode of spiritual practice based on the mind, unifying the Threefold Training under the concept of ‘One Mind.’

In the ‘sacred’ dimension of schools, the most crucial concept is ‘patriarchal tradition,’ which focuses on the core notion of a single linear master–disciple relationship as orthodoxy. In the context of the Dilun School, the Sanjiejiao 三階教 [The Teaching of Three Stages], and early Tiantai School, ‘patriarch’ was the actual title for the ‘teacher’s teacher.’ With the widespread acceptance of the singular linear ‘patriarchal tradition’ concept, ‘ancestors’ became a common reference for all eminent monks within the temporal transmission of Dharma tradition. Through the shaping of the concept of orthodoxy and singularity, all ancestors were seen to pass on the lineage in orderly succession from the initial ancestor to the second ancestor and so on, creating a clearly organized Dharma transmission with the ‘succession by one person’ aspect. The ‘patriarchal tradition’ of ‘succession by one person’ and the flourishing ‘Dharma tradition’ have distinct conceptual differences. The former embodies an orthodoxy concept with a hierarchical structure, while the latter represents an equality structure based on the truth concept, both of which can be found in Buddhist scripture tradition. Therefore, the fusion of ‘patriarchal tradition’ and ‘Dharma tradition’ became a significant trend within eighth century Buddhism. And constructing a new ‘patriarchal tradition’ in harmony with Buddhist scriptural tradition and contemporary circumstances, concepts of truth and subjective awareness, promoting orthodoxy while accommodating others, was the central focus of the disputes within Tang Dynasty Chan Buddhism.²⁴

Thirdly, the ‘life’ dimension of ‘schools’ pertains to the monastic regulations and Vinaya rules. The monastic regulations of the Tiantai school, the Zhifa 制法 [Regulations] of the Sanjiejiao, the Guoqing bailu 國清百錄 [One Hundred Documents Related to the Guoqing Monastery] of the Tiantai school, and the Baizhang qinggui 百丈清規 [Pure Regulations of Baizhang] of the Chan school all reflect the efforts to localize Buddhist institutional practices in China.

In summary, the dimensions and elements of ‘schools’ are as shown in the following table.

Table

	Dimensions	Elements
Schools	Truth	Division of the Buddha’s teaching	Dependent Arising
	Sacred	Patriarchal tradition	Meditative contemplation
	Life	The Monastic Discipline

According to the dimensions and elements of ‘schools,’ the Sui and Tang dynasties’ Buddhist schools can be divided into two types:

1. Conceptual schools, such as the Sanlun School (Sanlun zong 三論宗, Three Treatise School), Huayan School, Weishi School (Weishi zong 唯識宗, Skt. Vijñaptimātra, Consciousness-only School), Tantric school and Jingtu School. These denominations possess both the truth and a sacred dimension, and they encompass elements such as the Division of the Buddha’s teaching, Dependent Arising, patriarchal tradition and meditative contemplation.

2. Institutional schools, such as the Dilun School, Sanjiejiao, Tiantai School, Chan School and Vinaya School. These schools represent a complete structure based on ‘the Threefold Training,’ which includes not only the truth and sacred dimensions but also the dimension of monastic discipline and regulations, alongside elements like Division of the Buddha’s teaching, Dependent Arising, patriarchal tradition and meditative contemplation.

2. The civilizational exchange of ‘difference and unity’

Indian Buddhism, along with China’s indigenous Confucianism and Daoism, all belong to Eastern civilization and are two major civilizations of what Karl Jaspers (1883–1969) called the ‘Axial Age.’²⁵ Jaspers discussed the consequences of encounters between different civilizations:

Between these three realms a profound mutual comprehension was possible from the moment they met. At the first encounter they recognized that they were concerned with the same problems. Despite the distance that separated them they at once became involved in one another. To be sure, they were not bound by the common possession of a single, objective truth (such a truth is only to be found in science which, methodologically conscious and compelling general assent to its propositions, is capable of spreading over the entire globe without undergoing any metamorphosis as a result and has a claim on the collaboration of all); but the authentically and absolutely true, which is lived by mankind historically from diverse origins, was seen and heard reciprocally in this encounter.²⁶

Buddhism, representing Indian civilization, entered China and facilitated a process of ‘reciprocally seeing’ and ‘reciprocally hearing’ between two major ‘Axial Age’ civilizations, India and China. The historical process of Sinification of Buddhism is a dialogue between these two civilizations. According to Karl Jaspers, the Buddha and Confucius were ‘the paradigmatic individuals,’ while Nagarjuna and Laozi were ‘the original thinkers.’²⁷ The dialogue and debate among these great philosophers exhibit a comprehensive, contradictory and universal nature, shaping the historical relationship between Confucianism, Buddhism and Daoism.

The ‘conceptual integration,’ ‘institutional adaptation,’ and ‘lifestyle integration’ in the Sinification of Buddhism is a process of reflecting the ‘self’ through the ‘other,’ which means it encompasses the tension between ‘differences’ and ‘unity’ between the Indian and Chinese civilizations. It involves discovering ‘events of mutual concern’ to inherit the traditions of both civilizations, achieving a ‘profound mutual understanding’ to revitalize the wisdom conveyed by the scriptures of both, promoting the depth and breadth of both civilizations through ‘reciprocally seeing,’ and nurturing the life realm of the Chinese through ‘reciprocally hearing.’ The process of ‘conceptual integration,’ ‘institutional adaptation,’ and ‘lifestyle integration’ is not natural but rather a process of ‘creative transformation and innovative development’ of Buddhism as a whole – the faith (Buddha), the doctrine (Dharma) and the monastic community (Saṃgha). The central issue is the balance between the ‘constant’ and the ‘variable,’ and the approach is taken through inheritance, interpretation and innovation.

Firstly, inheritance is a prerequisite for the spread of Buddhism as a path of spiritual guidance. The idea of ‘the continuity of the Dharma’ and ‘the continuity of the Brahmacariyā’ is among the ten great ideals of rules established by Buddha. Huideng xiangxu 慧燈相續 (the lamp of wisdom passing on) and ‘the continuity of the Dharma’ signify the collective aspiration of all Buddhists. The inheritance of Buddha’s true teachings by Buddhists is a conscious and immediate process. It involves not only the veneration of values, ideals and realms but also the textual and philosophical aspects of ‘carrying forward the past and innovating the future.’ Furthermore, it extends to practical aspects like institutions and ways of life. Therefore, the inheritance of ‘the true Dharma’ and ‘pure conduct’ by Buddhists is a ‘practical process’ and a living, vibrant and flesh-and-blood journey of life.

Han Chinese Buddhists, in the face of Buddha’s ‘true Dharma’ and the indigenous Chinese civilization, held ideals and aspirations for inheritance. This ‘dual responsibility’ and ideal of civilization is the true driving force behind the ‘conceptual integration’ of Chinese Buddhism. For example, the respect shown by Emperor Wen 文 (r. 581–604) of Sui towards Tanyan 曇延 (516–588) as recorded in the Xu Gaoseng zhuan signifies the importance of inheritance. It is stated that:

The emperor lowered the esteemed status of an emperor, upholding the ritualistic conduct for the master. Three Jewels are propagated by him (Tanyan), through which the Two Truths (Skt. satya-dvaya) are proclaimed. 屈宸極之重, 伸師資之義, 三寶由其弘護, 二諦藉以宣揚.²⁸

Expressions such as ‘regarding teachers as fathers,’ ‘ancestral teachers as Buddhas,’ ‘continuation of the teaching lineage,’ and concepts like ‘Dharma tradition’ and ‘patriarchal tradition’ indicate the significant value placed on the inheritance of religious orthodoxy and sanctity. This attests to the recognition of Buddhist civilization, signifying that Buddhism has transformed from an external civilization into an ideological system and a way of life embraced and shared by the Chinese people.

Secondly, interpretation is fundamental to the ‘conceptual integration’ and ‘institutional adaptation’ of the Sinification of Buddhism. This process involves not only the transformation of Sanskrit and Pali texts into Chinese and the interpretation of the original meanings but also the infusion of new meanings and understandings into the texts based on the characteristics of Chinese civilization, the nature of the Chinese people, Confucian ritual culture and the Daoist conceptual world. It involves reinterpreting and constructing new doctrinal and philosophical frameworks, as well as interpreting the Vinaya rules in light of Confucian rituals. Therefore, the interpretation in the sense of ‘conceptual integration’ is an overall interpretation of the scriptures, concepts, systems and ways of life. It is a process of ‘mutual understanding’ and ‘mutual listening’ between the two major civilizations. The essence of inheritance is not dogmatism or fundamentalism but rather an inheritance based on interpretation. Similarly, innovation is not about creating something entirely new without roots but rather innovative development based on interpretation.

Daoxuan, in the Xu Gaoseng zhuan, explained the function of lunyi 論議 (debate and discussion):

Alternatively, the profound teachings can be elucidated through criticism and praise, revealing the deep purpose; or, by influencing and promoting teachings, the widespread establishment of practical goodness resulting from wisdom can be achieved. One may raise inquiries seeking wise judgment and the crucial point lies in suiting the capacity or ability of sentient beings. Alternatively, one might boast of talents and achievements to pose as contemporary sages, using rhetoric to remove the arrows of ignorance. 或擊揚以明其道, 幽旨由斯得開; 或影響以扇其風, 慧業由斯弘樹. 或抱疑以諮明決, 斯要正是當機; 或矜伐以冒時賢, 安詞以拔愚箭.²⁹

The most distinctive feature of the Buddhist schools in the Southern and Northern Dynasties was their emphasis on interpretation. Eminent monks and scholars, based on their own understanding, provided interpretations of Buddhist scriptures to make them more suitable for Chinese civilization. This practice served to elucidate universal truths found in the Buddhist scriptures and to respond to the intellectual and historical context of the Chinese people. Therefore, interpretation is both a creative form of inheritance and a prerequisite for innovative development.

The debate between Buddhism and Daoism on the issues of yinyuan 因緣 (Skt. hetu-pratyaya, cause and condition) and ziran 自然 (Skt. tathata, nature) and the debate between Confucianism and Buddhism on the concept of shen mie bu mie 神滅不滅 (soul’s extinction and non-extinction) demonstrate the differences and unity between Buddhism and native Chinese civilization. For example, the commonality between yinyuan and ziran lies in their ontological freedom at the level of realization, while their difference lies in the necessity and contingency of yinyuan. These differences and commonalities create tension in civilizational dialogue, providing the potential for interpretation and the educational significance of innovation. The Confucian concept of filial piety and Buddhism’s teachings on being a good disciple share some ethical similarities and exhibit mutual interpretations. By assuming the role of a teacher, Buddhists interpret monks, explain the ethical status of the monastic community using the concept of a ‘strict teacher,’ and explain the social function of monastic life through the example of Confucian morality. Through these interpretations, the monastic community found its way into the Chinese ethical order, thereby addressing the challenges of filial piety, not showing reverence to kings and avoiding involvement in secular matters.³⁰ Starting from the early ninth century, Chinese literati and even eminent monks in the Chan School began interpreting the ‘patriarchal tradition’ and ‘Dharma tradition’ in terms of the Confucian familial models like ‘major lineages,’ ‘minor lineages,’ ‘patriarchs’ and ‘branches.’ This resulted in a tree-like model of ‘patriarchal tradition.’³¹ The content of ‘patriarchal tradition’ has roots in Indian Buddhism, but its expression and interpretation are distinctly Chinese.

Thirdly, innovation is the key to ‘conceptual integration,’ ‘institutional adaptation,’ and ‘life integration.’ The ultimate goal of innovation is to make the Chinese people accept and practice the Buddha’s teachings. Achieving this requires cultural self-confidence, exploring the deep structure of the Buddhist conceptual system, discovering the ultimate doctrines and constructing an entirely new system of Chinese Buddhism. The Buddhist schools of the Sui and Tang dynasties demonstrated the innovative capabilities of Chinese Buddhists. They combined the tradition of Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism with native Chinese Confucian and Daoist conceptual systems. Through processes such as mutual interpretation, transformation, adaptation and utilization, they innovated the Chan meditation system, monastic regulations and customs of daily life. This allowed Buddhism to be widely applicable to the needs of the time, integrated into Chinese society and culture, and to unify the continuity and innovation of Buddhist civilization.

Innovations in Chinese Buddhism, such as ‘filial piety as a precept’ and ‘ordination as great filial piety,’ resolved the conflict between the ethics of monasticism and the Confucian filial piety system. During the late Tang and Five Dynasties periods, abbots of Chan monasteries gained a sacred status of ‘harmony between people and the Dharma.’ The concept of ‘patriarchal tradition’ within ‘lineage traditions’ developed and became the most powerful concept in the Chinese Buddhist community from the Song Dynasty onwards, a concept that remains prominent today.³² In the Southern Song period, Zhipan 志磐 (active 1220–1275) commented on Tiantai zongyuan lu 天台宗元錄 [The History of the Tiantai School] attributed to Yuanying 元穎 (d.u.) in Fozu tongji 佛祖統紀 [A Chronicle of the Buddhas and the Patriarchs], stating that:

[The book Tiantai zongyuan lu] described the transmission within the Tiantai school from the Northern Qi to our own time (the Yuanyou era of the Southern Song Dynasty), intending to establish the lineage. 述天台一宗授受之事, 自北齊至本朝元佑, 為之圖以系道統.³³

Zhipan also mentioned:

[During the reign of Emperor Ning of Song dynasty (1195–1201),] Wu Keji (Style name: Kai’an 鎧菴; 1140–1214) following the Tiantai zongyuan lu by Yuanying, supplemented and expanded it, titled Shimen zhengtong [The Orthodox Lineage of the Buddhist School]. 鎧菴吳克己因穎錄增廣之, 名曰《釋門正統》.³⁴

The emergence of books like Tiantai zongyuan lu and Shimen zhengtong represented specific expressions of the conceptual innovation within the Buddhist schools during the late Tang and Song periods. Zhipan’s approach to writing the Fozu tongji is even more noteworthy. He based his work on Shimen zhengtong and Zongyuan lu 宗源錄 [The Chronicles of Lineage and Origins] attributed to Jingqian 景遷 (d.u.). It states that:

It also collected the classics of the Tripitaka, commentaries on Buddhist teachings, Confucian historical records, biographies from various schools, as well as the Longxing tongji written by Master Xiu and Shishi tongji written by Master Xiu. With the help of citations, the book is structured according to historical narratives. It compiled comprehensive records such as the Four Buddhas Chronicle, the Four Patriarchs Chronicle, the Chronicle of the Two Aristocratic Families, etc … following the style of historians, forming a comprehensive work. 復取大藏經典, 教門疏記, 儒宗史籍, 諸家傳錄之辭, 及琇師《隆興統紀》, 修師《釋氏通紀》, 用助援引, 依史氏法為四佛紀, 四祖紀, 二世家 … 成一家之全書.³⁵

The compiler’s methodological awareness is clear, following the ‘historical narratives’ and using the narrative framework of traditional Chinese historiography to create a comprehensive work. Zhipan’s innovative approach to Buddhist history not only addressed the practical issues of Buddhist operation and the transmission of the monastic tradition but also penetrated the knowledge system of traditional Chinese historiography.

3. The civilizational mutual learning of ‘periphery and center’

According to Wu Mi 吳宓 (1894–1978), Chen Yinque 陳寅恪 (1890–1969) believed that the spread of Buddhism in China was one of the most significant components in world civilization history:

From the Han and Jin Dynasties onward, Buddhism was introduced to China, but it reached its zenith during the Tang Dynasty. The flourishing of culture and military prowess during the Tang, along with increased interactions with the Western regions, led to the widespread dissemination of Buddhism. This era presents an excellent opportunity for research in world civilization history. Buddhism brought metaphysical knowledge, which filled a gap in Chinese thought and was well received by the common people. However, some of its regulations did not align with Chinese customs, such as ancestor worship and marriage, which were criticized by figures like Chang Li. Nevertheless, attempts to oppose these practices without providing alternatives were ultimately unsuccessful, leading to the great flourishing of Buddhism. Confucian scholars in the Song Dynasty, like Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi, were well-versed in Buddhism. They appreciated its profound metaphysical insights, which could address the deficiencies in Chinese thought. However, they were also concerned about foreign influence and sought a way to combine the strengths of both traditions, adopting Buddhism’s essence while adhering to Chinese values. They absorbed the quintessence of Buddhist philosophy to annotate the Confucian classics, branding it as ‘elucidating ancient learning’ while subtly assimilating foreign beliefs. They professed reverence for Confucius while, in reality, the philosophical ideas of Buddhism had gradually permeated and merged with Confucian transmission, ultimately becoming one. These scholars had genuine patriotic intentions and made great efforts to benefit the nation. Hence, Buddhism has made significant contributions to China … Through the assistance of Buddhism, China’s scholarship received a timely boost and acquired a new dimension. 漢晉以還, 佛教輸入, 而以唐為盛. 唐之文治武功, 交通西域, 佛教流布, 實為世界文明史上大可研究者. 佛教於性理之學, 獨有深造, 足救中國之缺失, 而為常人所歡迎. 惟其中之規律, 多不合於中國之風俗習慣, 如祀祖, 娶妻等, 故昌黎等攻辟之. 然辟之而無以濟其乏, 則終難遏之, 於是佛教大盛. 宋儒若程若朱, 皆深通佛教者, 既喜其義理之高見詳盡, 足以救中國之缺失, 而又憂其用夷復夏也. 乃求得而兩全之法, 避其名而居其實, 取其珠而還其櫝. 采佛理之精粹以之註解四書五經, 名為闡明古學, 實則吸取異教. 聲言尊孔辟佛, 實則佛之義理, 已浸漬濡染, 與儒教之傳宗, 合而為一. 此先儒愛國濟世之苦心, 至可尊敬而曲諒之者也. 故佛教實有功於中國甚大. … … 自得佛教之裨助, 而中國之學問, 立時增長元氣, 別開生面.³⁶

Chen Yinque’s assertion that Buddhism was able to ‘fill a gap in Chinese thought’ referred to the lack of metaphysical understanding within China’s inherent culture. The introduction of Indian Buddhism into China and its widespread acceptance in Chinese society constituted a fresh shock to Chinese civilization, owing to the differences between many of Buddhism’s regulations and customs and China’s original practices. Simultaneously, Buddhism offered an extensive resource and environment for dialogue within Chinese civilization. Chen Yinque’s statement that ‘Buddhism has made significant contributions to China’ is an evaluation of how Buddhism prompted the formation of Song-Ming Confucianism during this process. Fang Dongmei 方東美 (1899–1977) suggested in Zhongguo Dacheng Foxue 中國大乘佛學 [Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhist Studies] that Indian Buddhism and Chinese culture are two peaks of world civilization, and Chinese Buddhism is the result of their interaction. The prosperity of the Sui and Tang Dynasties and the emergence of Song-Ming Confucianism are all intricately linked to Mahāyāna Buddhism.³⁷

The ‘cultural exchange’ of Buddhism entering China not only ‘made significant contributions to China’ but also had a significant impact on India. However, the latter aspect is often overlooked. The fundamental essence of this ‘cultural exchange’ is the establishment of a Mahāyāna Buddhist consciousness in China, signifying the transformation of Mahāyāna Buddhism from the periphery to the center in both India and China. The emergence of Mahāyāna consciousness in Chinese Buddhism can be traced back to the translation activities led by Kumārajīva (Jiumoluoshi 鳩摩羅什, 344–413). During the Qi (550–577) and Liang (502–557) Dynasties, it gained favour and gradually became an important trend within Buddhism and Chinese society. However, the real establishment of Mahāyāna consciousness in northern Chinese Buddhism occurred during the later period of the Northern Wei Dynasty (386–535) with the introduction of texts like the Shidi jing lun 十地經綸 (Skt. Daśabhūmikasūtraśāstra; Treatise on the Scripture of the Ten Stages) and other texts related to the Weishi School. The foundation of the Dilun School marked a significant turning point. Chinese Buddhism, while absorbing the mature Mahāyāna Buddhist ideas from the middle period, went through its own creative interpretations, ultimately establishing Mahāyāna Buddhism as its fundamental doctrine.³⁸

As Gregory Schopen emphasizes, no matter how mainstream early Mahāyāna Buddhism may have been in China, in India it was made up of different marginalized minority groups.³⁹ Chinese Buddhism always relied on the transmission and translation of scriptures to understand Indian Buddhism. Therefore, many works on the history of Indian Buddhism are based on the intellectual history of Buddhist texts, often lacking attention to the actual lives of Buddhist monastic communities in India. According to the descriptions of Indian Buddhism provided in texts like Foguo ji 佛國記 [A Record of Buddhist Kingdoms] by Faxian 法顯 (337–422), the Datang Xiyu ji 大唐西域記 [Great Tang Records of the Western Regions] by Xuanzang 玄奘 (602–664) and the Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan 南海寄歸內法傳 [Account of Buddhism Sent from the South Seas] by Yijing 義淨 (635–713), it becomes evident that Mahāyāna Buddhism existed mainly as a textual tradition and had a very limited outreach, while the monastic practices of Indian Buddhism remained largely within the framework of the Hīnayāna Vinaya tradition. Mahāyāna Buddhism’s status on the ‘periphery’ of Indian Buddhism is evident.

Faxian left Chang’an and set out for India in the first year of the Hongshi 弘始 reign of the Later Qin dynasty (399). He arrived at the coast of Mount Lao in Shandong on the fourteenth day of the seventh month in the eighth year of the Yixi 義熙 reign of the Eastern Jin dynasty (412). The journey took a total of 15 years. In his travelogue Foguo ji, he recorded the prevalence of Buddhism in various regions. Here are some relevant excerpts from his records:

Table

Sect	Country or City (Current Location)	Descriptions
Mahāyāna Buddhism and Temples	The Kingdom of Kustana 于闐國 (Khotan, now Hotan County, Xinjiang)	The monks numbered in the tens of thousands, many of them studying the Mahāyāna teachings … The king arranged for Faxian and others in the monastery (Saṃgharāma). The monastery was called Gomati, a Mahāyāna monastery, where three thousand monks all ate together with great reverence … The monks of Gomati practiced the Mahāyāna teachings. 眾僧乃數萬人, 多大乘學 … 國王安頓法顯等於僧伽藍。僧伽藍名瞿摩帝, 是大乘寺, 三千僧共犍槌食 … 瞿摩帝僧是大乘學.^40
Mahāyāna Buddhism	The Kingdom of Zihe 子合國 (Now Yecheng County, Xinjiang)	Faxian and others proceeded to the Kingdom of Zihe, and in just twenty-five days, they arrived in this country. The king of the kingdom was diligent, and there were over a thousand monks, many of whom were followers of the Mahāyāna tradition. 法顯等進向子合國, 在道二十五日, 便到其國. 國王精進, 有千余僧, 多大乘學.^41
Mahāyāna Brahmins, Mahāyāna Vihara, Mahāyāna Bhikkhu	Pāṭaliputra in the Kingdom of Magadha 摩揭提國巴連弗邑 (Now Bihar, India)	There is a Mahāyāna Brahmin named Rājasvāmin who has lived in this city … He built a magnificent Mahāyāna Vihara near the stūpa of King Ashoka … The Brahmin’s teacher, also known as Mañjuśrī, is greatly revered by the virtuous monks and all the Mahāyāna Bhikkhus in the country, and they all reside in this Vihara. 有大乘婆羅門子名羅沃私婆迷, 住此城裏 … 於阿育王塔邊, 造摩訶衍僧伽藍, 甚嚴麗 … 婆羅門子師, 亦名文殊師利, 國內大德沙門, 諸大乘比丘, 皆宗仰焉, 亦住此僧伽藍.^42
Mahāyāna Laypeople	The Kingdom of Mathurā 摩頭羅國 (Now in the western part of Uttar Pradesh, India)	The bhikkhunīs offered many offerings to Ananda’s stūpa because they wanted to ask the World-Honoured One to allow women to become nuns. The novices offered many offerings to Rāhula. Those who were studying the Abhidharma offered offerings to Abhidharma. Those who were studying the Vinaya offered offerings to the Vinaya. Each group had their own specific day for these offerings, and they did this year after year. Laypeople offered offerings to Prajñāpāramitā, Mañjuśrī, Avalokiteśvara and so on. 諸比丘尼多供養阿難塔, 以阿難請世尊聽女人出家故. 諸沙彌多供養羅雲. 阿毗曇師者, 供養阿毗曇. 律師者, 供養律. 年年一供養, 各自有日. 摩訶衍人則供養般若波羅蜜, 文殊師利, 觀世音等.^43
Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna	The Kingdom of Lohas 羅夷國 (Now Afghanistan)	There are nearly three thousand monks, both from Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna traditions. 近有三千僧, 兼大小乘學.^44
Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna	The Kingdom of Pancanada 毗荼國 (Now the northeast of Pakistan, with a small part in the north of India)	Buddhism thrives, encompassing both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna studies. 佛法興盛, 兼大小乘學.^45
Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna	The Kingdom of Kapitha 僧伽施國 (Now in the western part of Uttar Pradesh, India)	Here, there are a thousand monks and nuns who all partake in communal meals, representing a mix of both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna studies. 此處僧及尼可有千人, 皆同眾食, 雜大小乘學.^46

In the Foguo ji, there are various mentions of Mahāyāna Buddhism, such as ‘Mahāyāna studies,’ ‘Mahāyāna temples,’ ‘Mahāyāna Brahmans,’ ‘Mahāyāna monasteries,’ ‘Mahāyāna monks,’ ‘Mahāyāna laypeople’ and ‘both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna studies.’ According to Faxian’s records, in the early fifth century CE, Mahāyāna Buddhism was spreading in North India, West India, Central India and East India, though it was still in a nascent stage of development. Meanwhile, Hīnayāna Buddhism was more widespread in various countries, and both traditions coexisted.⁴⁷ In fifth-century India, Mahāyāna Buddhism was not only on the periphery, but it was primarily characterized by its teachings and devotion to bodhisattvas like Mañjuśrī and Avalokiteśvara. The worship of the Buddha’s relics, objects and sacred sites, as well as the veneration of arhats’ relics and sacred places, was common to both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna traditions.

In the Pāṭaliputra in the Kingdom of Magadha, Faxian obtained the Mohe Sengqi lü 摩訶僧祇律 [Skt. Mahāvibhaṅga Vinaya] and the Sapoduo lü 薩婆多律 [Skt. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya] at the Moheyan sengqielan 摩訶衍僧伽藍 [Skt. *Mahāyāna Saṃgha Vihāra], indicating that this monastery was following a Hīnayāna monastic code. According to the ‘Zhimeng fashi zhuan’ 智猛法師傳 [Biography of the Master of the Law Zhimeng] in juan fifteen of the Chu sanzan jiji 出三藏記集 [A Collection of Records on the Emanation of the Chinese Tripiṭaka], soon after Faxian’s journey to India, another monk named Zhimeng also arrived in the city of Pāṭaliputra. He met a great Brahmin scholar named Luoyuezong 羅閲宗 (Skt.*Rājasvāmin; Rājasvāmin hereafter)⁴⁸ and obtained six scrolls of the Nihuan jing 泥洹經 (Skt. Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra; Nirvana Sūtra) at his home. Zhimeng also acquired a manuscript version of the Mahāvibhaṅga Vinaya. Rājasvāmin asked Zhimeng if there were any Mahāyāna teachings in Qin (China), to which Zhimeng replied that there were all Mahāyāna teachings. Rājasvāmin was amazed and exclaimed, ‘Extraordinary! Extraordinary! Is there the Bodhisattva manifest?’ (希有, 希有 ! 將非菩薩往化耶?)⁴⁹ It is evident that Rājasvāmin, as a Brahmin with Mahāyāna belief, had deep knowledge of the Vinaya and Mahāyāna scriptures.

In the second and fourth decades of the seventh century CE, Xuanzang journeyed to India and extensively documented the situation of Indian Buddhism. His work, Datang xiyu ji, serves as important historical and geographical information for understanding Indian Buddhism. According to the statistics compiled by Ji Xianlin 季羨林 (1911–2009), during that time, there were 16 countries or monasteries that primarily adhered to Mahāyāna Buddhism, 37 that adhered to Hīnayāna Buddhism, 12 that adhered to both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, and 17 with no specific affiliation or undecided. Both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna Buddhism had a presence in the five Indian regions, but the influence of Hīnayāna Buddhism was much stronger.⁵⁰ Of course, from the time of Faxian to Xuanzang, after over 200 years of propagation, Mahāyāna Buddhism had grown, and there were significant changes in the local beliefs in regions both travelers had visited, demonstrating the flourishing of Mahāyāna Buddhism. The comparison is as follows:⁵¹

Table

Country or City	Foguo ji	Datang Xiyu ji
The Kingdom of Udyāna (or Uḍḍiyāna, Oḍiyāna, Oḍḍiyāna) 烏仗那國	Buddhism flourishes greatly … All of the five hundred monasteries are of the Hīnayāna tradition. 佛法甚盛. … … 凡有五百僧伽藍, 皆小乘學.	Revering and venerating the Mahāyāna Buddhism. 崇重佛法, 敬信大乘.
The Kingdom of Mathurā 秣兔羅國	Having visited numerous monasteries and countless monks, I arrived in a country called Mathurā, situated alongside the River Yamunā. On both sides of the river, there were twenty monasteries (Saṃgharāma) with around three thousand monks, and the teachings of Buddhism flourished. From Shahe to everywhere in the countries of India, the kings had been firm believers in Buddhism. 經歷諸寺甚多, 僧眾萬數. 過是諸處已, 到一國. 國名摩頭羅, 有遙捕那河. 河邊左右有二十僧伽藍, 可有三千僧, 佛法轉盛. 凡沙河已西天竺諸國, 國王皆篤信佛法.	There were more than twenty monasteries with over two thousand monks and practitioners, including both followers of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna traditions, diligently engaging in their studies and practices. 伽藍二十餘所, 僧徒二千餘人, 大小二乘兼功習學.
The Kingdom of Kanyākubja (or Kānyakabja) 羯若鞠阇國	There were two monasteries, all of them following the Hīnayāna tradition. 有二僧伽藍, 盡小乘學.	There were more than a hundred monasteries with over ten thousand monks and practitioners, and the followers were divided almost equally between the two paths, the heterodox and the orthodox, with both Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna being practiced. 邪正二道, 信者相半. 伽藍百餘所, 僧徒萬餘人, 大小二乘, 兼功習學.
The Kingdom of Varṇu 伐剌拏國	There were also around three thousand monks, all of whom were Hīnayāna practitioners. 亦有三千許僧, 皆小乘學.	Both incorrect and correct beliefs coexist, but they are not good at studying. There are several dozen monasteries, and many of them are in disrepair. The monks and novices number over three hundred, and they study the teachings of Mahāyāna Buddhism. 邪正兼崇, 不好學藝. 伽藍數十, 荒圮已多. 僧徒三百余人, 並學大乘法教.

In the time of Xuanzang, countries such as Udyāna, Mathurā and Kanyākubja had transformed from areas influenced by Hīnayāna Buddhism to regions where Mahāyāna Buddhism was prevalent. However, the term ‘Mahāyāna teachings’ primarily refers to doctrinal thoughts and beliefs, not to the monastic system. The Datang Xiyu ji mentions that:

Every year during the three whole months of abstinence and the six monthly poṣadhas, the monks, along with companions, compete to carry offerings, requisites, and precious items. According to their respective schools, they go to different places for worship. Abhidharmikas offer worship to Śāriputra, those practicing meditation to the Maudgalyayana, reciters to the Pūrṇa, students of the Vinaya to Upāli, Bhikṣuṇīs offer worship to Ānanda, the novices offered many offerings to Rāhula, while those who study Mahāyāna offer worship to the Bodhisattvas. 每歲三長及月六齋, 僧徒相競, 率其同好, 賫持供具, 多營奇玩, 隨其所宗, 而致像設. 阿毗達磨眾, 供養舍利子; 習定之徒, 供養沒特伽羅子; 誦持經者, 供養滿慈子; 學毗奈耶眾, 供養鄔波厘; 諸苾芻尼供養阿難; 未受具戒者, 供養羅怙羅; 其學大乘者, 供養諸菩薩.⁵²

Different types of Buddhists have their own revered masters. For instance, Upāli is the revered teacher of those who study the Vinaya, as he was known as the foremost Vinaya practitioner during the time of Buddha. Those who follow Mahāyāna Buddhism offer worship to Bodhisattvas, which is consistent with the records of Faxian where Mahāyāna Buddhists are described as having ‘offered offerings to Prajñāpāramitā, Mañjuśrī and Avalokiteśvara.’⁵³

The accounts of Faxian and Xuanzang share two major similarities: first, Mahāyāna Buddhism in India was more of a doctrinal and theoretical study and a faith involving the worship of Bodhisattvas, rather than a formation of distinct groups such as Buddhist schools.⁵⁴ Second, Mahāyāna Buddhism was in a peripheral position in India not only in Faxian’s time but even during the era of Xuanzang, as the regions where Hīnayāna Buddhism prevailed in India were at least twice as large as than the areas where Mahāyāna Buddhism was popular. As stated in Yijing’s Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan, juan one:

Among these four schools, the distinction between Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna is not clear. The northern areas and southern sea territories are mostly Hīnayāna. In China, Mahāyāna faith prevails, while the rest of the areas practice both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna. In essence, there is no fundamental difference in the requirements of precepts; all adhere to the five categories of precepts and practice the Four Noble Truths (Skt. caturvidham). If one pays homage to Bodhisattvas and recites Mahāyāna sūtras, they are considered Mahāyāna; otherwise, if they do not engage in these activities, they are called Hīnayāna. 其四部之中, 大乘小乘區分不定. 北天南海之郡純是小乘, 神州赤縣之鄉意存大教, 自余諸處大小雜行. 考其致也, 則律撿不殊, 齊製五篇, 通修四諦. 若禮菩薩, 讀大乘經, 名之為大; 不行斯事, 號之為小.⁵⁵

Yijing observed the flourishing Buddhism in early Tang China and late eighth-century India. He emphasised that Mahāyāna was a practice of worshiping Bodhisattvas and studying Mahāyāna scriptures, contrasting it with Hīnayāna. He believed that the sectarian distinction and the Mahāyāna/Hīnayāna distinction were separate issues. In his view, Mahāyāna was still practiced within the framework of the four sects, namely Mahāsanghika, Theravāda, Mūlasarvāstivāda, Dharmaguptaka, since Mahāyāna monks continued to follow the old sects’ Vinaya rules.⁵⁶ Thus, the perspectives of Faxian, Xuanzang and Yijing – all pilgrimage monks who sought the Dharma – align closely in their observations of Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism, reflecting the historical reality of Indian Buddhism.

In Yijing’s conceptual world, China was perceived as practicing Mahāyāna Buddhism, while the countries of North India and the South Sea followed Hīnayāna Buddhism, with others practicing a combination of both. As Yijing described, during his time, China became the center of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism played a significant role in the spread of Buddhism to regions such as the Korean Peninsula and Japan, forming the religious tradition known as Northern Buddhism. China’s position as the center of Mahāyāna Buddhism emerged as a contrast to India’s status as the periphery. This transformation from the periphery to the center carries profound and rich implications for ‘civilizational exchange.’ As expressed in the admiration of Rājasvāmin: ‘Extraordinary! Extraordinary! Is there the Bodhisattva manifest?’

China’s central position in Mahāyāna Buddhism was formed through the inheritance, interpretation and innovation of Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism. One of its representative achievements was the formation of the Buddhist schools during the Sui and Tang dynasties. As Karl Jaspers has noted:

Once the break-through of the Axial Period had taken place, once the spirit that grew up in it had been communicated, through ideas, works and constructs, to all who were capable of hearing and understanding, once its infinite possibilities had become perceptible, all the peoples that come after were historical by virtue of the intensity with which they felt themselves spoken to by it.⁵⁷

The emergence of Buddhist sects during the Sui and Tang dynasties can be seen as a ‘spiritual breakthrough.’ It was the result of a deep reflection on and selection from the Buddhist schools of the Northern and Southern Dynasties and a comprehensive, profound and rich interaction, conflict, dialogue and integration that occurred as a consequence of the encounter between Chinese and Indian civilizations. This represents an outcome of ‘civilizational exchange.’

4. Conclusions

Past research on the history of Chinese Buddhism has often been influenced by a linear view of history, leading to a division between ‘Buddhism in China’ and ‘Chinese Buddhism.’ As Mou Zongsan 牟宗三 (1909–1995) stated in his book Foxing yu bore 佛性與般若 [Buddha-Nature and Prajñā]:

Buddhism has not been Chineseized and altered but rather the Chinese people have preferred pure Buddhism, directly addressing the sūtras and doctrines, leading it to develop into a perfect state. If it is said that it differs from what existed in India, that is because the original Indian Buddhism, with its two schools of thought, namely emptiness and existence, did not represent the final stage of Buddhist sūtras and doctrines. This difference is a continuing development, not a conflicting one.⁵⁸

Mou Zongsan emphasized that Chinese Buddhist studies represent a continuing development of Indian Buddhist studies, adopting a view that can be described as ‘transplantation theory.’ In contrast, Lü Cheng 呂澂 (1896–1989) advocated for the ‘grafting theory,’ stating that ‘Chinese Buddhist studies are “grafted” onto Indian Buddhist studies, so the roots of Chinese Buddhist studies are in China, not India.’⁵⁹

Both ‘transplantation theory’ and ‘grafting theory’ reflect a fundamentally linear view of history, treating Chinese Buddhism as a single ‘continuation’ of either Indian civilization or Chinese civilization. This mode of thinking is rooted in substantialism, viewing Buddhism as a single great tree and interpreting its growth as firmly rooted in either Indian or Chinese civilization. This approach overlooks the fact that the Sui and Tang Buddhist schools were an outcome of the Sinification of Buddhism, specifically the Sinification of Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism, rather than a uniform transmission and transformation of all Indian Buddhism. In reality, numerous translation monks and seekers of the Dharma, such as Kumārajīva, Faxian, Paramārtha (Zhendi 真諦, 499–569), Xuanzang and Yijing, introduced Indian Buddhism to China in a scattered and selective manner through self-aware and voluntary ‘loose organization.’ Their translations and introductions, along with the explanations, commentaries and temple-building activities by eminent Chinese monks, flowed into Chinese civilization like tributaries converging into a river. This historical, dynamic process of selection and innovation represents a highly significant example of cultural exchange and mutual influence in world history.

The introduction of a perspective based on the history of civilization when studying the Sinification of Buddhism in China is motivated by two main reasons.

Firstly, if ‘Sinification of Buddhism’ is narrowly understood as a process of religious Sinification, it only concerns how Buddhism itself transforms. In reality, the Sinification of Buddhism results from the interaction between the Buddhist civilization imported from India and the indigenous Chinese civilization, involving contact, exchange and fusion between civilizations. From a holistic view, the Sinification of Buddhism is related not only to the religious element but also to the overall structure of culture and subcultures and the intrinsic connections between each cultural element.⁶⁰ Therefore, it is essential to consider the Sinification of Buddhism within a broader holistic framework.

Secondly, it is challenging to draw a clear boundary between Buddhism and Chinese societal life and Confucian and Daoist cultures. Leveraging the perspective of civilization history aids in understanding the process of Buddhism’s propagation and development in China.

Regarding ‘civilizational exchange,’ the ‘unity and difference’ relationship between Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism and Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism is the result of creative transformation and innovative development, with more discontinuity than continuity and without leading to opposition. The innovation surpasses inheritance, but it still preserves the fundamental spirit of Buddhism. As such, it is inadequate to examine the relationship between them using a linear historical perspective or to position Chinese Buddhism relative to Indian Buddhism with narratives of secularization that suggest decline. Simultaneously, describing the development of Buddhism in different historical periods with narratives of ‘secularization’ implies that previous generations were perpetually superior to the contemporary era. The outcome of the Sinification of Buddhism is Chineseized Buddhism, which represents a transformation of Buddhism as a subject, rather than a transformation based on a subject-object opposition. This approach avoids debates on whether Buddhism needs to be Chineseized and whether the Sinification of Buddhism becomes secular.

From the perspective of ‘civilizational mutual learning,’ Mahāyāna Buddhism experienced a transition from the periphery in India to the center in China. Simultaneously, the formation of the Sui and Tang Buddhist schools signified the emergence of China as the center for Mahāyāna Buddhism. This complemented India’s position as the periphery for Mahāyāna Buddhism and revealed the significance of a ‘periphery-center’ civilizational mutual influence. As Karl Jaspers evaluated the significance of Mahāyāna Buddhism:

Whereas Mahāyāna has entered upon a period of living growth which not only satisfies the religious needs of the masses but has also supplied the basis for a new flowering of sublimated speculative philosophy. With its rigid adherence to a once acquired canon and its emphasis on the perfection of the individual, Hīnayāna may be regarded as a narrowing. Mahāyāna, on the other hand, is almost entirely open to new and foreign elements and is resolutely concerned with the redemption not only of the individual, but of all beings. Mahāyāna has developed certain of Buddha’s ideas that were neglected in Hīnayāna, above all, his decision to bring salvation to all beings, gods and men alike.⁶¹

Mahāyāna Buddhism expressed the grand aspirations of the Buddha that were neglected by Hīnayāna Buddhism. The Sui and Tang Buddhist schools addressed the deficiencies of Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism, especially in institutionalizing schools such as the Dilun School, Sanjiejiao, Tiantai School, Chan School and Vinaya School, which together presented a complete form with the ‘Threefold Training’ and included various elements like the classification of Buddhist teaching, Dependent Arising, patriarchal tradition, meditative contemplation and monastic regulations.

The Sui and Tang Buddhist schools represent a significant outcome of Mahāyāna Buddhism as the center. Tang Yongtong proposed that the distinctive features of Tang and Sui Buddhist studies included unity, internationalism, autonomy and systematization.⁶² The Sui and Tang Empires achieved the unification of the northern and southern regions, thereby unifying Southern and Northern Buddhism. Southern Buddhism emphasized doctrinal exploration and commentaries on scriptures, while Northern Buddhism focused on merit-making activities such as cave construction and the transcription of scriptures.⁶³ After the unification of the southern and northern regions, both doctrinal study and religious practice were emphasized, embodying the unity between cultivation and theory. Internationalism reflects the characteristic activities and influence of Sui and Tang Buddhist studies. Chang’an in Sui and Tang was the most influential Buddhist center in Asia at the time. Among the Buddhist philosophers in the Sui and Tang, Weishi School’s scholars like Wŏnch’ŭk (Ch. Yuance) 圓測 (613–696) and Huayan scholars like Ŭisang (Ch. Yixiang) 義湘 (625–702) were from Silla 新羅, and another Huayan School scholar, Fazang, was from Kangju 康居. Moreover, there were many Japanese monks who served as envoys to the Sui, Tang and Japanese missions, such as Saichō 最澄 (767–822) and Kūkai 空海 (774–835). However, the major Buddhist thinkers in Sui and Tang were mostly local Chinese monks, distinguishing them from the most outstanding Buddhist scholars in previous Southern and Northern dynasties, who were from Central Asia or India.⁶⁴ Fang Litian 方立天 (1933–2014) summarized the characteristics of Buddhist philosophy during the Sui and Tang dynasties as being systematic, Chineseized and profound, which is in line with what Tang Yongtong referred to as ‘autonomy’ and ‘systematization.’⁶⁵ In summary, the distinctive features of Buddhist philosophy during the Sui and Tang dynasties can be summarized as threefold: innovation, systematicity and profundity. These three elements constitute what Karl Jaspers called a ‘spiritual breakthrough.’

The significance of the civilizational history of the Sui and Tang Buddhist sects lies in their contributions to the global influence of Chinese civilization, the formation of the ‘East Asian cultural sphere’⁶⁶ represented by East Asian Buddhism and Song-Ming Confucianism. Moreover, these achievements highlighted the worldwide influence of Indian civilization. Based on the criteria of a ‘spiritual breakthrough,’ the formation of Indian philosophy as ‘world philosophy’ is also predicated on the innovation, systematization and profundity of Sui and Tang Buddhist philosophy.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Tsinghua University.

Notes

1. Lan, ‘Fojiao zongpai guannian fazhan de yanjiu,’ 162–165. Bernard Faure emphasizes when analyzing Northern Chan: ‘It [orthodoxy] is on the fringes, on the shifting boundaries between this school and other religious movements—not all of them Buddhist— that the destiny of the Chan tradition was shaped. Shenhui’s polemical discourse, in particular, might be a product of ‘boundary anxiety.’ See Faure, The Will to Orthodoxy, 9.

2. Sun, ‘Kuada de lishi tujing,’ 363.

3. Tang, ‘Lun Zhongguo Fojiao wu shizong,’ 372.

4. Yan, Sui Tang Fojiao zongpai yanjiu, 8.

5. Ibid.

6. Kamata, Chūgoku Bukkyō shi: Zui Tō no Bukkyō, 533–535.

7. Za ahan jing, T no. 99, 22: 29.210a10.

8. Xu Gaoseng zhuan, T no. 2060, 50: 15.548b12–27.

9. Sheng and Xie, ‘Jingdian, Guannian, Shenghuo,’ 109.

10. Saito, Chūgoku Zenshūshi no kenkyū, 226–227.

11. Zhonghua shuju, comp., Liu Zongyuan ji 25.683.

12. Yang, ‘Zongpai fenye yu zhuanye fengong,’ 30–35.

13. Bai, Li, and Xu, collas. and annots., Rutang qiufa xunli xingji jiaozhu, 69.

14. Jingde chuandeng lu, T no. 2076, 51: 28.441a27–b8.

15. Sheng, Nanbeichao Dilun xuepai sixiang shi, 291–371.

16. Arthur O. Lovejoy proposes that conceptual history dissects philosophical theories into distinct constituent parts, i.e. ‘units-concepts.’ see Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being, 1.

17. Sheng, Nanbeichao Dilun xuepai sixiang shi, 515–536.

18. Yuanjuejing dashu, X no. 243, 9: 1.329b4–9.

19. Sheng and Xie, ‘Jingdian, Guannian, Shenghuo,’ 108.

20. Quan Tangwen 742.7680.

21. Ge, Zhongguo sixiang shi, 56–57.

22. Ibid., 59.

23. Chanyuan zhu quanjidu xu, T no. 2015, 48: 2.412d25–27.

24. Sheng, ‘Sui Tang Fojiao zongpai de zutong guannian.’

25. Karl Jaspers emphasized that around 500 BCE is the Axial Age of world history. He argues that ‘In this age were born the fundamental categories within which we still think today, and the beginnings of the world religions, by which human beings still live, were created. The step into universality was taken in every sense.’ See Jaspers, The Origin and Goal of History, 2.

26. The ‘three realms’ refer to China, India and the West. See Jaspers, The Origin and Goal of History, 8.

27. Jaspers, The Great Philosophers; idem, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Plotinus, Laotzu, Nagarjuna.

28. Xu Gaoseng zhuan, T no. 2060, 50: 8.489c17–19.

29. Xu Gaoseng zhuan, T no. 2060, 50: 15. 549c1-4.

30. Sheng, ‘Zhonggu Fojiao de shidi zhi dao he xiaodao guannian.’

31. Sheng, ‘Sui Tang Fojiao zongpai de zutong guannian,’ 7.

32. Ibid., 7–8.

33. Fozu tongji, T no. 2035, 49: 1.130c24–26.

34. Ibid., 130c27–2.

35. Ibid., 131a10–15.

36. Wu, Wu Mi yu Chen Yinque, 10–11.

37. Fang, Zhongguo Dacheng Foxue, 20–21.

38. Sheng, Nanbeichao Dilun xuepai sixiang shi, 368.

39. Schopen, Figments and fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India, 17.

40. Zhang, colla. and annot., Faxian zhuan jiaozhu, 11–12.

41. Ibid., 16.

42. Ibid., 87–88.

43. Ibid., 47.

44. Ibid., 43.

45. Ibid., 44.

46. Ibid., 53.

47. Si, ‘Faxian Foguo ji suozai xi bei Tianzhu zhuguo Fojiao qingkuang kaoxi,’ 38.

48. In Faxian’s Foguo ji, this person is referred to as ‘Luowosipomi’ 羅沃私婆迷, which is a phonetic rendering of the Sanskrit word ‘Rājasvāmin,’ meaning ‘the one honoured by the king.’ See Zhang, colla. and annot., Faxian zhuan jiaozhu, 91.

49. Chu sanzang jiji, T no. 2145, 55: 15.60b18–21.

50. Ji et al., ‘Qianyan,’ 81.

51. Ibid., 85–86.

52. Datang Xiyu ji, T no. 2087, 51: 4.890b11–17.

53. Zhang, colla. and annot., Faxian zhuan jiaozhu, 47.

54. Wang Bangwei 王邦維 (Wang, ‘Qianyan’) provides profound insights on this matter:

From one perspective, these Mahāyāna monks may have originally practiced Hīnayāna Buddhism but later converted to Mahāyāna, or they may have believed in Mahāyāna from the outset. However, from the viewpoint of certain ‘organizational relationships,’ they still retained their identity as members of their original (or one might say, their ‘original’) schools. Their shift in beliefs did not necessarily mean they had to completely sever ties with their original schools, as has often been assumed in the past. They simply did not form a distinct group within their original schools, or they did not have a suitable opportunity to earn the designation of ‘X Mahāyāna school.’ In reality, we can imagine that within each school, some monks subscribed to the new Mahāyāna doctrines, while others still adhered to what were originally termed Hīnayāna doctrines. If, before the emergence of Mahāyāna, we could still broadly regard school-based Buddhism as Hīnayāna Buddhism, then the situation changed drastically after the advent of Mahāyāna. Equating schools with Hīnayāna is no longer valid. In the seventh century CE, this was the actual historical condition of Indian Buddhism … Schools originally rooted in Vinaya gradually developed new perspectives in doctrine and philosophy, each presenting its own arguments, whereas the origin of Mahāyāna is primarily associated with doctrine and belief.

55. Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan, T no. 2125,54: 1.205c8–13.

56. Wang, ‘Qianyan,’ 71.

57. Jaspers, The Origin and Goal of History, 55.

58. Mou, ‘Xuyan,’ 7.

59. Lü, Zhongguo Foxue yuanliu lüejiang, 4.

60. Shi, ed., Wenhua Renleixue daolun, 17–18.

61. Jaspers, The Great Philosophers, 46.

62. Tang, Tang Yongtong quanji, 325.

63. Tang Yongtong stated, ‘In the South, there is a preference for metaphysical and doctrinal aspects, continuing the systems that originated since the Wei and Jin dynasties. In the North, there’s a focus on religious practices, connecting to the sectarian developments that came after the Sui and Tang dynasties.’ See Tang, Han Wei Liangjin Nanbeichao Fojiao shi, vol. 2, 350.

64. Tang, Tang Yongtong quanji, 328.

65. Fang, Zhongguo Fojiao zhexue yaoyi, 49–50.

66. Feng Tianyu 馮天瑜 points out that the term ‘East Asian cultural sphere’ (Dongya wenhua quan 東亞文化圈) is derived from its geographical context, roughly referring to the East Asian mainland, surrounding peninsulas and islands, which include present-day China, Korea, South Korea, Vietnam and Japan. From the perspective of cultural anthropology, this cultural sphere shares commonalities such as Chinese characters, Confucianism, Chineseized Buddhism and Chinese-style legal systems. See Feng, ‘Dongya wenhua yanjiu shuxi zongxu.’