Chapter 16 The (New) Buddhist Semantics of xin in the First Half of the Twentieth Century: Arguments from China and Taiwan

In: From Trustworthiness to Secular Beliefs
Author:
Stefania Travagnin
Search for other papers by Stefania Travagnin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open Access

1 Introduction: Repositioning Buddhism

Since the late Qing, Buddhist clerics and the laity started framing Buddhism and Buddhist practice within a new set of conceptual categories, especially analytical ideas imported from the West or via Japan, and also through revisited and redefined Chinese (and Buddhist) endogenous ideas. Buddhists worked to reposition themselves and their tradition in the new cultural and political time; they updated Buddhist taxonomy and vocabulary and articulated new semantics of traditional terminologies. This process was unfolding in a wider social and intellectual milieu of challenges and paradigm shifts, a milieu that involved other groups and patterns, with whom Buddhists acted in parallel but also intersected. Certainly, this scenario was not confined to the Chinese soil; as Krämer writes in his contribution to this volume, the Japanese were facing a similar atmosphere, and experiencing the process to reposition Buddhism within a new set of values.

In this chapter, I will explore the new ways Chinese and Taiwanese Buddhists understood and used the specific term xin and the compound xinyang 信仰 in the first half of the twentieth century, and will assess how the reconfiguration of the idea of xin was a reflection of the overall intellectual and religious background, but at the same time also actively contributed to the shaping of that framework. In fact, the direct and indirect debates on xin also developed in dialogue with non-Buddhist and non-religious agencies, and may have affected these in turn. Certainly, given the complexity of the environment within which these debates have been conducted, I will show that the character xin assumed various meanings, and thus translations, in these decades, and question whether there was a rupture or a continuity with xin’s conception in pre-modern Chinese Buddhism.1

Unlike other chapters in this volume, I am not much concerned with the concept of “belief” or “faith” and the plurality of their Chinese translations, which included—but are not limited to—the character xin. Instead, I will specifically address the character xin, and related compounds, and unpack the spectrum of meanings that these terms embedded. It will appear that the semantic scale of xin includes concepts that we may translate in English with terms like faith or belief, intended in the sense of unconditional confidence in—and reliance on—specific doctrines, but also as a preliminary and necessary step in the path of cultivation and practice towards the ultimate religious and spiritual realization. In the several compounds that will be explored in this chapter, xin assumes qualitative nuances as, for instance, right or wrong, positive or negative, rational or irrational, secular or spiritual. Finally, Buddhist discussions on xin associate this term with other expressions and ideas, like the call for saving the country (jiuguo 救國), that further specify contextual meanings of xin.2

I have based this xin(yang) research mostly on articles published in Bud- dhist journals in the first half of the twentieth century, and will reveal the debates Buddhists developed around this concept, diachronically and synchronically, and how those debates were embedded within social and political discourses. In fact, some of these Buddhist-authored works were not just concerned with Buddhism’s status quo, but also mirrored and reframed the political thoughts of rulers such as Sun Yat-sen 孫中山 (1866–1925) and Chiang Kai-shek 蔣介石 (1887–1975); the role that these non-religious figures assigned to the concept of xin(yang) becomes a crucial addition to rather Buddhadharma-based argumentations.

Finally, my research draws on intellectual debates that animated Taiwan in those same decades, i.e., during the Japanese occupation of the island, given the relevance of Buddhist and otherwise intellectual exchanges between China and Taiwan in those years, and how intellectual movements in China affected—or interacted with—Taiwan, too. In other words, we may want not to think of Republican China and Japan-ruled Taiwan as distant entities, but should rather recognize their interconnection, and revalue East Asia’s role as a macro-area with common underlying narratives. In fact, a study of Taiwan would also shed light on the debates in Japan from the Meiji through the Taishō and the beginning of the Shōwa eras,3 and thus contextualize Chinese perspectives within the wider East Asian region.

In Chinese Buddhism, the semantics of xin(yang) intersects with several domains, in fact recurring in discussions about practice, doctrine, and institutions. In this chapter, I will then group and analyze modern Buddhist semantics of xin under four headings. In Part 2, I will explore systems of classification of xin proposed by several well-known, but also other less-known, Buddhist monastics and laypeople, via careful attention to the binaries zhengxin 正信 vis-à-vis mixin 迷信, 信 xin vis-à-vis kexue 科學, and 迷信 mixin vis-à-vis kexue. In this section, it will already become evident that the idea of xin often appeared in conversation with the character xiu , and so the idea of cultivation/practice. In Part 3, I will focus on how Buddhist leaders from the Republican period made xin instrumental to the process of “rescuing the nation” and the building of the new China; here, xin is moved out of the exclusive domains of doctrine and practice, and engages with institutional and political discourses. Part 4 will still concern the political and official milieu, but from a different perspective: rather than looking at how officials and intellectuals used or defined xin, I will focus on how Buddhists perceived those non-Buddhist views, and put them in a constructive dialogue with Buddhist narratives. In Part 5, I will look at xin’s “institutionalization,” namely at how the concept of xin was used to label lay Buddhist associations, in China and Taiwan, and thus its concretization in social (and secular) domains. The conclusion will also include a brief overview of the legacy of these early twentieth-century positions.

As this chapter will show, it is quite difficult to arrange these debates and different arguments into a single narrative, or to discuss the topic via an official history. The complexity of voices, however, shared one common feature: the need to reposition conceptual semantics of Buddhism within the reconstruction process of the new China.

2 Categorizing xin : zhengxin 正信 vis-à-vis mixin 迷信

As explained briefly in the Introduction, the character xin has been charged with different values via the addition of qualitative prefixes that added nuances to its root meaning of “trust,” “belief,” or its reference, in relational way, to “ethical values.” Several written discussions on xin, for example, developed around the particular dichotomy of zheng-xin (correct belief) and mi-xin (superstitious belief), or in other words, within the categorization of a positive xin and a negative xin. Zhengxin is often identified with the basic refuge in the three jewels, namely Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, and thus with a faith that brings awakening (wuxin 悟信), while mixin is often identified with faith in (and reliance on) polytheism and spirits, a worship often labeled as xiejiao 邪教 (heretic cults). The former is highly valued in the Buddhist community, in both China and Taiwan, while the latter is defined as a cause of worries and instability, and became synonymous with the religion of the dark ages.4

As we will see in this section, the opposite categories of zhengxin and mixin have been debated within the context of different schools’ doctrines and practices, in relation to the historical development of the Buddhadharma from India to China, and in parallel with the new pressing challenge of scientism and secularism. Some publications included both these categories explicitly, while others discussed one with implicit reference to the other. Often, this categorization associated the character xin with the newly reconsidered term zongjiao 宗教,5 and cross-referred to the categories of science and secularity as well.

The concept of a correct xin is frequently associated with a specific school or even a specific figure within one school; this is certainly in line with the sectarian nature of pre-modern Chinese Buddhism, and when it comes to Taiwan it is also the effect of the relevance of sectarianism in Japanese Buddhism. Moreover, debate on a correct xin also embraces other interconnected concepts such as xiuxing 修行 (practice) and xiuyang 修養 (cultivation), and even here, the sectarian discourse of mainstream Chinese Buddhism frames the argument. A careful reading of Republican sources clearly shows that Buddhists retrieved the definition of the correct belief in Buddhism from canonical scriptures and writings of ancient patriarchs, which are cited repeatedly.6 Given that Mahāyāna is the tradition mostly spread and followed by (Han) Buddhists, it is unsurprising that discussion on the correct belief has also been associated with the Mahāyāna cross-sectarian practice of the six pāramitās.7 The influential monk Fazun 法尊 (1902–1980), an important educator in the Republican period and particularly active in the Sino-Tibetan Buddhist Institute (Hanzang jiaoliyuan 漢藏教理院), discussed xin according to similar criteria. Fazun wrote two short articles on xin, which he analyzed within the domains of doctrine and practice. He began the first with a quotation from a Buddhist scripture, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, that said that xin is the mother of all virtues, and nurtures all good roots.8 This is why, Fazun argued, it is important for Buddhists to cultivate xin at the early stage of their practice. But what should Buddhists believe (xin) in? A correct xin has four objects, Fazun continued, and these are the Buddha (xin fo 信佛), the Dharma (xin fa 信法), the Sangha (xin seng 信僧), and the discipline (xin jie 信戒).9

The value and virtue of (the positive) religious/Buddhist xin (faith) lie in the fact that it exceeds the power of materiality and science, that it can in fact address situations that would otherwise remain unexplored or unexplained within the framework of material culture or science. In this perspective, some Buddhists have argued that in a world and time dominated by materiality and scientific development, and where and when everything is judged and categorized according to scientific criteria, there is still a strong need to recognize that the power of xin/xinyang (faith) overcomes material culture/material science. Faith does have its inner value, then, and it is defined as a spiritual culture (jingshen wenhua 精神文化) that can serve in support of (and sometimes counteract) the science-oriented material culture.10 Moreover, correct xin (faith) can have global impact, as it can contribute to the purification (jinghua 淨化) of this entire world.11 And again, of course, correct xin(yang) in these articles12 is synonymous with the correct practice of the Buddhadharma that can lead to achieving Buddhahood (fo zhi dao 佛之道).13

Some other articles address only mixin, still in terms of “wrong faith” (cuowu de xinyang 錯誤的信仰), but also as an unavoidable step in the historical development of the Dharma and the secular world. Thus, a specific faith that is defined as correct in one historical period can be labeled as superstitious and negative in a subsequent moment, in order to adapt to the altered surrounding cultural parameters.14 Some of these arguments, published in Taiwan in the journal Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教,15 are written by Japanese Buddhists, and also reveal contemporary Japanese understanding of—and musings on—mixin.16

Others insisted on the opposition between mixin and kexue, stating that mixin develops especially when and where kexue has not flourished yet. These articles refer to the concept of a positive and “correct” xin, even if mostly implicitly; see, for instance, the explicit statement that the overall idea of zongjiao, here taken in connection to a positive xin, can be “good” for individuals and surrounding societies.17 Yet the correlation between mixin and kexue is quite multifaceted, implying both a distance and an overlap between the two concepts.

And some Buddhists debated the binary zhengxin – mixin within two main contexts: the overall development of Buddhism,18 and the overall Chinese (Han) cultural sphere.

2.1 Xin within the History of Buddhism: Early Indian Practices vs. Chinese Domestication

Some Buddhists, in China and Taiwan, argued that Buddhism/Buddhadharma, in its original phase of formation and practice in India, was just zhengxin, while it developed mixin characteristics after the transmission to China, hence after going through the process of Chinese domestication, inter-religious borrowing, and merging with Chinese local traditions and systems of thought.

This argument was in line with a more general view, which developed between the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in Chinese Buddhist intellectual circles, that identified early Buddhism as the only “pure” Buddhism and participated in reinforcing the narrative of so-called “original Buddhism.” This argument was partly connected to eighteenth- and nineteenth centuries European Buddhological scholarship and its conceptualization of an “original Buddhism”; it also encouraged renewed interest in the study of early Indian Buddhism, including a revaluation of textual corpora such as the Āgamas, which became a key feature of Chinese Buddhism in the first half of the twentieth century.19

Criticism of the Chinese domestication of Buddhism was based on the conviction that the influence of Chinese local religions and cultures (namely popular beliefs and Daoism, but also Confucianism) corrupted the original message of the Buddhadharma. In this context, mi-xin becomes an umbrella term that defines Chinese religious beliefs and practices, other than Bud- dhism, that were led by blind feelings (ganqing 感情) rather than by true principles (zhenli 真理) and knowledge (zhishi 知識). These features affected and reshaped Buddhism in China, and turned it into a mi-xin. The “correct” Buddhadharma (fofa), instead, was rooted in a form of cultivation guided by knowledge (zhishi)—zheng-xin.20 More specifically, some Buddhists argued that the Chinese (Han) family values, like xiao (filial piety) and all the Confucian li (rites), corrupted that zhengxin of the (original) Buddhadharma.21

A group of Buddhists went even further and criticized not merely the Chinese conquest of Buddhism and the Chinese versions of Buddhist doctrine and practice, but also argued that rituals and liturgy in Buddhism, overall, had to be perceived as mixin. A journal article stated explicitly that Dharma services were just mixin (fahui yi shi mixin 法會亦是迷信).22

Other writings proposed more nuanced arguments by drawing various typologies of manifestations and performance of Chinese Buddhist xin(yang), and categorizing some of them in terms of zhengxin, and others as mixin. And this is how several practices, like sūtra recitation when done with a pure heart, were classified as zhengxin. However, all the so-called practices based on the concept of “exchange” (jiaohuan 交換), which were based on the very material principle that the performance of offerings, regardless of purity of mind, would have been reciprocated with some forms of rewards, were defined as shangpin de xinyang 商品的信仰 (business-based belief), and not considered as zhengxin.23

Not all Buddhists in Republican China shared this positive attention to Indian Buddhism, and the criticism of the Chinese tradition that went with it; especially those belonging to more conservative and traditional groups still identified the early Indian tradition as the “Lesser Vehicle” (xiaosheng 小乘).24 A third group of Buddhist voices brought the conflict between the purity and the decadence of the Buddhist faith in conversation with the crucial new issue of national identity that had developed in those same decades. In a time where different ideologies and beliefs were competing for a possible enshrinement as “national ideology/state religion” (guojiao 國教), this group of Buddhist voices proposed a different and Buddhist argumentation, to rethink Chinese national identity and the role that Buddhism, rather than Confucianism or other local beliefs, could have played in it: a sort of “Buddhist nationalism” vs. a more traditional Confucian-imbued nationalism, although this was still a Buddhism that had to relate to Confucian ideas like the Great Unity (datong 大同).25

2.2 The Impact of Christianity: mixin 迷信 Originated in the West?

While some Buddhists differentiated a “pure” (Indian) Buddhism from Chinese endogenous beliefs and systems of thought, others drew a clear distinction between Buddhism overall and the foreign Christianity, which had become a more competitive and threatening force for Buddhists in China since the late Qing.

Several articles, written from the late 1920s until the late 1930s and authored by either lay Buddhists or clerics, argued that Buddhism (in the general sense, without making any explicit distinction between the Indian or Chinese traditions) was a zhixin 智信 (wisdom/knowledge-based belief, hence a faith grounded in reason) while “Jesus’s teachings” (which appeared with the names of yejiao 耶教 or yesujiao 耶穌教) had to be considered as a mixin, as they were not based on reason.

They took their argument a step further and concluded that the overall phenomenon of mixin was alien to China and Asia, that it began in the West and originated from Christianity.26 The inaugural issue of Dafo xuebao 大佛學報 (1930) developed this point in detail. Buddhism becomes a faith based on/aiming at the awakening of one’s own (Buddha) nature (juewu zixing de xin 覺悟自性的信), while Jesus’s teachings are merely a mixin faith centered on the worship of deities (mixin zhu de shen de xin 迷信主的神的信).27 Buddhism could not be defined as a mixin because it is not centered on the worship of deities (shen ): The Buddha was a human being who reached the final realization in a human body and in the human realm. According to the monk Zhenhua 真華 (1922–2012), in Buddhist institutes it is important, first of all, to learn and know what Buddhism is (renshi fojiao 認識佛教)—a religion of reason and intellect (lizhi de zongjiao 理智的宗教), not just a religion of (irrational) faith (xinyang de zongjiao 信仰的宗教). In other words, Buddhism was misunderstood as mixin because its rational/intellectual part was missed.28 In his article “Xin fo yu xin shen 信佛與信神,” the monk Yongquan 湧泉 made a clear distinction between the faith in deities/spirits (xin shen 信神), which is defined as mixin, and faith in Buddha (xin fo 信佛), which is intended as zhengxin.29 The monk Zhifeng 芝夆 (1901–1971), who became well-known as editor for the journal Haichao yin, educator at several institutes of Buddhist studies, and was especially well-versed in the Only-Consciousness (weishi 唯識) teachings, wrote an article published in Haichao yin discussing the question of xinyang by looking at the origins of xinyang, the object of xinyang, and how these related to the nature of the human being, which he saw as primarily spiritual. Zhifeng distinguished between “relative xinyang” (xiangdui de xinyang 相對的信仰) and “absolute xinyang(juedui de xinyang 絕對的 信仰), with the former having different deities (shen) as object of faith and devotion, and the latter having one’s own self as the object of belief. Zhifeng gave a comparative overview of relative and absolute xinyang in various religions and Western philosophies, and concluded that Buddhism embodied both relative and absolute xinyang, in the way it included both the fangbian dao 方便道 (which he viewed in parallel to the “relative xinyang”), and the zhenshi dao 真實道 (which he associated with the “absolute xinyang”). It is precisely on the level of xinyang that Buddhism distinguishes itself from the other religions, Zhifeng stressed: Other religions could only offer relative xinyang, while Buddhism had also the absolute xinyang.30

Buddhism is defined as a logical, human-centered, and reason-based belief, which is rooted in the law of cause and effect and therefore puts human beings in charge of their own destiny (zili zhi yinguo 自力之因果); Buddhism is a religion based on knowledge and self-power, it is not a faith based on blind reliance on the other-power (tali zhi shen 他力之神).31 Such an argument, considering that most of the Chinese Pure Land practice preaches reliance on the other power and the worship of Amitābha Buddha, also stirred opposition and tensions within the Buddhist sphere.

2.3 Mixin 迷信 vis-à-vis kexue 科學: Opposition or Overlap?

Republican debates on the value of zongjiao/religion and the problematics of mixin very often included Christianity, and the role that the latter had played in the Chinese epistemology of the terms zongjiao and mixin. The anti-religion movement (fei zongjiao yundong 非宗教運動) that arose around the May Fourth Movement was framed within those lines, and often became synonymous with the anti-Christian movement (fei jidujiao yundong 非基督教運動).32 Other debates focused especially on the contrast between zongjiao/religion and kexue/science.33 Similarly, discussions on xin(yang) also included references to kexue. Some Buddhists tried to defy the idea that the highly appreciated science (kexue) stood in such mutual opposition to mixin, while others identified the strong role that xinyang held in connection to kexue.

An article published in 1946, for instance, explored the idea of science and superstitions not as opposite terms and concepts, but as two parts of the same conceptual compound; this relation of connection, rather than opposition, brought a new meaning to the two terms. This was another way of arguing against the conflicting relations between religion and science that had emerged in the first half of the twentieth century. Two new compounds, and two new analytical concepts, then appeared: the notion of kexue mixin 科學迷信 (“scientific superstition,” or better a “scientific attitude towards superstition”) and mixin kexue 迷信科學 (“superstitious science,” or better a “superstitious attitude towards science”). The author of this short article argued that the former concept identified all the rituals that people systematically perform in precise moments of their lives, such as burning paper-money for someone’s death; these rituals are performed according to a precise schedule and in a regulated manner, as a form of science, and for one’s personal consolation. The concept of mixin kexue results from the widespread attitude that the author calls xinyang kexue 信仰科學 (“science of faith,” or better “believing in science”); it is blind faith in anything labeled as science that transforms the adoption of science into a new form of superstition.34

From a different perspective, the monk Fafang 法舫 (1905–1951) also claimed that there may not be opposition between kexue and the Buddhist faith; in particular, he identified Buddhist Yogācāra as science.35 This was in line with other monastic and lay networks, from Nanjing to Sichuan, who found in Yogācāra a Buddhist response to Western sciences like psychology. The claimed scientific nature of Yogācāra also explains the revival of interest in this tradition during the Republican period.36

In those same years, Taiwan hosted the publication of written arguments about the need for cooperation, not opposition, between kexue and zongjiao/xinyang, and the call to use the Japanese attempts in this respect as exemplary.37 These Taiwanese publications echoed the ongoing debate in Japan, where Buddhists had to respond to internal and external pressure to position “religion” vis-à-vis the domains of “state” and “science.”38

3 Legitimizing xin in the Public Discourse: Benefiting Society and Rescuing the Nation

This section will propose views on xin from Buddhist figures who have often been recognized as the leaders of crucial networks in Republican China; moreover, they were often protagonists of several exchanges and negotiations with the political powers. Although these voices and arguments are not exhaustive of the Buddhist landscape, they become crucial because they delineate the official discourse of xin in a public and secular sphere too. The claim of a certain Buddhist xin as instrumental in the making of the new China gave then new values to xin and religion.

The layman Fan Gunong 范古農 (1881–1951) was influential in the Chinese Buddhist sphere as editor of Buddhist books and journal; he also gave lectures on the philosophy of the Only-Consciousness School, and authored works on the foundations of Buddhism. His writings include the article “Xin fo zhi tiaojian 信佛之條件” (1928), where he listed thirty-six conditions for a proper belief in Buddhism.39 These thirty-six conditions, he argued, are the basis of the correct faith and practice of Buddhism, and thus thirty-six factors that can distinguish a correct Buddhist practice from an incorrect one. Correct faith in Buddhism (which Fan Gunong called zhenzheng xin fo 真正信佛, or zhenzheng xinyang 真正信仰) is rooted in the figure of Śākyamuni Buddha as the teacher, takes Buddha’s canonical scriptures (fojing 佛經) as the guiding teachings, and is strengthened by respect for the five precepts (jie ) of the laity. An important element that is stressed in several of those thirty-six points is the distinction between Buddhas and bodhisattvas on the one hand, and divine spirits and ghosts (tianxian shengui 天仙神鬼) on the other. Belief in Buddha is then a correct faith (zhengxin) and not a superstitious belief, while belief in other forms of deities falls under the category of superstition. Unlike other Buddhists, Fan Gunong included Pure Land practice in the category of correct faiths. Furthermore, this correct belief in the Buddha (or in other words, adhering to Buddhism rather than to other beliefs) can also bring peace and have political and social value, an element that is recurrent in all the voices analyzed in this Part 3.40

The duals zhengxin and mixin recurred in the writings of the eminent monk Yuanying 圓瑛 (1878–1953). Yuanying was president of the Chinese Buddhist Association during the Republican period (Zhongguo fojiao hui 中國佛教會) from 1928 to 1937, and of the Buddhist Association of China (Zhongguo fojiao xiehui 中國佛教協會) in 1953, albeit only briefly. He was an eminent meditation and Pure Land teacher, an innovator for Sangha and lay education, but also well-known for not sharing most of the reforms proposed by Taixu. Yuanying discussed xin within the context of Buddhist cultivation and also in its relation to society and social demands. As for the latter, Yuanying wrote that xinxin 信心41 should be cultivated as the vow preliminary to the nianfo 念佛 practice.42 In a different talk, Yuanying discussed “correct” Buddhism as a positive xinyang, which brings benefits (liyi 利益) to society. He made a distinction between Buddhism as zhengxin and the wrong understanding and practice of the Dharma that made some practice of Buddhism resembling a mixin. In other words, Yuanying perceived the danger of turning Buddhism into a mixin, and stressed that only the correct practice of Buddhism was the faith (xinyang) that the nation needed to foster.43 Yuanying then proposed that zongjiao (religion) was a positive concept to counteract mixin; he also drew a parallel to Confucius (Kongzi 孔子) and Confucianism (rujiao 儒教).44 Yuanying repeated this idea in other pieces and, as in other monks’ writings, discussed the—apparently logical—law of cause and effect (yinguo 因果) as proof of zhengxin.45

In those same years, the monk Taixu 太虛 (1890–1947), who is probably the best known—and one of the most radical—reformist of the Republican period, defined correct faith in Buddhism as not just beneficial to the people and the nation, but also as the country’s savior. Some remarks along these lines were published under the title “Zhengxin jiu guo 正信救國” (1933);46 this is just one of the several lectures that Taixu gave in the late 1920s and the 1930s and in which he explained that patriotism was an inner teaching of Buddhism. Buddhists, Taixu reasoned, should take the nation’s suffering as their own and actively use Buddhist compassion (cibei xin 慈悲心) to solve their social and national responsibilities. This was the way to merge the Mahāyāna Buddhist practice of compassion (cibei 慈悲) and skillful means (fangbian 方便), and the understanding of the Dharma as teaching that could liberate sentient beings from suffering, with Sun Yat-sen’s call for a national sense of the public. Therefore, patriotism and rescuing the nation were conceived as intersecting with Buddhist practice and mission, and among Buddhists’ national duties.47 The next step, Taixu believed, was to go beyond protecting the nation, and, in light with the global essence and value of Buddhism, move towards saving the entire world.48

Another influential Buddhist leader in the first half of the twentieth- century was the monk Cihang 慈航 (1893–1954). Cihang lived in China in the Republican period; he engaged in all the major debates that animated the Buddhist (or otherwise intellectual) circles in the 1930s, and proposed arguments that resonated—but did not fully coincide—with Taixu’s positions. The close connection between Taixu and Cihang has also been stressed by recent scholarship that labeled the latter as part of Taixu’s legacy.49 Cihang moved to Taiwan in the late 1940s, thus becoming one of those clerics who bridged China with Taiwan, and worked on the “rebirth” in the post-colonial Taiwan of the kind of new Buddhism that had developed in the early twentieth century China. Cihang’s oeuvre is vast and varied; he wrote commentaries on the most popular Buddhist texts in early twentieth-century China, but also debated the questions of education, Sangha reforms, and the role of nuns in the Buddhist and wider communities. Cihang also wrote extensively on the significance and implication of the term zongjiao, what mixin was, how to define fojiao 佛教 within this renewed analytical vocabulary, and, like Yuanying and Taixu, how fojiao could be effective in the mission of “rescuing the nation” (jiuguo 救國). As for the xin/mixin debate, Cihang first listed the major arguments that had been put forward in those years to define how a teaching or a belief could be defined as a mixin, and thereafter confuted most of them. Cihang noticed that worship practices (libai 禮拜) have been said to be a defining element of mixin, ceremonies and ceremonial etiquette (yishi 儀式) have been considered as another key features, and devotion to other-worldly spirits and deities (shen ) has also been labeled as mixin.50 This latter point resonates with what other less influential Buddhists wrote in the Republican period (see Part 2 of this chapter). Cihang also reported that another very curious feature put forward for mixin is that it was related to something that we could not see (kan bu jian de dongxi 看不見的東西). This meant that what could not be seen did not exist either, and any belief in something that could not be seen was then mixin. The point was, in other words, that you could not believe in (xiangxin 相信) what you could not see, because what you could not see could not be real. This final issue was debated and confuted by Cihang in quite a few lectures,51 in which he explained why that criterion could not serve to define something as mixin.52 One of these talks focused on the law of cause and effect (yinguo 因果), which is seen as a key mark of Buddhism; in this lecture, Cihang questioned whether believing in that was mixin too, since the law of cause and effect is not something that can be seen. Most of the discussions on Buddhism as mixin were also related to the debate on whether Buddhism could rescue the nation. Cihang argued that mixin could not accomplish that mission; moreover, it could constitute a problem for the safety of the nation. However, Buddhism, which he did not categorize as mixin, could very well facilitate that. To strengthen his argument, Cihang listed Buddhism as one of the three main religions available in China,53 and also categorized it as a form of national education (guojia de jiaoyu 國家的教育); it is the latter that gives Buddhism the ability to “rescue the nation,” Cihang argued. Buddhism, Christianity, the Three Principles of the People, Confucianism (kongjiao 孔教)—these were all forms of education, and as education they could rescue the nation.54 Cihang explained that there were three types of education: the education given within the household (jiating jiaoyu 家庭 教育), the education given at school (xuexiao jiaoyu 學校教育), and the education given within society (shehui jiaoyu 社會教育). Since religion (zongjiao), and especially Buddhism, offered guidance to society, it belonged to the third type of education, and as such had the ability to rescue the nation.55 Finally, in Cihang’s writings Buddhism is then conceived mostly in terms of jiaoyu or zongjiao, while the terms xin or xinyang do not appear equally often.

The intersecting of narratives between the religious sphere and the political domain reveals parallels, associations, and ideological borrowing and merging. For instance, the call for “rescuing the nation” (jiuguo) was raised not only by the Buddhist/religious community, but, as Klein explains in his chapter, was a core tenet in Sun Yat-sen’s politics and the KMT government. Another example from the process of borrowing and unifying terminology concerns the relations that both domains, the Buddhist and the political (KMT), had with Confucianism and governing principles. For instance, Confucian ideals, like the datong 大同 (Great Unity), are embraced and adopted by both spheres.56 Furthermore, while the theologian Wang Zhixin 王治心 (1881–1968) drew parallels between the Three Principles of the People and Christianity (see his Yesu zhuyi 耶穌主義),57 Taixu not only stressed the strong similarities between those principles and his rensheng fojiao, but also stipulated parallel Buddhist Principles (San Fo zhuyi 三佛主義).

Taixu’s second principle (Fohua zhuyi 佛化主義) aimed to “Buddhicize” the surrounding (lay) society.58 The two characters fohua 佛化 became cardinal in the so-called “Buddhicization movement” (fohua yundong 佛化運動); members of the “modernizers’ network” used the term fohua, rather than fojiao 佛教 or fofa 佛法 to express the plan to actively influence, and especially reshape, societal and other non-Buddhist spheres with the correct xin. The overall movement of reform and innovation eventually intersected with this call for a “Buddhicization.” Many aspects, from education to family life,59 from socialism to the three principles of the people,60 were encouraged to go through a fohua process so to reflect the correct xin; several periodicals were also established to discuss the Buddhicization plans,61 and many articles were published also elsewhere on the topic.62 The lay scholars Jiang Tesheng 蔣特生 and Tang Dayuan 唐大圓 (1885–1941), both part of the “Taixu-centered network,” were two of the main protagonists in the description of the Buddhicization process. Tang Dayuan’s “Xin fohua zhi biaozhun 新佛化之 標準,” originally written in 1922 and published in 1924, lists the core doctrine of the new Buddhism, citing key Mahāyāna scriptures and teachings; the article also merges traditional Mahāyāna with features of rensheng fojiao 人生佛教, such as the combination of acting in the world (shijian 世間) with the otherworldly spiritual essence (chushi 出世) of the Buddhadharma, and the purpose to benefit and purify (jingyi 淨益) society at large.

In other words, the relations between the religious and the political at that time were more complex than a mere opposition or pure collaboration. I will explore other patterns of this interplay in Part 4.

4 Politicizing xin : a Buddhist Reading of Sun Yat-sen’s and Chiang Kai-shek’s Views on xin(yang) 信仰

While Klein’s chapter in this volume explores political use of the concepts of “belief” and “trust” in the Republican period, I will address how the viewpoints of the same political protagonists were perceived by the Buddhist community. A good reference for this research are the writings of the monk and historian Dongchu 東初 (1908–1977), a native of China who then fled to Taiwan in the mid-twentieth century. Although a graduate from Taixu’s innovative institutes for Sangha’s education, Dongchu adopted an ambivalent position towards tradition and reform, showing less enthusiasm for the secularization of Sangha education than his own teacher.

In his Zhongguo fojiao jindai shi 中國佛教近代史 (1974), Dongchu offered a detailed account of the political and social concerns on xinyang in China during the first decades of the twentieth century, looking beyond the domain of doctrine and practice, and focusing also on the public (and political) spheres. Among the topics that Dongchu addressed there are the debate on religion in 1920s, the consequent new politics and policies on religion issued and implemented by the new Nationalist regime, the effects of those policies on freedom of belief (xinyang ziyou 信仰自由), and the attacks that Buddhism became subject to in those years. According to Dongchu, however, Buddhism was not a superstitious belief (mixin de zongjiao 迷信的宗教).63 Dongchu also stressed the social and national usefulness of the Buddhist xinyang as monks joined the national army in the late 1930s.64

In his Jiang zongtong yu fojiao 蔣總統與佛教 (1975), Dongchu wrote more specifically about the perspective of the political leaders Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek on xinyang, or better his Buddhist take on these view- points. Chiang Kai-shek was not just a politician (zhengzhijia 政治家), Dongchu argued, but also an expert on religion (zongjiaojia 宗教家).65 Dongchu reported Chiang Kai-shek’s statement, “There is no human life without religious belief (zongjiao de xinyang 宗教的信仰).”66 In addition, science (kexue) and medicine (yixue 醫學) could not always heal humans’ mental illnesses (jingshen bing 精神病), although psychologists had claimed otherwise. In fact, Chiang Kai-shek argued, it was only via the teachings of a religious xinyang and a humanistic philosophy (rensheng zhexue 人生哲學) that human beings could find inner stability (anding li 安定力).67 Decades earlier, Dongchu reported, Sun Yat-sen had already given relevance to religious xinyang, and thus Buddhist xinyang as well (especially Mahāyāna Buddhism), as a benevolent value that could contribute to “rescuing the nation”; Buddhist xinyang is, then, in line with the Three Principles of the People. In fact, the fourth article of the Principle of Nationalism (minzu zhuyi 民族主義) says: “Buddhism can compensate for science.”68

This reading of Sun Yat-sen’s and Chiang Kai-shek’s positions helped to ground the legitimacy of the arguments proposed by those Buddhist leaders who had stressed Buddhism as a socially and politically useful “belief” (and “religion”).

5 Institutionalizing xin : the Buddhist Right Faith Society Fojiao zhengxin hui 佛教正信會 (China) and the Right Faith Society Zhengxin hui 正信會 (Taiwan)

The concept of a “correct faith” was not only extrapolated to interpret scriptures and practices, or to provide authority to the discursive narrative on the role of Buddhism in the public domain. Quite soon, in the 1920s, it also became the name of lay associations, in China and Taiwan. The Buddhist Right Faith Society (Fojiao zhengxin hui 佛教正信會)69 in China, and the Right Faith Society (Zhengxin hui 正信會)70 in Taiwan are two good case-studies in this respect.

The Hankou fojiaohui 漢口佛教會 was established in 1920, in Hubei 湖北, and changed its name to Fojiao zhengxin hui in 1928. This is one of the many lay Buddhist associations that were founded in the early twentieth century; it focused on a wide range of charity activities, from taking care of the poor to running education programs for the less fortunate. Instituted and run by Bud- dhist laymen like, for instance, Chen Yuanbai 陳元白, Li Yinchen 李隱塵, and Wang Senfu 王森甫, this association was strongly connected with Taixu, and so part of the so-called “Taixu network.” For instance, there was a close relation with the Wuchang Institute of Buddhist Studies (Wuchang foxueyuan 武昌佛學院); second, the majority of the lay leaders were all disciples of Taixu himself; third, Taixu came to serve as “guiding master” (daoshi 導師) of the association. Taixu was also behind the association’s name change, and the selection of the expression “correct faith” as a new label for the group; zhengxin, he explained, expressed refuge in the three gems (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha), while those who were not following the three gems were not practicing a correct faith.71 The strong relation with Taixu and his network may explain the societal focus of the activities run by the association; those activities were the concretization of the idea of Buddhist xin as beneficial to, and savior of, the nation.72 This form of social engagement was, certainly, also in line with Taixu’s rensheng fojiao 人生佛教 and, a few decades later, became a key aspect of certain streams of renjian fojiao 人間佛教 as well. After the foundation of the society in Hubei, other branches, with similar aims and activities, were opened in the 1920s and 1930s in several provinces like Hunan 湖南73 and Sichuan 四川.74

The lay leadership of this organization reflects crucial changes that had happened in the contemporary Buddhist context, where the laity had assumed a major role and were no longer subordinate to the Sangha; on a certain level, the laity had become an alternative to the Sangha, and acted in parallel to the monastic community.75

Although there is no evidence of direct connections between this lay association and Japan, we should notice that those were the years when “new religions” (shin shūkyō 信宗教) began to appear and flourish in Japan. Groups like Sōka Gakkai 創価学会 and Risshō Kōseikai 立正佼成会 were, like the Buddhist Right Faith Society, run by lay Buddhists, strongly rooted in sectarian teachings and teachers from the past, and highly engaged in humanitarian action, social welfare, and education activities. Furthermore, from the perspective of the cultural and religious milieu that characterized late Qing and Republican China, these “socially engaged” associations resembled—and may have been inspired by—Christian groups that were active at that time and challenged local traditions by their social commitment and popularity.

In 1934, just a few years after the creation of The Buddhist Right Faith Society, a similar society was founded in Taiwan. It was established in Taizhong, within the Taizhong Buddhist Association (Taizhong fojiaohui 台中佛教會) by, among others, Lin Delin 林德林 (1890–1951). Lin was a prominent figure in colonial Taiwan, a reformer who earned the name “Martin Luther of Taiwan” (Taiwan Mading Lude 台灣馬丁路德).76 The foundation of this group was an accomplishment of the Taiwanese movement for the “right Buddhist faith” (Taiwan zhengxin fojiao yundong 台灣「正信佛教」運動), and it initially counted between twenty and thirty members, including four women. As Lin Delin explained, this group was created to discuss the question of the “Buddhist faith” in Taiwan (Taiwan fojiao xinyang wenti 台灣佛教信仰問題), within the overall context of the “faith question” (xinyang wenti 信仰問題) that not only Taiwan, but also China, Japan,77 and all the world were debating at that time.78 Specifically about Taiwan, those were the years in which several articles, authored by either Japanese or Taiwanese Buddhists and published in Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教,79 debated local folk beliefs in Taiwan,80 and the clash between proper traditional Buddhism and popular Buddhism.81 The concern for a proper Buddhism was not only shared by Taiwanese Buddhists, but was also urged by the Japanese government, and Japanese Buddhist groups on the island.82 The main role of this Society, then, was not to provide material support to the community, or to be involved in any form of humanitarian activities; it was an intellectual circle, where views on xin were debated and lectures on “proper” Buddhism were delivered regularly.

The Chinese Right Faith Buddhist Society and the Taiwanese Right Faith Society were established in the same years; they shared the common concern for reviving a proper Buddhist faith, and overcoming the other beliefs which were called mixin. At the same time, however, these two groups were the outcomes and manifestations of two different local histories, and were facing two different forms of colonization. China was rebuilding her own nation and identity, “rescuing” it from the challenges of Western ideologies and a traditional—often perceived as backward—local past, embracing exogenous concepts and reshaping endogenous ones. On the other hand, Taiwan was writing her own history of occupation and Japanese “domestication” of culture, drawing distinction between categories of beliefs (some more mixin than others), and questioning the Chinese and Japanese identities of “proper” Buddhism.

6 Conclusion: Continuities and Ruptures in the Late Twentieth and Early Twenty-First Centuries

From the late nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century, in both China and Taiwan, the character xin functioned as key word in several debates either initiated or joined by the Buddhist communities. Some of these debated related to the atmosphere of reconsideration of religion at the time of the May Fourth Movement and other contemporary campaigns, and the context of opposition to—or domestication of—scientific thinking, secularization, and foreign ideologies. Other debates are just legacies from premodern conceptions, and textual and doctrinal interpretations, of xin in the (Chinese) Buddhadharma.83 Often, the character xin assumed semantic distinctions and variations through the compounds it was part of.

The discursive narrative of xin penetrated the private sphere of practice, where it meant a specific stage or approach to the Dharma cultivation; it also contributed to the public sphere, where it defined Buddhist ways to intervene in the “salvation” and construction of the (new) nation.

The early and mid-twentieth century was also a time of renewed interest for the text Dasheng qixin lun 大乘起信論 (The Treatise on the Mahāyāna Awakening of Faith) by Japanese and Chinese Buddhist scholars,84 as well as by Western Christians.85 Even here, the meaning of the character xin was often debated or even instrumentalized.

Some of the debates and arguments about xin that informed the Buddhist sphere in the first half of the twentieth century have continued to pervade Chinese and Taiwanese communities to this day. For instance, as Weishan Huang explains in her chapter about Tzu Chi followers in China, the dichotomy zhengxin and mixin is still relevant in the contemporary narrative. Furthermore, the connection between “belief” and “practice” is stressed today as well; in fact, according to Huang’s study, it is the concept of “practice” (xing ), rather than that of “belief” (xin), that recurs often in conversations with Tzu Chi members, yet xing is to be intended as manifestation of xin. And the concept of xinxin 信心, so dear to the monk Yuanying, for instance, in Republican China, is a key term in contemporary Chinese Buddhist circles, although it has also assumed a second semantic connotation.86

These signs of continuity in the understanding and usage of the term xin, naturally with adjustments due to a different historical and political climate, may be explained through the role xin has played within the all history of Buddhism,87 and also, in the specific case of China and Taiwan, through the role played by Buddhists who had been educated in the Republican period and were then active in post-Mao China or post-colonial Taiwan. The late monks Yinshun (1906–2005) and Dongchu (1908–1977), and the living Xingyun 星雲 (b. 1927), who grew up in the atmosphere of the Republican China and then concretized their Buddhist ideologies mostly in the second half of the twentieth century, are good examples of these “bridging figures.”

It is especially Yinshun, master and reference figure for the nun Zhengyan and so Tzu Chi, the case study explored by Huang in her chapter, who deserves our attention. Monastics and laity alike consider Yinshun’s book Xue fo sanyao 學佛三要 the best guidance in the practice of Buddhism; the text lists xinyuan 信願 (believing and vowing),88 cibei 慈悲 (compassion and mercy), and zhihui 智慧 (wisdom) as the three essential elements in Buddhist practice. The book was published in 1971, in Taiwan, but its various chapters are previous public lectures that Yinshun gave between 1953 and 1958, also in Taiwan. Although this is then a post-Republican text, Yinshun spent his formative years 1930 to 1940 in Mainland China, under the guidance of leading monastics such as Taixu, Fazun, and Changxing, whose debates of xin in the Republican period have been examined in this chapter.

In contemporary writings, xinyuan 信願 is often intended as the merging of xinyang 信仰 and fayuan 發願, and as embodying a consequential process from xinyang to fayuan.89 In this context, Yinshun relates xin to putixin 菩提心, and the crucial importance of vowing to develop Bodhicitta. Yinshun expands his discussion with a cross-tradition parallel involving Christianity and also Confucianism: For instance, if Buddhism has xinyuan 信願, cibei 慈悲, and zhihui 智慧 as key markers, then Christianity has xin and ai playing the same role. According to Yinshun, xinyang includes both zhengxin and mixin. The difference between the two is identified in the object and in the aims of xinyang: a belief/reliance/faith in Buddha is a zhengxin, but belief/reliance/faith in deities/spirits (shen) is mixin. A xinyang that originated from knowledge and awareness is zhengxin (and zhixin 智信), while the blind following of certain ideas (in order to, for instance, imitate parents or friends) is mixin.90 This is in line with many of the Chinese and Taiwanese debates from the first half of the twentieth century that this chapter has explored.

Yinshun’s framing of xin, then, takes some distance from the political and societal discussions carried out in the Republican period (see arguments analyzed in Parts 3 to 5 of this chapter), while it shows continuity with the xin narrative in the sphere of Buddhist practice, and within the dichotomy zhengxin – mixin (see especially Part 2 of the chapter). At the same time, this take on xin has formed the background of contemporary Buddhist movements, like Tzu Chi, and the context wherein the interviews conducted by Huang can be positioned.

Bibliography

  • Anonymous. 1921. “Hunan fojiao zhengxin hui youpoyibu yuanqi fujianzhang 湖南佛教正信會優婆夷部緣起附簡章.” Haichao yin 海潮音 2, no. 12: 1113.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Anonymous. 1934. “Zhengxin hui chengli jiqi lihui 正信會成立及其例會.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 12, no. 12: 2427.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Barrett, Timothy H., and Francesca Tarocco. 2012. “Terminology and Religious Identity: Buddhism and the Genealogy of the Term Zongjiao.” In Dynamics in the History of Religions between Asia and Europe: Encounters, Notions, and Comparative Perspectives, edited by Volkhard Krech and Marion Steinicke. Leiden: Brill, 307319.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bastid-Bruguière, Marianne. 2002. “La campagne antireligieuse de 1922.” Extrême-Orient, Extrême-Occident 24: 7796.

  • Changxing 常惺. 1930. “Fofa shi mixin de ma 佛法是迷信的嗎?Zheng jue 正覺 1: 3945.

  • Chen Yongge 陳永革. 2016. Renjian chaoyin—Taixu dashi zhuan 人間潮音—太虛大 師傳. Taipei: Sixing wenhua.

  • Cihang 慈航. 1981a. “Duiyu fojiao wuhui zhi jieshi 對於佛教誤會的解釋.” In Cihang fashi quanji 慈航法師全集 (Putixin ying shiyipian 菩提心影釋疑篇), edited by Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui 慈航法師永久紀念會. Taipei: Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui, 15.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cihang 慈航. 1981b. “Mixin de bianlun 迷信的辯論.” In Cihang fashi quanji 慈航法師 全集 (Putixin ying shiyipian 菩提心影釋疑篇), edited by Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui 慈航法師永久紀念會. Taipei: Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui, 610.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cihang 慈航. 1981c. “Yinguo shi mixin ma 因果是迷信嗎?” In Cihang fashi quanji 慈航法師全集 (Putixin ying shiyipian 菩提心影釋疑篇), edited by Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui 慈航法師永久紀念會. Taipei: Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui, 1921.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cihang 慈航. 1981d. “Jiuguo yanjiu 救國研究.” In Cihang fashi quanji 慈航法師全集 (Putixin ying shiyipian 菩提心影釋疑篇), edited by Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui 慈航法師永久紀念會. Taipei: Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui, 4649.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cihang 慈航. 1981e. “Fojiao keyi jiuguo 佛教可以救國.” In Cihang fashi quanji 慈航法師全集 (Putixin ying shiyipian 菩提心影釋疑篇), edited by Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui 慈航法師永久紀念會. Taipei: Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui, 5056.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cihang 慈航. 1981f. “Fojiao zenyang keyi jiuguo 佛教怎樣可以救國.” In Cihang fashi quanji 慈航法師全集 (Putixin ying shiyipian 菩提心影釋疑篇), edited by Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui 慈航法師永久紀念會. Taipei: Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui, 5759.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cihang 慈航. 1981g. “Fofa yu guofa 佛法與國法.” In Cihang fashi quanji 慈航法師全集 (Putixin ying shiyipian 菩提心影釋疑篇), edited by Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui 慈航法師永久紀念會. Taipei: Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui, 7173.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Daxing 大醒. 1933. “Fojiao zhengxin hui jianghua 佛教正信會講話.” Zhengxin banyue kan 正信半月刊 2, no. 17: 79.

  • Deng Zimei 鄧子美 and Chen Weihua 陳衛華, eds. 2017. Dangdai renjian fojiao chuan denglu (1949–2015) 當代人間佛教傳燈錄 (1949–2015). 2 vols. Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dongchu 東初. 1974. Zhongguo fojiao jindai shi 中國佛教近代史. Taipei: Zhonghua fojiao wenhuaguan.

  • Dongchu 東初. 1975. Jiang zongtong yu fojiao 蔣總統與佛教. Taipei: Zhonghua fojiao wenhuaguan.

  • Fafang 法舫. 1929. “Weishixue yu kexue 唯識學與科學.” Haichao yin 海潮音 10, no. 4: 719.

  • Fafang 法舫. 1930. “Weishixue yu kexue (xu) 唯識學與科學(續).” Haichao yin 海潮音 10, no. 12: 5166.

  • Fazun 法尊. 1940a. “Xin de wenti 信的問題.” Jueyin 覺音 13: 910.

  • Fazun 法尊. 1940b. “Xin de wenti 信的問題.” Jueyin 覺音 14: 1012.

  • Fan Gunong 范古農. 1928. “Xin fo zhi tiaojian 信佛之條件.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 6, no. 4: 4648.

  • Fan Gunong 范古農. 1984. Gunong foxue dawen 古農佛學答問. Taipei: Xinwenfeng.

  • Hammerstrom, Erik. 2015. The Science of Chinese Buddhism: Early Twentieth-Century Engagements. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Hammerstrom, Erik. 2020. “On Assessing the Impact of Scientific Rhetoric in Modern Chinese Religion: A Prolegomenon.” In Concepts and Methods for the Study of Chinese Religions II: Intellectual History of Key Concepts, edited by Gregory Adam Scott and Stefania Travagnin. Boston: De Gruyter, 121134.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hayashi 林氏. 1936. “Xinyang san da yaosu 信仰三大要素.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 14, no. 2: 2931.

  • He Binqi 何賓琦. 1935. “Ruhe shi zhengxin fojiao 如何是正信佛教?Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 13, no. 4: 38.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hou Kunhong 侯坤宏. 2018. Taixu shidai: Duowei shijiao xiade minguo fojiao (1912–1949) 太虛時代: 多維視角下的民國佛教 (1912–1949). Taipei: Zhengda chubanshe.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Huang Heihan 黃黑涵. 1934. “Fofa wei zhengxin er fei mixin 佛法為正信而非迷信.” Foxue banyuekan 佛學半月刊, no. 78: 21.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hui Puxin 會普信. 1923. “Zongjiao yu daode 宗教與道德.” Zhongdao 中道 26: 810.

  • Inoue Jinkichi 井上仁吉. 1936. “Kexue yu zongjiao 科學與宗教.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 14, no. 2: 56.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jessup, Brooks. 2016. “Buddhist Activism, Urban Space, and Ambivalent Modernity in 1920s Shanghai.” In Recovering Buddhism in Modern China, edited by Jan Kiely and J. Brooks Jessup. New York: Columbia University Press, 3778.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jiang Canteng 江燦騰. 1996. Taiwan fojiao bainian shi zhi yanjiu 1895–1995 台灣佛教百年史之研究 1895–1995. Taipei: Nantian.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jiang Canteng 江燦騰. 2002. “Riju shiqi Taiwan xin fojiao yundong de xianqu: ‘Taiwan fojiao Mading Lude’ Lin Delin de gean yanjiu 日據時期台灣新佛教運動的先驅: 「台灣佛教馬丁路德」林德林的個案研究.” Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal, no. 15: 255303.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jiang Tesheng 蒋特生. 1927a. “Geming yu fohua 革命與佛化.” Fohua xunkan 佛化旬刊, no. 82: 34.

  • Jiang Tesheng 蒋特生. 1927b. “Geming yu fohua 革命與佛化.” Fohua xunkan 佛化旬刊, no. 83: 24.

  • Jiang Tesheng 蒋特生. 1928a. “Lun fohua yu sanmin zhuyi 論佛化與三民主義.” Foguang she shekan 佛光社社刊, no. 3:1012.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jiang Tesheng 蒋特生. 1928b. “Lun fohua yu sanmin zhuyi 論佛化與三民主義.” Haichao yin 海潮音 9, no. 5: 57.

  • Jones, Charles B. 1999. Buddhism in Taiwan: Religion and the State 1660–1990. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.

  • Ju Nong 菊農. 1930. “Foxue shi zhixin de fei mixin de 佛學是智信的非迷信的.” Nanying fojiao 南瀛佛教 8, no. 7: 1819.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jueren 覺人. 1923. “Shenme shi fohua shijie 甚麼是佛化世界.” Fohua shijie 佛化世界, no. 1: 2.

  • Kan Zhengzong 闞正宗. 2011. Fojiao fazhan yu huangminhua yundong 佛教發展與皇民化運動. Taipei: Boyang wenhua.

  • Katz, Paul R. 2019. “Chen Hailiang’s Vision of Buddhist Family Life: A Preliminary Study.” Journal of Chinese Religions 47, no. 1: 3360.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kwok, David W.Y. 1965. Scientism in Chinese Thought: 1900–1950. New Haven: Yale University Press.

  • Kuo, Ya-pei. 2010. “Before the Term: ‘Religion’ as China’s Cultural Other.” Comparativ 20, no. 4: 98114.

  • Kuo, Ya-pei. 2020. “Two Conceptions of Religion in Modern China: Chen Duxiu on the Eve of the Anti-Religion/Anti-Christian Movement.” In Concepts and Methods for the Study of Chinese Religions II: Intellectual History of Key Concepts, edited by Gregory Adam Scott and Stefania Travagnin. Boston: De Gruyter, 135154.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kuwada Yoshizō 桑田芳藏. 1933. “Mixin de xinli 迷信的心理.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 11, no. 3: 25.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Liang Qichao 梁啟超. 1922. Dasheng qixin lun kaozheng 大乘起信論考證. Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan [reprinted in 1935].

  • Lin Chengpo 林澄坡. 1935. “Zhengxin hui kaihui ci 正信會開會辭.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 13, no. 4: 35.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lin Delin 林德林. 1935. “Zhengxin hui chuangli jingguo 正信會創立經過.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 13, no. 4: 36.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lu Miao-fen 呂妙芬 and Paul R. Katz (康豹), eds. 2020. Wusi yundong yu zhongguo zongjiao de tiaoshi yu fazhan 五四運動與中國宗教的調適與發展. Taipei: Academia Sinica.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lutz, Jessie Gregory. 1988. Chinese Politics and Christian Missions: The Anti-Christian Movements of 1920–1928. Notre Dame: Cross Cultural Publ.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Makeham, John, ed. 2014. Transforming Consciousness: Yogācāra Thought in Modern China. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Matsumura Sei 松村生. 1930a. “Mixin beihua 迷信悲話.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 8, no. 2: 3132.

  • Matsumura Sei 松村生. 1930b. “Mixin beihua 迷信悲話.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 8, no. 3: 34.

  • Meyer, Christian. 2015. “The Emergence of ‘Religious Studies’ (zongjiaoxue) in Republican China, 1911–1949.” Numen 62, no. 1: 3974.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ning Mogong 寗墨公. 1927. “Diguo zhuyi yu fohua 帝國主義與佛化.” Haichao yin 海潮音 8, no. 6: 910.

  • Nukita Shido 貫田至道. 1935. “Xin zhi de 信之德.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛 佛教 13, no. 1: 79.

  • Pratt, James Bissett. 1928. The Pilgrimage of Buddhism and a Buddhist Pilgrimage. London: Macmillan.

  • Reporter (記者). 1932. “Fojiao zhengxin hui zuijin jiushi gongzuo 佛教正信會最近救世工作.” Haichao yin 海潮音 13, no. 4: 1923.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Richard, Timothy. 1907. The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana Doctrine: The New Buddhism. Shanghai: Christian Literature Society.

  • Ritzinger, Justin R. 2016. “Original Buddhism and its Discontents: The Chinese Buddhist Exchange Monks and the Search for the Pure Dharma in Ceylon.” Journal of Chinese Religions 44, no. 2: 149173.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sun Xinyuan 孫心源. 1932. “Henduo mixin de Taiwan 很多迷信的臺灣.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 10, no. 8: 6162.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Suzuki, D.T. 1900. Aśvaghoṣa’s Discourse on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Taixu 太虛. 1925. “Dang suzu fojiao zhengxin hui wei zaijia zhong zhi tongyi tuanti 當速組佛教正信會為在家眾之統一團體.” Haichao yin 海潮音 6, no. 2: 16.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Taixu 太虛. 1950 [1928]. “Duiyu Zhongguo fojiao geming seng de xunci 對於中國佛教革命僧的訓詞.” In Taixu dashi quanshu 太虛大師全書, edited by Yinshun 印順. Hong Kong: Zhengjue lianshe, vol. 34, 597603.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Taixu 太虛. 1929. “Fojiao zhengxin hui gangyao 佛教正信會綱要.” Fohua zhoukan 佛化週刊, no. 134: 13.

  • Taixu 太虛. 1933. “Zhengxin jiuguo 正信救國.” Sichuan fojiao yuekan 四川佛教月刊 1, no. 10: 1.

  • Taixu 太虛. 1950 [1948]. “Fofa yu jiuguo 佛法與救國.” In Taixu dashi quanshu 太虛大師全書, edited by Yinshun 印順. Hong Kong: Zhengjue lianshe, vol. 48, 6061.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tang Dayuan 唐大圆. 1924a. “Xinshi de fohua 新式的佛化.” Haichao yin 海潮音 5, no. 3: 913.

  • Tang Dayuan 唐大圆. 1924b. “Xin fohua zhi biaozhun 新佛化之標準.” Haichao yin 海潮音 5, no. 6: 1217.

  • Tao Feiya 陶非亞. 2003. “Gongchan guoji daibiao yu Zhongguo fei jidujiao yundong 共產國際代表與中國非基督教運動.” Jindai shi yanjiu 近代史研究, no. 5: 114136.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tarocco, Francesca. 2008. “Lost in Translation? The ‘Treatise on the Mahāyāna Awakening of Faith (Dasheng qixin lun)’ and Its Modern Readings.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 71, no. 2: 323343.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tianran 天然. 1934. “Jiujing de zhengxin 究竟的正信.” Zhengxin 正信 3, no. 22: 5.

  • Travagnin, Stefania. 2001. “Il Nuovo ‘Buddhismo per l’Umanità’ (renjian fojiao) a Taiwan. Una nota sulla classificazione degli insegnamenti (panjiao) secondo il Maestro Yinshun.” Cina 29: 65102.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Travagnin, Stefania. 2015. “The Impact of Politics on the Minnan Buddhist Institute: sanmin zhuyi三民主义 and aiguo zhuyi爱国主义 in the Context of Sangha Education.” Review of Religion and Chinese Society 2, no. 1: 2150.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Travagnin, Stefania. 2018. “The State of Āgama Scholarship in Twentieth-Century China: Assessing the Context of Lü Cheng’s 呂澂 and Yinshun’s 印順 Analysis of the Saṃyukta-āgama.” Paper presented at the International Conference on the Saṃyukta-āgamas organized by the Āgama Research Group (27–28 October 2018, Buenos Aires, Argentina).

  • Travagnin, Stefania. 2020. “Zhongguo yu Taiwan fojiao jie de wusi yinyuan: yi 1910–1930 niandai wei kaocha zhongdian 中國與臺灣佛教界的五四因緣──以1910–1930 年代為考察重點.” In Wusi yundong yu zhongguo zongjiao de tiaoshi yu fazhan 五四 運動與中國宗教的調適與發展, edited by Lu Miao-fen 呂妙芬 and Paul R. Katz (康豹). Taipei: Academia Sinica, 547577.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Travagnin, Stefania, and Bhikkhu Anālayo. 2020. “The Three-Aṅga Theory in Master Yinshun’s 印順 Scholarship: Assessing the State of Āgama Studies in Twentieth-Century China.” In Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama, edited by Bhikkhuni Dhammadinnā. Taipei: Dharma Drum Publishing Corporation, 9331008.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wei-huan. 1939. “Buddhism in Modern China.” T’ian Hsia Monthly 9, no. 2: 140155.

  • Welch, Holmes. 1968. The Buddhist Revival in China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Xingyun 星雲, Cihui 慈惠, Cizhuang 慈莊, et al. 1988. Foguang da cidian 佛光大辭典. 8 vols. Gaoxiong: Foguang chubanshe.

  • Xinjian 心閒. 1946. “Kexue mixin 科學迷信.” Fojiao wenzhai 佛教文摘 1: 50.

  • Ye Miaoguo 葉妙果. 1931. “Wuren hegu xin fojiaohu hewei xuefohu 吾人何故信佛教乎何為學佛乎?Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 9, no. 7: 1821.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yinshun 印順. 1943. Yindu zhi fojiao 印度之佛教. Taipei: Zhengwen [revised edition published in 1985].

  • Yinshun 印順. 1949. Fofa gailun 佛法概論. Hong Kong: Zhengwen xueshe.

  • Yinshun 印順. 1951. Dasheng qixin lun jiangji 大乘起信論講記. Hong Kong: Zhengwen xueshe.

  • Yinshun 印順. 1972. Wo zhi zongjiao guan 我之宗教觀. Taipei: Zhengwen [revised edition published in 1992].

  • Yinshun 印順. 1993. “Qili qiji zhi renjian fojiao 契理契機之人間佛教.” In Huayu ji 華雨集. Taipei: Zhengwen, vol. 3, 170.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yongquan 湧泉. 1935. “Xin fo yu xin shen 信佛與信神.” Ren hai deng 人海燈 3, no. 10: 1113.

  • Yuanying 圓瑛. 2012a. “Nianfo famen 念佛法门.” In Yuanying dashi wenhui 圓瑛大師 文匯, edited by Wang Zhiyuan 王志遠. Beijing: Huaxia chubanshe, 157160.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yuanying 圓瑛. 2012b. “Xie shi zongci jiangyan 謝氏宗祠講演.” In Yuanying dashi wenhui 圆瑛大師文汇, edited by Wang Zhiyuan 王志遠. Beijing: Huaxia chubanshe, 180181.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yuanying 圓瑛. 2012c. “Guomin yingjin tianzhi 國民應盡天職.” In Yuanying dashi wenhui 圓瑛大師文匯, edited by Wang Zhiyuan 王志遠. Beijing: Huaxia chubanshe, 196.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zeng Jinglai ( Keirai) 曾景來. 1931. “Zenme yao xin Fotuo? 怎麼要信佛陀Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 9, no. 7: 2126.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhang Weilong 張微隆. 1935. “Guanyu dapo mixin de jijuhua 關於打破迷信的幾句話.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 13, no. 5: 4549.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhenhua 真華. 1996. Xinghua zaji 行化雜記. Taipei: Zhengwen chubanshe.

  • Zhifeng 芝峰. 1928. “Xinyang wenti 信仰問題.” Haichao yin 海潮音 19, no. 1: 1318.

1

See Tam’s chapter about the meanings of xin in premodern Chinese Buddhism.

2

See also the argumentation of the editors in the Introductory chapter for more about the possible semantic range and translations of the character xin.

3

See Krämer’s chapter for the meaning and role of shin in the Meiji period.

4

Hayashi 1936, 29–31.

5

For the term zongjiao and the concept of “religion” in China, see Barrett and Tarocco 2012, Kuo 2010, and Kuo 2020.

6

Tianran 1934, 5.

7

Hayashi 1936, 30–31.

8

Ch: “Xin wei daoyuan gongde mu, zhangyang yiqie zhu shan’gen” 信為道源功德母,長養一切諸善根. See also Tam’s chapter in this volume.

9

Fazun 1940a, 9–10; Fazun 1940b, 10–12. A strong attack on the serious problem of the clerics disrobing over and over again is included in the same articles.

10

Nukita Shido 1935, 7–9; Kuwada Yoshizō 1933, 2–5.

11

Nukita Shido 1935, 9; to quote from the article: “Jinghua zhege shijie. Zhe, zheng shi xin zhi de de liliang” 淨化這個世界。這,正是信之德的力量. This argument is also reminiscent of the newly formed notion of “Pure Land on Earth” (renjian jingtu 人間淨土).

12

It is worth noting that these writings use xin interchangeably with the term zongjiao 宗教, as a further remark of the semantic spectrum of xin in the context.

13

Nukita Shido 1935, 7.

14

Kuwada Yoshizō 1933, 2–5.

15

This is the journal published by the South Sea Buddhist Association (Ch: Nanying fojiao hui; Jp: Nan’e Bukkyō kai 南瀛佛教會), which was established in Taiwan in 1921 as a Japanese official reference organ to include all the Buddhist groups and activities in Taiwan. Run by Japanese, it also involved Taiwanese Buddhists. Articles published on the journal were mostly authored by Japanese intellectuals or monks, however some were also written by local Taiwanese. For more on the South Sea Buddhist Association, see Jiang 1995, 121–125; Jones 1999, 75–81.

16

See, for instance, Matsumura Sei 1930a, 31–32, and Matsumura Sei 1930b, 34.

17

Zhang Weilong 1935, 45–49.

18

These sources use the terms fojiao 佛教 and fofa 佛法 interchangeably; I would argue that fojiao here is intended in its doctrinal sense, rather than as the institution of Buddhism.

19

The study of the history of Indian Buddhism became a compulsory subject in the curricula for Sangha education, and also in the new schools for laity like the China Metaphysical Institute (Zhina neixueyuan 支那內學院) established by Ouyang Jingwu 歐陽竟無 (1871–1943) in 1922. Yinshun’s (1906–2005) early volumes, from Yindu zhi fojiao 印度之 佛教 (1943) to Fofa gailun 佛法概論 (1949), focused on Indian Buddhism as well; Yinshun also stated explicitly, in his classification of Buddhist teachings (panjiao 判教), that early Indian Mādhyamika was the “correct xin,” see Yinshun 1993 and Travagnin 2001. For the interest in early Indian Buddhism and the study of the Āgamas in Republican China, see Travagnin 2018; Travagnin and Anālayo 2020. For the Chinese debate on “original Buddhism” (yuanshi fojiao 原始佛教), and the implications of this notion on Buddhist practices and intellectual developments, see Ritzinger 2016; Travagnin and Anālayo 2020.

20

See, for instance, Changxing 1930, 39–45, especially the first two sections of the speech, the first one titled “He wei mixin 何謂迷信,” and the second one “He wei fofa 何謂佛法.” A similar position is held by Fan Gunong 1984, 555–558. For mixin, see also Kuwada Yoshizō 1933, 2.

21

Changxing 1930, 44–45. Changxing especially emphasized this argument in the third part of his remarks, titled “Shizhen de yuanyou 失真的原由.”

22

Huang Heihan 1934, 21.

23

He Binqi 1935, 38.

24

See Travagnin 2018; Travagnin and Anālayo 2020.

25

These are the Buddhist voices that argued the notion of rescuing the nation through the Dharma; Part 3 of this chapter will explore their views.

26

Hui Puxin 1923, 8–10 (see especially the appendix of this article, titled “Xiyang mixin 西洋迷信,” 10); Ju Nong 1930, 18–19. The latter was published already in 1928.

27

See especially the sections “Fojiao zhi xinyang nai zixin er fei mixin 佛教之信仰乃自信而非迷信,” 8–9, and “Fojiao zhi xinyang nai zili zhi yinguo er fei tali de shen 佛教之信仰乃自力之因果而非它力的神,” 13–17. Dafo xuebao was published in Yangzhou; it was discontinued after only two issues, both printed in 1930.

28

See Zhenhua 1996.

29

Yongquan 1935, 11–13.

30

Zhifeng 1928, 13–18. Meanings, functions, and manifestations of xinyang are the last topics of Zhifeng’s long analysis.

31

Ibid.

32

For the May Fourth and the anti-religion or anti-Christian movements, see Bastid-Bruguière 2002; Lutz 1988; Tao Feiya 2003; Kuo 2020; Meyer 2015; for Buddhist responses to those movements see Travagnin 2020. For effects and synergy between the May Fourth atmosphere and Chinese religions, see the volume edited by Lu Miao-fen and Paul R. Katz (2020).

33

For kexue, and the overall concept of science and scientism in Chinese religions, especially Buddhism, see Hammerstrom 2015 and 2020.

34

Xinjian 1946, 50.

35

Fafang 1928.

36

See, for instance, the papers collected in Makeham 2014.

37

See, for instance, Inoue Jinkichi 1936, 5–6.

38

See Krämer’s chapter in this volume. As he stated well, Japanese Buddhists were facing challenges coming from outside, yet the reconceptualization of faith and religion should not be seen as a mere reaction to Christianity or a Western imposition, but was instead also result of a debate internal to the Buddhist community.

39

Fan Gunong 1928, 46–48.

40

The condition no. 21 reads: “Ji feng fojiao, dangzuo zhengren, yi zheng zhongren, xiushen qijia zhiguo, qiu shijie heping, renmin anle” 既奉佛教, 當作正人, 以正眾人, 修身齊家治國, 求世界和平, 人民安樂.

41

We may draw a correspondence here between Yuanying’s explanation of xinxin 信心, and the reading that Lüdde and Huang do of the same expressions in their studies on Buddhism in contemporary China, where xinxin, also understood as “confidence,” is mostly conceived as the initial step in the individual cultivation.

42

From his lecture “Nianfo famen 念佛法門”; see Yuanying 2012a, 157–160.

43

See, for instance, the following statement from Yuanying 2012b, 180: “Yi fojiao you ci liyi, gu shehui yingdang tichang, guomin ying sheng xinyang 以佛教有此利益,故社會應當提倡,國民應生信仰.”

44

From his lecture “Xie shi zongci jiangyan 謝氏宗祠講演”; see Yuanying 2012b, 180–181.

45

From his lecture “Guomin yingjin tianzhi 國民應儘天職”; see Yuanying 2012c, 196. See also the reference to the text Guoqu xianzai yinguo jing 過去現在因果經 (T3n189).

46

Taixu 1933, 1.

47

See also Taixu 1948, 60–61. Taixu gave this talk for the first time in 1932, and later again in 1933. Taixu claimed several associations between Sun Yat-sen’s ideology and Buddhism; for instance, he drew the Three Principles of Buddha (sanfo zhuyi 三佛主義), on the blueprint of the Three Principles of the People (sanmin zhuyi 三民主義); he included the study of the Three Principles of the People to the curriculum of the Minnan Institute of Buddhist Studies (Minnan foxueyuan 閩南佛學院) in the late 1920s (Travagnin 2015); he saw a parallel, rather than a contradiction, between the Nationalist ideology and his “Buddhism for the Human Realm” (rensheng fojiao 人生佛教). However, he simultaneously argued that the Buddhadharma could provide some spiritual guidance that the secular domain was missing, and thus proposed an overall process of “Buddhicization” (fohua 佛化).

48

See also Chen Yongge 2016, 263–287.

49

See, for instance, Deng Zimei and Chen Weihua 2017, 284–313.

50

For instance, Cihang counter-argued this point by stating that situations like landmark events in politics, any sort of official meeting, or the opening of a school year are all marked by ceremonial performances, yet may not all be considered mixin.

51

These lectures were all later published in the third volume of the Cihang fashi quanji 慈航法師全集 (Taipei: Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui, 1981), see Cihang 1981a, 1–5; Cihang 1981b, 6–10; Cihang 1981c, 19–21.

52

Cihang disagreed by claiming, for instance, that we can see the moon reflected on water, we can see things in our dreams, but we cannot see our eyebrows, nor possibly ever see our grandparents. Therefore, he argued, should we consider the reflection of the moon more real than our own grandparents or eyebrows?

53

The three religions were Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam; more local Chinese traditions, like Daoism, were not included.

54

As for the importance of education, let us think of the slogans on the “omnipotence of education” (jiaoyu wanneng 教育萬能), and the call to “save the country through education” (jiaoyu jiuguo 教育救國) that have recurred throughout modern Chinese history, including the Republican period.

55

These lectures were all later published in the third volume of the Cihang fashi quanji 慈航法師全集 1981, see especially Cihang 1981d, 46–49, Cihang 1981e, 50–56; Cihang 1981f, 57–59; Cihang 1981g, 71–73.

56

See Travagnin 2015, and the chapter by Klein in this volume.

57

See Klein’s chapter in this volume.

58

Taixu 1950 [1928]; this is one of the first articles of his where he explained how rensheng fojiao overlapped with KMT ideology, and the definition of the Three Principles of the Buddha (sanfo zhuyi 三佛主義) along the Three Principles of the People (sanmin zhuyi 三民主義).

59

Katz 2019.

60

Travagnin 2020.

61

The following periodicals were established in early 1920s: Xin fohua xunkan 新佛化旬刊, Fohua xin qingnian 佛化新青年, Fohua cejinhui huikan 佛化策進會會刊, Fohua xunkan 佛化旬刊, Fohua pinglun 佛化評論, Fohua zhoukan 佛化週刊. See also Travagnin 2020.

62

Tang Dayuan 1924a and 1924b; Jiang Tesheng 1927a, 1927b, 1928a, 1928b; Ning Mogong 1927; Jueren 1923. For secondary sources on “Buddhicization” in relation to correct xin, see Hou Kunhong 2018, 153–198.

63

Dongchu 1974, 140–142.

64

Dongchu 1974, 9–11.

65

Dongchu 1975, 15; see also Dongchu 1974, 469–480.

66

Dongchu 1975, 15; “rensheng bu ke xu’er wu zongjiao de xinyang” 人生不可須兒無宗教的信仰.

67

Dongchu 1975, 15.

68

Dongchu 1975, 16; “fojiao neng bu kexue zhi pian” 佛教能補科學之偏.

69

For a summary of the history, structure, and activities, see Welch 1968, 77–81. Tang Dayuan (1885–1941), who was a prominent lay Buddhist author of several articles published in Haichao yin and other journals, launched a Buddhist Studies Institute (fojiao jiangxi suo 佛教講習所) within the Buddhist Right Faith Society in 1922. Also, like many of these newly founded societies, the Buddhist Right Faith Society produced a magazine, the Right Faith Weekly (Zhengxin zhoukan 正信周刊), where activities of the society, information of their funds and sponsors, and discussions on Buddhist texts were published. See also Daxing 1933; Taixu 1925; Taixu 1929.

70

Information on the foundation, leading principles, and initial committee members can be found in the article Anonymous 1934, 24–27; Lin Chengpo 1935, 35; He Binqi 1935, 38.

71

Taixu 1925; “shou san gui jishi biaoxian zhengxin fofa zhi juezheng; wei shou sangui ze xin wei biaojue ye” 受三皈即是表現正信佛法之决證;未受三皈則信未表決也.

72

Among the many articles see Reporter 1932; the first paragraph summarizes the agenda of the society, the roots into Taixu’s ideals, the embedding of Mahāyāna principles, and the goal to save the country and the world (jiuguo jiushi 救國救世).

73

Anonymous 1921.

74

Photographic material from Haichao yin 海潮音 12 (1931), no. 12.

75

The education programs initiated by Ouyang Jingwu 歐陽竟無, for instance, are a clear example of the laity installing themselves as an alternative to the monastic community in the educational sphere. For the role of the Buddhist laity in the Republican period, see, for instance, the case studies from Shanghai in Jessup (2016).

76

For more about Lin Delin, his ideology and activities, see Jiang Canteng 2002.

77

See Krämer’s chapter for the Japanese situation.

78

Lin Delin 1935, 36. Lin also often referred to the late Japanese Zen teacher Nukariya Kaiten 忽滑谷快天 (1867–1934). This was a very prominent figure in Taiwan during the Japanese occupation, as Taiwanese monks or Buddhist laity did their study at Komazawa University where Nukariya Kaiten was also a teacher. His views were held in high esteem in Taiwan even after his passing.

79

For more on the Nan’e Bukkyōkai 南瀛佛教會, see Kan Zhengzong 2011, 195–209.

80

Those articles often referred to the book Taiwanteki shūkyō 臺灣的宗教 by Marui Keijirō 1919. Several articles published in the vol. 5, no. 5 and no. 6 of Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 1926 set proposals for reforming Taiwanese Buddhism.

81

For instance, see Sun Xinyuan 1932; Ye Miaoguo 1931; Zeng Jinglai (Sō Keirai) 1931.

82

For instance, see the various investigation on local religions that Japanese had been carrying out in Taiwan since the early stages of the colonial period, like the book by Marui Keijirō in 1919.

83

See the chapter by Tam in this volume.

84

For instance, see Suzuki 1900, Liang Qichao 1922, but also Yinshun 1951.

85

See Richards 1907. For a detailed study of the modern interest in this text, including different positions on the reading of xin, see Tarocco 2008. See also Jansen’s chapter in this volume.

86

See the chapters by Huang and Lüdde in this volume.

87

See, for instance, Kleine’s argument in his chapter about pre-modern Japanese Buddhism.

88

See Lüdde’s chapter about contemporary usage of xinyuan.

89

Very often it is conceived as a merging of three elements and is written as xinyuanxing 信願行: xinyang 信仰, fayuan 發願 and xiuxing 修行 (Foguang da cidian, vol. 4, 3723b). The three-step process (i.e., from faith we make a vow and from then we start a practice) is very popular in Buddhism, and a cardinal idea especially in the Pure Land school.

90

Yinshun (1972) came back to xin in other writings, especially, but not only, in his book on comparative religions.

TTakakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎, Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭, eds. 1924–1934. Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經 [Taishō Tripiṭaka]. 85 vols. Tokyo: Taishō Issaikyō Kankōkai.Close
XKawamura Kōshō 河村照孝, Nishi Giyū 西義雄, Tamaki Kōshirō 玉城康四郎, eds. 1975–1989. Shinsan Dainihon Zokuzōkyō 新纂大日本続蔵経. 90 vols. Tōkyō: Kokusho Kankōkai.Close
TTakakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎, Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭, eds. 1924–1934. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新修大藏經 (Taishō Tripiṭaka). Tokyo: Taishō Issaikyō kankōkai.Close
Shenseng zhuan 神僧傳 [Biographies of Thaumaturge Monks]. 1960–1978 [1926–1932]. In Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新修大藏經 [Newly Arranged Great (Buddhist) Canon from the Taishō Era], edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭. Tōkyō: Taishō issaikyō kankokai, vol. 50, no. 2064, 948–1015.Close
TTakakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎, Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭, eds. 1982 [1924– 1934]. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新修大藏經. Reprint Taipei: Xinwenfeng.Close
, Jap. Sin.Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu, Japonica-Sinica Collection, Rome. See also: Albert Chan. 2002. Chinese Books and Documents in the Jesuit Archives in Rome: A Descriptive Catalogue: Japonica-Sinica I–IV. New York: M.E. Sharpe.Close
Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Rome. See also: Takata Tokio, rev. and ed. 1995. Paul Pelliot, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits et imprimés chinois de la Bibliothèque Vaticane. Kyoto: Istituto Italiano di Cultura.Close
BnFBibliothèque nationale de France, Paris. See also: Maurice Courant. 1902− 1912. Catalogue des livres chinois, coréens, japonais, etc. 8 vols. Paris: Ernest Leroux.Close
Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Vittorio Emanuele II, National Library, Rome.Close
Nicolas Standaert (鐘鳴旦) and Ad Dudink (杜鼎克), ed. 2002. Yesuhui Luoma dang’anguan Ming Qing tianzhujiao wenxian 耶穌會羅馬檔案館明清天主教文獻 (Chinese Christian Texts from the Roman Archives of the Society of Jesus). 12 vols. Taipei: Ricci Institute.Close
Nicolas Standaert (鐘鳴旦), Ad Dudink (杜鼎克) and Nathalie Monnet (蒙曦), ed. 2009. Faguo guojia tushuguan Ming Qing tianzhujiao wenxian 法國國家圖書館明清天主教文獻 (Chinese Christian Texts from the National Library of France / Textes chrétiens chinois de la Bibliothèque nationale de France). 24 vols. Taipei: Ricci Institute.Close
Federico Masini (馬西尼), Ren Dayuan 任大援 and Zhang Xiping 張西平, eds. 2014. Fandigang tushuguan cang Ming Qing Zhong Xi wenhua jiaoliushi wenxian congkan: Di yi ji 梵蒂岡圖書館藏明清中西文化交流史文獻叢刊: 第一輯. 44 vols. Zhengzhou: Daxiang chubanshe.Close
Pasquale d’Elia, ed. 1942−1949. Fonti Ricciane. 3 vols. Roma: La Libreria dello Stato.Close
Nicolas Standaert, ed. 2001. Handbook of Christianity in China: Volume One (635–1800). Leiden: Brill.Close
Wu Xiangxiang 吳相湘, ed. 1965. Tianzhujiao dongchuan wenxian 天主教東傳文獻 (Collection of Texts Related to Catholicism Moving Eastwards). Zhongguo shixue congshu 中國史學叢書 24. Taipei: Xuesheng shuju.Close
Wu Xiangxiang 吳相湘, ed. 1972. Tianzhujiao dongchuan wenxian sanbian 天主教東傳文獻三編. Zhongguo shixue congshu xubian 中國史學叢書續編 21. 6 vols. Taipei: Xuesheng shuju.Close
Wu Xiangxiang 吳相湘, ed. 1966. Tianzhujiao dongchuan wenxian xubian 天主教東傳文獻緒編. Zhongguo shixue congshu 中國史學叢書 40. 3 vols. Taipei: Xuesheng shuju.Close
  • Collapse
  • Expand

From Trustworthiness to Secular Beliefs

Changing Concepts of xin 信 from Traditional to Modern Chinese

Series:  Religion in Chinese Societies, Volume: 19
  • Anonymous. 1921. “Hunan fojiao zhengxin hui youpoyibu yuanqi fujianzhang 湖南佛教正信會優婆夷部緣起附簡章.” Haichao yin 海潮音 2, no. 12: 1113.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Anonymous. 1934. “Zhengxin hui chengli jiqi lihui 正信會成立及其例會.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 12, no. 12: 2427.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Barrett, Timothy H., and Francesca Tarocco. 2012. “Terminology and Religious Identity: Buddhism and the Genealogy of the Term Zongjiao.” In Dynamics in the History of Religions between Asia and Europe: Encounters, Notions, and Comparative Perspectives, edited by Volkhard Krech and Marion Steinicke. Leiden: Brill, 307319.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bastid-Bruguière, Marianne. 2002. “La campagne antireligieuse de 1922.” Extrême-Orient, Extrême-Occident 24: 7796.

  • Changxing 常惺. 1930. “Fofa shi mixin de ma 佛法是迷信的嗎?Zheng jue 正覺 1: 3945.

  • Chen Yongge 陳永革. 2016. Renjian chaoyin—Taixu dashi zhuan 人間潮音—太虛大 師傳. Taipei: Sixing wenhua.

  • Cihang 慈航. 1981a. “Duiyu fojiao wuhui zhi jieshi 對於佛教誤會的解釋.” In Cihang fashi quanji 慈航法師全集 (Putixin ying shiyipian 菩提心影釋疑篇), edited by Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui 慈航法師永久紀念會. Taipei: Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui, 15.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cihang 慈航. 1981b. “Mixin de bianlun 迷信的辯論.” In Cihang fashi quanji 慈航法師 全集 (Putixin ying shiyipian 菩提心影釋疑篇), edited by Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui 慈航法師永久紀念會. Taipei: Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui, 610.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cihang 慈航. 1981c. “Yinguo shi mixin ma 因果是迷信嗎?” In Cihang fashi quanji 慈航法師全集 (Putixin ying shiyipian 菩提心影釋疑篇), edited by Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui 慈航法師永久紀念會. Taipei: Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui, 1921.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cihang 慈航. 1981d. “Jiuguo yanjiu 救國研究.” In Cihang fashi quanji 慈航法師全集 (Putixin ying shiyipian 菩提心影釋疑篇), edited by Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui 慈航法師永久紀念會. Taipei: Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui, 4649.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cihang 慈航. 1981e. “Fojiao keyi jiuguo 佛教可以救國.” In Cihang fashi quanji 慈航法師全集 (Putixin ying shiyipian 菩提心影釋疑篇), edited by Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui 慈航法師永久紀念會. Taipei: Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui, 5056.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cihang 慈航. 1981f. “Fojiao zenyang keyi jiuguo 佛教怎樣可以救國.” In Cihang fashi quanji 慈航法師全集 (Putixin ying shiyipian 菩提心影釋疑篇), edited by Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui 慈航法師永久紀念會. Taipei: Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui, 5759.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cihang 慈航. 1981g. “Fofa yu guofa 佛法與國法.” In Cihang fashi quanji 慈航法師全集 (Putixin ying shiyipian 菩提心影釋疑篇), edited by Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui 慈航法師永久紀念會. Taipei: Cihang fashi yongjiu jinianhui, 7173.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Daxing 大醒. 1933. “Fojiao zhengxin hui jianghua 佛教正信會講話.” Zhengxin banyue kan 正信半月刊 2, no. 17: 79.

  • Deng Zimei 鄧子美 and Chen Weihua 陳衛華, eds. 2017. Dangdai renjian fojiao chuan denglu (1949–2015) 當代人間佛教傳燈錄 (1949–2015). 2 vols. Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dongchu 東初. 1974. Zhongguo fojiao jindai shi 中國佛教近代史. Taipei: Zhonghua fojiao wenhuaguan.

  • Dongchu 東初. 1975. Jiang zongtong yu fojiao 蔣總統與佛教. Taipei: Zhonghua fojiao wenhuaguan.

  • Fafang 法舫. 1929. “Weishixue yu kexue 唯識學與科學.” Haichao yin 海潮音 10, no. 4: 719.

  • Fafang 法舫. 1930. “Weishixue yu kexue (xu) 唯識學與科學(續).” Haichao yin 海潮音 10, no. 12: 5166.

  • Fazun 法尊. 1940a. “Xin de wenti 信的問題.” Jueyin 覺音 13: 910.

  • Fazun 法尊. 1940b. “Xin de wenti 信的問題.” Jueyin 覺音 14: 1012.

  • Fan Gunong 范古農. 1928. “Xin fo zhi tiaojian 信佛之條件.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 6, no. 4: 4648.

  • Fan Gunong 范古農. 1984. Gunong foxue dawen 古農佛學答問. Taipei: Xinwenfeng.

  • Hammerstrom, Erik. 2015. The Science of Chinese Buddhism: Early Twentieth-Century Engagements. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Hammerstrom, Erik. 2020. “On Assessing the Impact of Scientific Rhetoric in Modern Chinese Religion: A Prolegomenon.” In Concepts and Methods for the Study of Chinese Religions II: Intellectual History of Key Concepts, edited by Gregory Adam Scott and Stefania Travagnin. Boston: De Gruyter, 121134.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hayashi 林氏. 1936. “Xinyang san da yaosu 信仰三大要素.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 14, no. 2: 2931.

  • He Binqi 何賓琦. 1935. “Ruhe shi zhengxin fojiao 如何是正信佛教?Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 13, no. 4: 38.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hou Kunhong 侯坤宏. 2018. Taixu shidai: Duowei shijiao xiade minguo fojiao (1912–1949) 太虛時代: 多維視角下的民國佛教 (1912–1949). Taipei: Zhengda chubanshe.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Huang Heihan 黃黑涵. 1934. “Fofa wei zhengxin er fei mixin 佛法為正信而非迷信.” Foxue banyuekan 佛學半月刊, no. 78: 21.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hui Puxin 會普信. 1923. “Zongjiao yu daode 宗教與道德.” Zhongdao 中道 26: 810.

  • Inoue Jinkichi 井上仁吉. 1936. “Kexue yu zongjiao 科學與宗教.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 14, no. 2: 56.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jessup, Brooks. 2016. “Buddhist Activism, Urban Space, and Ambivalent Modernity in 1920s Shanghai.” In Recovering Buddhism in Modern China, edited by Jan Kiely and J. Brooks Jessup. New York: Columbia University Press, 3778.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jiang Canteng 江燦騰. 1996. Taiwan fojiao bainian shi zhi yanjiu 1895–1995 台灣佛教百年史之研究 1895–1995. Taipei: Nantian.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jiang Canteng 江燦騰. 2002. “Riju shiqi Taiwan xin fojiao yundong de xianqu: ‘Taiwan fojiao Mading Lude’ Lin Delin de gean yanjiu 日據時期台灣新佛教運動的先驅: 「台灣佛教馬丁路德」林德林的個案研究.” Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal, no. 15: 255303.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jiang Tesheng 蒋特生. 1927a. “Geming yu fohua 革命與佛化.” Fohua xunkan 佛化旬刊, no. 82: 34.

  • Jiang Tesheng 蒋特生. 1927b. “Geming yu fohua 革命與佛化.” Fohua xunkan 佛化旬刊, no. 83: 24.

  • Jiang Tesheng 蒋特生. 1928a. “Lun fohua yu sanmin zhuyi 論佛化與三民主義.” Foguang she shekan 佛光社社刊, no. 3:1012.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jiang Tesheng 蒋特生. 1928b. “Lun fohua yu sanmin zhuyi 論佛化與三民主義.” Haichao yin 海潮音 9, no. 5: 57.

  • Jones, Charles B. 1999. Buddhism in Taiwan: Religion and the State 1660–1990. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.

  • Ju Nong 菊農. 1930. “Foxue shi zhixin de fei mixin de 佛學是智信的非迷信的.” Nanying fojiao 南瀛佛教 8, no. 7: 1819.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jueren 覺人. 1923. “Shenme shi fohua shijie 甚麼是佛化世界.” Fohua shijie 佛化世界, no. 1: 2.

  • Kan Zhengzong 闞正宗. 2011. Fojiao fazhan yu huangminhua yundong 佛教發展與皇民化運動. Taipei: Boyang wenhua.

  • Katz, Paul R. 2019. “Chen Hailiang’s Vision of Buddhist Family Life: A Preliminary Study.” Journal of Chinese Religions 47, no. 1: 3360.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kwok, David W.Y. 1965. Scientism in Chinese Thought: 1900–1950. New Haven: Yale University Press.

  • Kuo, Ya-pei. 2010. “Before the Term: ‘Religion’ as China’s Cultural Other.” Comparativ 20, no. 4: 98114.

  • Kuo, Ya-pei. 2020. “Two Conceptions of Religion in Modern China: Chen Duxiu on the Eve of the Anti-Religion/Anti-Christian Movement.” In Concepts and Methods for the Study of Chinese Religions II: Intellectual History of Key Concepts, edited by Gregory Adam Scott and Stefania Travagnin. Boston: De Gruyter, 135154.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kuwada Yoshizō 桑田芳藏. 1933. “Mixin de xinli 迷信的心理.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 11, no. 3: 25.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Liang Qichao 梁啟超. 1922. Dasheng qixin lun kaozheng 大乘起信論考證. Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan [reprinted in 1935].

  • Lin Chengpo 林澄坡. 1935. “Zhengxin hui kaihui ci 正信會開會辭.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 13, no. 4: 35.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lin Delin 林德林. 1935. “Zhengxin hui chuangli jingguo 正信會創立經過.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 13, no. 4: 36.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lu Miao-fen 呂妙芬 and Paul R. Katz (康豹), eds. 2020. Wusi yundong yu zhongguo zongjiao de tiaoshi yu fazhan 五四運動與中國宗教的調適與發展. Taipei: Academia Sinica.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lutz, Jessie Gregory. 1988. Chinese Politics and Christian Missions: The Anti-Christian Movements of 1920–1928. Notre Dame: Cross Cultural Publ.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Makeham, John, ed. 2014. Transforming Consciousness: Yogācāra Thought in Modern China. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Matsumura Sei 松村生. 1930a. “Mixin beihua 迷信悲話.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 8, no. 2: 3132.

  • Matsumura Sei 松村生. 1930b. “Mixin beihua 迷信悲話.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 8, no. 3: 34.

  • Meyer, Christian. 2015. “The Emergence of ‘Religious Studies’ (zongjiaoxue) in Republican China, 1911–1949.” Numen 62, no. 1: 3974.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ning Mogong 寗墨公. 1927. “Diguo zhuyi yu fohua 帝國主義與佛化.” Haichao yin 海潮音 8, no. 6: 910.

  • Nukita Shido 貫田至道. 1935. “Xin zhi de 信之德.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛 佛教 13, no. 1: 79.

  • Pratt, James Bissett. 1928. The Pilgrimage of Buddhism and a Buddhist Pilgrimage. London: Macmillan.

  • Reporter (記者). 1932. “Fojiao zhengxin hui zuijin jiushi gongzuo 佛教正信會最近救世工作.” Haichao yin 海潮音 13, no. 4: 1923.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Richard, Timothy. 1907. The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana Doctrine: The New Buddhism. Shanghai: Christian Literature Society.

  • Ritzinger, Justin R. 2016. “Original Buddhism and its Discontents: The Chinese Buddhist Exchange Monks and the Search for the Pure Dharma in Ceylon.” Journal of Chinese Religions 44, no. 2: 149173.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sun Xinyuan 孫心源. 1932. “Henduo mixin de Taiwan 很多迷信的臺灣.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 10, no. 8: 6162.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Suzuki, D.T. 1900. Aśvaghoṣa’s Discourse on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Taixu 太虛. 1925. “Dang suzu fojiao zhengxin hui wei zaijia zhong zhi tongyi tuanti 當速組佛教正信會為在家眾之統一團體.” Haichao yin 海潮音 6, no. 2: 16.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Taixu 太虛. 1950 [1928]. “Duiyu Zhongguo fojiao geming seng de xunci 對於中國佛教革命僧的訓詞.” In Taixu dashi quanshu 太虛大師全書, edited by Yinshun 印順. Hong Kong: Zhengjue lianshe, vol. 34, 597603.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Taixu 太虛. 1929. “Fojiao zhengxin hui gangyao 佛教正信會綱要.” Fohua zhoukan 佛化週刊, no. 134: 13.

  • Taixu 太虛. 1933. “Zhengxin jiuguo 正信救國.” Sichuan fojiao yuekan 四川佛教月刊 1, no. 10: 1.

  • Taixu 太虛. 1950 [1948]. “Fofa yu jiuguo 佛法與救國.” In Taixu dashi quanshu 太虛大師全書, edited by Yinshun 印順. Hong Kong: Zhengjue lianshe, vol. 48, 6061.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tang Dayuan 唐大圆. 1924a. “Xinshi de fohua 新式的佛化.” Haichao yin 海潮音 5, no. 3: 913.

  • Tang Dayuan 唐大圆. 1924b. “Xin fohua zhi biaozhun 新佛化之標準.” Haichao yin 海潮音 5, no. 6: 1217.

  • Tao Feiya 陶非亞. 2003. “Gongchan guoji daibiao yu Zhongguo fei jidujiao yundong 共產國際代表與中國非基督教運動.” Jindai shi yanjiu 近代史研究, no. 5: 114136.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tarocco, Francesca. 2008. “Lost in Translation? The ‘Treatise on the Mahāyāna Awakening of Faith (Dasheng qixin lun)’ and Its Modern Readings.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 71, no. 2: 323343.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tianran 天然. 1934. “Jiujing de zhengxin 究竟的正信.” Zhengxin 正信 3, no. 22: 5.

  • Travagnin, Stefania. 2001. “Il Nuovo ‘Buddhismo per l’Umanità’ (renjian fojiao) a Taiwan. Una nota sulla classificazione degli insegnamenti (panjiao) secondo il Maestro Yinshun.” Cina 29: 65102.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Travagnin, Stefania. 2015. “The Impact of Politics on the Minnan Buddhist Institute: sanmin zhuyi三民主义 and aiguo zhuyi爱国主义 in the Context of Sangha Education.” Review of Religion and Chinese Society 2, no. 1: 2150.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Travagnin, Stefania. 2018. “The State of Āgama Scholarship in Twentieth-Century China: Assessing the Context of Lü Cheng’s 呂澂 and Yinshun’s 印順 Analysis of the Saṃyukta-āgama.” Paper presented at the International Conference on the Saṃyukta-āgamas organized by the Āgama Research Group (27–28 October 2018, Buenos Aires, Argentina).

  • Travagnin, Stefania. 2020. “Zhongguo yu Taiwan fojiao jie de wusi yinyuan: yi 1910–1930 niandai wei kaocha zhongdian 中國與臺灣佛教界的五四因緣──以1910–1930 年代為考察重點.” In Wusi yundong yu zhongguo zongjiao de tiaoshi yu fazhan 五四 運動與中國宗教的調適與發展, edited by Lu Miao-fen 呂妙芬 and Paul R. Katz (康豹). Taipei: Academia Sinica, 547577.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Travagnin, Stefania, and Bhikkhu Anālayo. 2020. “The Three-Aṅga Theory in Master Yinshun’s 印順 Scholarship: Assessing the State of Āgama Studies in Twentieth-Century China.” In Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama, edited by Bhikkhuni Dhammadinnā. Taipei: Dharma Drum Publishing Corporation, 9331008.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wei-huan. 1939. “Buddhism in Modern China.” T’ian Hsia Monthly 9, no. 2: 140155.

  • Welch, Holmes. 1968. The Buddhist Revival in China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Xingyun 星雲, Cihui 慈惠, Cizhuang 慈莊, et al. 1988. Foguang da cidian 佛光大辭典. 8 vols. Gaoxiong: Foguang chubanshe.

  • Xinjian 心閒. 1946. “Kexue mixin 科學迷信.” Fojiao wenzhai 佛教文摘 1: 50.

  • Ye Miaoguo 葉妙果. 1931. “Wuren hegu xin fojiaohu hewei xuefohu 吾人何故信佛教乎何為學佛乎?Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 9, no. 7: 1821.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yinshun 印順. 1943. Yindu zhi fojiao 印度之佛教. Taipei: Zhengwen [revised edition published in 1985].

  • Yinshun 印順. 1949. Fofa gailun 佛法概論. Hong Kong: Zhengwen xueshe.

  • Yinshun 印順. 1951. Dasheng qixin lun jiangji 大乘起信論講記. Hong Kong: Zhengwen xueshe.

  • Yinshun 印順. 1972. Wo zhi zongjiao guan 我之宗教觀. Taipei: Zhengwen [revised edition published in 1992].

  • Yinshun 印順. 1993. “Qili qiji zhi renjian fojiao 契理契機之人間佛教.” In Huayu ji 華雨集. Taipei: Zhengwen, vol. 3, 170.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yongquan 湧泉. 1935. “Xin fo yu xin shen 信佛與信神.” Ren hai deng 人海燈 3, no. 10: 1113.

  • Yuanying 圓瑛. 2012a. “Nianfo famen 念佛法门.” In Yuanying dashi wenhui 圓瑛大師 文匯, edited by Wang Zhiyuan 王志遠. Beijing: Huaxia chubanshe, 157160.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yuanying 圓瑛. 2012b. “Xie shi zongci jiangyan 謝氏宗祠講演.” In Yuanying dashi wenhui 圆瑛大師文汇, edited by Wang Zhiyuan 王志遠. Beijing: Huaxia chubanshe, 180181.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yuanying 圓瑛. 2012c. “Guomin yingjin tianzhi 國民應盡天職.” In Yuanying dashi wenhui 圓瑛大師文匯, edited by Wang Zhiyuan 王志遠. Beijing: Huaxia chubanshe, 196.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zeng Jinglai ( Keirai) 曾景來. 1931. “Zenme yao xin Fotuo? 怎麼要信佛陀Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 9, no. 7: 2126.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhang Weilong 張微隆. 1935. “Guanyu dapo mixin de jijuhua 關於打破迷信的幾句話.” Nanying fojiao/Nan’e Bukkyō 南瀛佛教 13, no. 5: 4549.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhenhua 真華. 1996. Xinghua zaji 行化雜記. Taipei: Zhengwen chubanshe.

  • Zhifeng 芝峰. 1928. “Xinyang wenti 信仰問題.” Haichao yin 海潮音 19, no. 1: 1318.

Metrics

All Time Past 365 days Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 104 26 0
Full Text Views 137 130 44
PDF Views & Downloads 33 24 4