Abstract
The two modern concepts, “Engaged Buddhism” and renjian fojiao 人間佛教, with the variety of its English translations (such as “Humanistic Buddhism”), were developed and discussed with and without reference to each other over several decades. This article raises the question of how “Engaged Buddhism” has been portrayed in the Chinese-speaking world. It therefore reflects on a hybrid conceptual history and distinguishes between “concept-unaffected” and “concept-affected” (“concept-affirming”, “concept-negating”, and “concept-corresponding”) positionings in the Buddhist world, as well as a “concept-distancing” and “concept-processing” scholarship of Buddhist studies. The concept of “Engaged Buddhism” has been rendered with various Chinese terms in mainland China and Taiwan, e.g., “rushi fojiao” 入世佛教 (Buddhism that Enters the World), “canyu fojiao” 參與佛教 (Participatory Buddhism), and “zuoyi fojiao” 左翼佛教 (Left-Wing Buddhism). As can be seen from a rich body of sources, its discussion among Chinese-speaking Buddhists and scholars increased over the past twenty years and has been strongly characterized by comparisons with “renjian fojiao”, which can lead to different currents, such as exclusivism, inclusivism, and pragmatism.
1. Introduction
In this article, I will talk about not one, but two conceptual histories.1 Eventually, I come to a discussion of a hybrid conceptual history, consisting of these concepts’ mutual demarcation, inspiration, and integration from a Chinese-speaking perspective.
The first problem we stumble across is a language dilemma. This article is written in English, but the two concepts I choose to discuss here did not exist in the English language when they were created.2 In Chinese, one was called: “renjian fojiao 人間佛教”,3 popularized by the reform-oriented Chinese monk Ven. Taixu 太虛 (1890–1947); so I will continue to call it “renjian fojiao” (unless I talk about one of its English “equivalents”). The other was originally given the French name “le Bouddhisme engagé”, based on a preceding Vietnamese wording,4 and invented by the socially engaged Vietnamese monk Ven. Thích Nhất Hạnh (1926–2022). Since “le Bouddhisme engagé” was set into an English context at a very early stage and both languages are directly related to each other, I will call it “Engaged Buddhism” in the following (unless I talk about one of its “equivalents” in other languages).
When talking about these concepts and their interrelation, much has been taken for granted in the past decades; but do we always keep the history of these concepts in mind? Do we always differ between the various players who were talking about them, and how they were using them in different times and places, and in different languages? Additionally, how do we deal with the interrelation of these concepts?
According to my observation, there is an urgent need to carry out a more systematic analysis and a clearer distinction of what we are talking about. For each concept, many actors already participated in numerous discussions and meta-discussions. Surely, such discussions will never truly end. However, they can be enriched by not just looking at each concept in isolation, but by also analyzing primary sources. This article will contribute to this complex topic by focusing on the Chinese-speaking discourse of Buddhists and related scholars. It will start with some structural remarks (Section 2) regarding the conceptual history of the above-mentioned concepts. Secondly, it will give a brief overview of the conceptual history of “renjian fojiao” in the context of this comparative approach (Section 3). Finally, it traces how the relationship between the two concepts was negotiated in Chinese-speaking discourse (Section 4 and Section 5).5
2. Structural Remarks
2.1. Emergence of Conceptual History: Similarity of Structural Conditions
When we regard the two concepts in the light of “conceptual history”, many structural conditions seem to be comparable (see Table 1):
Table 1.
Emergence of Conceptual History.
- (1)
- First of all, both of these concepts were based on terms that did not exist in this way before. They centered around “Buddhism” as a subject and added an attribute to describe how it should be viewed and practiced. In both cases, this attribute never appeared as a modifier of a terminological entity in the earlier history of Buddhism.
- (2)
- Furthermore, in both cases, this terminological creation could be traced back to the initiative of a specific individual who, due to their respective historical contexts, could be described as a “reform-oriented” monk who was searching for an adaptation of Buddhism to modern times, but also for a certain reconnection to its roots, and who was experiencing Mahāyāna Buddhism in the monastic context of an East Asian country of the 20th century.6
- (3)
- Finally, in both cases, the initiators did not use the terms as mere “neologisms” or “slogans”, but rather conceptualized them and propagated them, at least to a certain degree, throughout their lives.
All this may seem quite superficial due to a lack of differentiation between the differences of these concepts’ evolution with regard to their concrete historical context and each individual’s motivation. It does not tell us about the contents of their conceptualization, the degree of their conceptual maturity, the fluidity of their further conceptual development, or the extent of their institutional dissemination and subsequent reception.
However, as will be seen, both concepts have something more in common in this discursive field; in the sense of the definition by Gallie (1956), they can be regarded as “essentially contested concepts”. Based on these structural conditions mentioned above, I will proceed with a comparison of the reception of these concepts in their ongoing historical development.
2.2. Typology of Five Modes of the Reception of Buddhist Concepts
As mentioned at the beginning of this paper, it is very important to have a clear idea of who made what out of the relevant concept, when, where, and for what purpose. A cautionary example is the never-ending discussion about “Engaged Buddhism” due to completely different points of view.
In the beginning of the 1960s, Thích Nhất Hạnh coined “Engaged Buddhism” as his own concept, continuously developing further his personal understanding of it. At the end of the 1980s, Buddhists such as Sulak Sivaraksa (1933–), the 14th Dalai Lama (1935–) and others, also began to use the term (or alternatively “Socially Engaged Buddhism”) and co-founded the “International Network of Engaged Buddhists” (INEB). At the beginning of the 1990s, scholars such as Queen and King (1996) started to adapt “Engaged Buddhism” as an academic category and gave it their own new definition(s).7
While none of them regarded “renjian fojiao” as a part of “Engaged Buddhism” in the beginning, in recent decades, it became accepted to a certain degree, as we can see from INEB’s conferences in Taiwan (2007, 2017), and, in the field of academia, in King’s (2018) categorization of “Engaged Buddhists” into “prophetic”, “nondualistic”, and “humanistic” Buddhists (which stands for renjian-fojiao-proponents). In the course of this development, scholars such as Main and Lai (2013) championed the idea of using the concept of “Engaged Buddhism” anachronistically as a category for modernist Buddhist movements that emerged at a time before the terminology “Engaged Buddhism” was even in use. This approach already became en vogue earlier (albeit less consciously and less academically underpinned), and once more allowed Taixu’s “renjian fojiao” to be subsumed under the (academic) concept of “Engaged Buddhism”.
In contrast to that, Ip (2009) suggested to avoid the mixture of “Engaged Buddhism” as a religious and academic concept and suggested to replace and redefine the academic category of “Engaged Buddhism” with “Buddhist Activism”—once again bringing “Engaged Buddhism” and “renjian-fojiao”-related concepts closer together. A more critical assessment of the academization of “Engaged Buddhism” was expressed by Amond Lele (2019), who argued against orientalist constructions and one-sided considerations without taking into account a “disengaged” component. On the basis of such distancing from “Engaged Buddhist Scholarship” and in order to separate “Engaged Buddhist Studies”8 from others, Alexander Hsu (2022) attempted to clarify the field by labeling those academics who propagate various categories of “Engaged Buddhism” as “Academic Engaged Buddhism”.9
With regard to the concepts of “Engaged Buddhism” and “renjian fojiao”, whether in the field of Buddhist theory, Buddhist practice, or in academia, I would propose a typology of five modes of reception. This does not focus on the question “What is ‘renjian fojiao’/‘Engaged Buddhism’?”, nor does it pursue the question “Who is what kind of proponent (of what kind of ‘renjian fojiao’/‘Engaged Buddhism’)?” This is because all this can change in the course of the history of a concept, i.e., the discourse about it. The main aim, then, is to distinguish how the participants in the discourse positioned themselves in relation to the concept of “renjian fojiao” and “Engaged Buddhism”, focusing on Chinese-speaking Buddhists and scholars of Buddhist studies as the main participants.
First, in the field of Buddhist theory and practice, I would like to distinguish (as clearly as possible) between “concept-unaffected” and “concept-affected” (e.g., “renjian-fojiao-unaffected” and “renjian-fojiao”-affected) ways of positioning which are further subdivided into various types.
“Concept-Unaffected” Positioning
One should first be aware of discursive behavior that does not refer to the concept at all, whether for anachronistic reasons (because someone lived earlier than the first half of the 20th century before the concept in question came into being) or for other reasons. The most extreme case is the entire discourse that took place before the invention of “renjian fojiao” and “Engaged Buddhism”, including the many quotations from the historical Buddha and the Chinese patriarchs, which are nevertheless often easily identified by Buddhists or scholars as belonging to a “movement” associated with the concept of “renjian fojiao” or “Engaged Buddhism” because of the form or content of their relevant theory and practice.
“Concept-Affected” Positioning
With regard to the major positions affected by (that means directly or indirectly related to) the concepts of “renjian fojiao” or “Engaged Buddhism”, one may distinguish in a simplified manner between “concept-affirming”, “concept-negating”, and other “concept-corresponding” modes of positioning.
“Concept-Affirming” Positioning
In the sense of a “concept-affirming” positioning, I would consider those discursive strategies that lead to an explicit (personal or institutional) identification with the concept in question. This may include much of Taixu’s or Thích Nhất Hạnh’s behaviors, as well as the ways in which later Buddhists made use of the specific concepts on a terminological level, regardless of the form or content. Concept use could vary widely depending on their specific interpretation. Prominent examples are those explorations of Buddhist institutions such as the Fo Guang Shan 佛光山 or the Buddhist Association of China (BAC, Zhongguo fojiao xiehui 中國佛教協會) (“renjian fojiao”), the International Network of Engaged Buddhists (INEB) (“Engaged Buddhism”), or individuals (who partly headed such institutions), such as Hsing-yun, Zhao Puchu 趙樸初 (1907–2000), Yin Shun, etc. (“renjian fojiao”), who actively worked out one of these concepts as their own.10
“Concept-Negating” Positioning
In contrast to the affirmative approach, I would call “concept-negating” positionings discursive strategies that are explicitly directed against the concept of “renjian fojiao” or “Engaged Buddhism”. “Concept-negating” positionings can be understood as an extreme case of contestation, leading to a categorical rejection of the concept of “renjian fojiao” or “Engaged Buddhism” as a framework of Buddhist theory and practice, accompanied by an intention to abolish it as a frame of reference altogether. This may also include the discussion of counter-concepts. Examples of this kind must be discussed carefully, as in many cases there may be overlaps with the following category.
“Concept-Corresponding” Positioning
In the field between the two aforementioned positionings, space should be allocated to the various types of “concept-corresponding” positionings. In contrast to the complete negation of a specific concept, one can find here a broad field of discourse when participants do not explicitly refer to the concept, but rather indicate their responsiveness to it through indirect reference or by interacting extensively with those who loudly propagate “renjian fojiao” or “Engaged Buddhism”. It is these actors who are often carelessly categorized by many Buddhists or scholars as “renjian fojiao”, or “Engaged Buddhism”, proponents (in the same way as the “concept-affirming” proponents), or more carefully ascribed to a “movement” associated with this category. However, there is a big difference in their use—or non-use—of the concept of “renjian fojiao” or “Engaged Buddhism”, as will be discussed here briefly along two different ways of a “concept-avoiding” positioning related to the concept of “renjian fojiao”.
For example, the Buddhist theory and/or practice of major players in Taiwan, such as Dharma Drum Mountain 法鼓山, Tzu-Chi Foundation 慈濟功德會, and Chungtai Shan 中台山, is often subsumed under the category of “renjian fojiao” by both Buddhists and scholars. However, far from actively referring to “renjian fojiao”, comparable to Taixu, Yin Shun, or Ven. Hsing Yun’s 星雲 (1927–2023) conceptualizations of “renjian fojiao”, they usually emphasize their own labels instead. More cautious observers subsume their teachings under the “spirit” (jingshen 精神) of “renjian fojiao”, but this does not confirm an “intentional” claim of “renjian fojiao” teachings either. Rather, they seem to avoid “renjian fojiao” as their core concept, whether for reasons of form or content, and/or to avoid being perceived as mere subsidiaries of the aforementioned, more famous proponents of “renjian fojiao”.
In a similar manner, it should be questioned whether all mainland Chinese Buddhists became active proponents of “renjian fojiao” as a result of the top-down-policy of the BAC. On the contrary, it can be observed that this concept played a different role at different times, and its explicit use was dominated by the BAC (see below), as well as at (semi-) official conferences and in (semi-) scientific publications. Consequently, even those abbots who were actively working on concepts inspired by “renjian fojiao” formulated them differently. In a way, this strategy of creating their own label was no different from that of Buddhist masters based in Taiwan. To a certain extent, however, the avoidance strategy differed in that it was not (only) aimed at avoiding confusion with the “renjian fojiao” concepts of the aforementioned figures, but also at avoiding possible accusations of misuse of “renjian fojiao” in the context of the BAC’s ever changing socio-political circumstances.11
The main purpose of the above typology is to clarify the relationship of each proponent to “renjian fojiao” or “Engaged Buddhism” as a Buddhist concept. This should be distinguished from the academic category of a “renjian fojiao” or an “Engaged Buddhism”, insofar as it is defined by scholars to classify different types of Buddhist theory and practice, for which the same terms of such Buddhist concepts are used, but do not necessarily distinguish to what extent Buddhists themselves self-identify, semi-self-identify, or non-self-identify with them.
This leads to one more (structural) distinction, namely between “concept-distancing” and “concept-processing” positionings in the field of scholarship. This distinction seems all the more necessary insofar as scholars of Buddhist studies can play diverse roles (though of course not only) in the Chinese language discourse that is discussed here.
“Concept-Distancing” Scholarship
Scholars who work on Buddhist concepts usually keep their distance in order to observe, analyze, and explain the processes taking place among Buddhists. They use existing categories and methods or invent new ones without interfering with the Buddhist discourse.
“Concept-Processing” Scholarship
In contrast, I would like to speak of “concept-processing” scholarship when the same—or different—scholars take over Buddhist concepts, such as “renjian fojiao” or “Engaged Buddhism” as scientific categories. Elaborating these academicized concepts to refer to Buddhist (“concept-affirming”, “concept-negating”, “concept-corresponding”, and even “concept-unaffected”) practitioners may seem an ambiguous method and lead to confusion, especially in the case of additional interaction with Buddhist practitioners.
In some cases, (not only) “concept-processing” scholars might be susceptible to a certain bias, which of course is neither measurable nor necessarily visible, and need not even be of poor quality. What I mean here is at least two scenarios: One is relating to a confessional level and concerns those who are sometimes called “scholar-practitioners”.12 If they themselves are “concept-affirming” proponents of one of the concepts it may explain, for example, how a Buddhist concept becomes an academic category that includes more Buddhists than those who actually self-identify with it, and excludes others. The other case concerns those scholars who are invited to Buddhist conferences and serve “concept-affirming”, “concept-negating”, or “concept-corresponding” proponents by arguing for them in one way or another (or at least not arguing against them). All of this can be highly scientific, but integrated into a teleological framework.
None of this is mutually exclusive. A scholar may work on a “concept-distancing” level, as well as a “concept-processing” level. They might be active as an “unbiased scholar”, while also appearing on stage as “biased scholar”, even at different conferences of different Buddhist organizations, just not at the same time.
3. A Brief Conceptual History of “Renjian Fojiao”
To begin with Taixu, much was written about his development and his legacy of the concept of “renjian fojiao” in Western languages, and even more so in Chinese. As far as his legacy is concerned, Taixu’s work could be characterized as ambiguous in several respects.
First, Taixu introduced—or at least successfully spread—not only the new term “renjian fojiao” but also that of “rensheng fojiao” (“Buddhism in/of/for a Human Life”). It is often said that Taixu preferred the latter, and his whole theoretical system left open questions in many respects.13 Second, he tried to propagate his ideas, but failed to institutionalize them in a sustainable manner into Buddhism. At this early stage, “renjian fojiao” as a concept was far from having a clear and stable definition, being unknown or rejected by much of the more conservative Buddhist community. Third, one of his most prominent followers, Ven. Yin Shun 印順 (1906–2005), became well-known during Taixu’s lifetime for his appreciative yet critical examination of Taixu’s understanding of “renjian fojiao”, overlaying it in the long term with his own lifelong strengthening and elaboration of the concept of “renjian fojiao”. What remained after Taixu`s death was an extensive body of articles and essays of all kinds discussing ideas about a “renjian fojiao”, written by himself, but also by many other contemporary like-minded people. However, followers of his idea(s) in mainland China, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), were restricted to elaborate on “renjian fojiao” due to the Communist Party’s (CPC) religious policy. In that sense, it was a very short-lived conceptual history and experienced a standstill in the PRC for more than 30 (!) years.
In the post-Taixu-era, most of the first “concept-affirming” proponents could be found in Taiwan (most of whom had fled from mainland China). To summarize the conceptual history of “renjian fojiao” in Taiwan, I would like to distinguish between three phases:
From the 1950s until the repeal of military law in 1989, Taiwan-based monks developed their understanding of the concept of “renjian fojiao” individually but were limited in developing independent structures to realize their visions on a large scale.
This changed in the late 1980s, leading to an upsurge in Buddhist involvement in education, charity, relief work, etc. At the same time, this was accompanied by heated debates with several monks and lay people raising doubts as to what “renjian fojiao” was about—a dispute which confronted its “concept-affirming” proponents with questions about the concept’s fundamental legitimacy. Many of these critiques were directed against its most intellectual and controversial representative, Yin Shun, especially because of his distance from Chinese Buddhist traditions, but also against Hsing Yun, founder of the Fo Guang Shan, because of his allegedly superficial teachings and commercial activities. From this time on, we could see an increasing involvement of Taiwan-based scholars, including “concept-distancing” and “concept-processing” (as well as “unbiased” and “biased”), in discussing the pros and cons.
It seems the most recent phase emerged at the end of the 2000s. It was a time when “concept-affirming” and “concept-corresponding” proponents of the concept of “renjian fojiao” demonstrated useful achievements (especially after their expansion of the 1990s) that were accepted by the Buddhist mainstream (I am careful to say that “renjian fojiao” itself became mainstream). Moreover, after a thorough exchange of many arguments, each proponent had enough territory to survive in the end, and an atmosphere of reconciliation emerged. In the wake of Yin Shun’s death, there was also less new controversy surrounding “renjian fojiao”. Nevertheless, proponents of the “renjian fojiao” concept began to establish their organizations as “schools” (zong 宗), leading to a new competitive rivalry among them. The “culture” of inviting scholars to conferences to demonstrate legitimacy entered a new phase. In the midst of this development, the Fo Guang Shan, which can be considered the most explicit “concept-affirming” proponent of “renjian fojiao”, established an umbrella organization in 2015 called the “United Association of Humanistic Buddhism, Chunghua” (中華人間佛教聯合總會).14 Similar to the INEB, it tries to bring “concept-affirming” proponents together. However, in contrast to the INEB, the Fo Guang Shan appears as “primus inter pares”, so that several big players avoid a formal membership and only appear as “concept-corresponding” proponents of this umbrella organization.
Buddhist proponents and scholars of all kinds, whom I described above, (although Western scholars are hardly included) emerged in Taiwan over the past three decades to grapple with their relationship to the concept of “renjian fojiao”.
Looking back to mainland China, it is all the more remarkable that the concept of “renjian fojiao”, which was suppressed for more than 30 years due to political circumstances, made a comeback in the early 1980s, sparked by the BAC and governmental support. However, unlike Taiwan’s bottom-up process (including the founding of the “United Association of Humanistic Buddhism, Chunghua”), this was a top-down-movement and led to a major difference in its conceptual development. Furthermore, as mentioned before, it should be questioned whether all mainland Chinese Buddhists became “concept-affirming” proponents of “renjian fojiao” as a result.15
For the sake of simplicity, we may say that there were three phases in the PRC:
From the 1980s until the death of the president of the BAC, Zhao Puchu, the concept of “renjian fojiao” was introduced by Zhao and served primarily to legitimize Buddhists reviving their religious activities and to guarantee that they would not revert to superstitious practices and would obey the guidelines for a “socialist (material/spiritual) civilization” (shehuizhuyi wuzhi/jingshen wenming 社會主義物質/精神文明).
Inspired (or also challenged) by the successful realization of “renjian-fojiao”-related visions in Taiwan during the 1990s, and enabled by their own resurgence, the BAC encouraged a post-Zhao-Puchu renewal of the understanding of the “renjian fojiao” concept. It allowed Buddhist actors in mainland China more and more entrepreneurial and social activities in the name of “renjian fojiao” during the 2000s. Scholars also participated in conferences in Buddhist monasteries more than ever before. However, in contrast to conferences in Taiwan, their bias always had to serve not only the invitation of the host, but also the expectations of the government. Although the concept of “renjian fojiao” was increasingly discussed in various ways, it did not go so far as to support Buddhism as a “social force” in the way that Ji (2012) defined it.
With the increasing popularization of Buddhism, which also brought commercialization, as well as with the growing influence of “renjian-fojiao”-related models from Taiwan, including controversial views of Yin Shun and others, criticisms emerged, the harshest of which became public in 2016. Much of this was based on arguments that were discussed in Taiwan twenty years ago, but were not only religiously sensitive in the PRC, but also politically sensitive, even affecting relations with Taiwan. As a result, a new top-down expectation, in line with the policy of “Sinicization of Religions” (zongjiao zhongguohua 宗教中國化) under Xi Jinping 習近平 (1953–), can be observed to reconfigure the concept of “renjian fojiao” according to the CCP’s sinocentric orientation. This intensifies competition on both sides of the Taiwan Strait for supremacy in the interpretation of the concept of “renjian fojiao”.16
5. Potential for Conflict
Since the two INEB conferences in Taiwan, it can be said that a certain consensus was reached on the compatibility of the general appearance of “renjian fojiao” in Taiwan, perceived by most of the non-Chinese INEB members as “Humanistic Buddhism” in its broadest sense, and “Engaged Buddhism” as it is represented by INEB and perceived by Taiwanese Buddhists as “rushi fojiao”. Chao-hwei played a leading role in this harmonious rapprochement process.
However, whether it is the system-loyal approach of “renjian fojiao” or the intellectual background, which, as in the individual case of Chao-hwei, owes much to Yin Shun’s tremendous lifework and includes further-reaching socio-critical positions, there remains a certain potential for conflict which can at least be observed outside of Taiwan.
5.1. Potential for Conflict: The Case of YBAM
The large Chinese-speaking Buddhist community in Malaysia, particularly the Young Buddhist Association of Malaysia (Mafoqing zonghui 馬佛青總會, YBAM) circles, might serve as an example of how different opinions can lead to serious controversies. Much has to do with the vicissitudinous history of how the concepts of “renjian fojiao” and “Engaged Buddhism”, alias “rushi fojiao”, came into more or less simultaneous existence there.53
A short essay on “Rushi fojiao and renjian fojiao” (入世佛教·人間佛教) by Goh Tay Hock 吳德福, former President of the YBAM (2002–2006), summarized a series of allegations against “renjian fojiao”, which only appears to be the tip of the iceberg. It also referred to a critical opinion that Sulak Sivaraksa had on “renjian fojiao”, which the latter did not make public in Taiwan:
“rushi fojiao” believes that the suffering in the world (Dukkha) is an institutionalized problem. According to this fundamental concept, to solve the suffering, we must start from the institutional system; for example, if the medical service collapses, we must find out the culprit, find out the root of the problem, and solve it fundamentally.The theory of “renjian fojiao” is that the solution to suffering is to help the sufferer, such as donating some medical bills or donating some medical supplies.
“rushi fojiao” believes that “renjian fojiao” is to make up for the shortcomings of the system, it indirectly contributes to the continued decay of the system, and continues to cause suffering. To put it bluntly, it is an accomplice in creating difficulties (to borrow the words of Sulak Sivaraksa).54
“renjian fojiao” believes that “rushi fojiao” is too idealistic and not practical.Therefore, Dato’ lr Ang Choo Hong, a Buddhist elder, made a point [liter.: beat the snake with a stick] and asked: Which route do you take? “rushi fojiao” or “renjian fojiao”?(Goh 2021)55
入世佛教認為世間的苦難（Dukkha）乃建制的問題。根據此根本理念乃要解決苦難必須從建制著手；比如醫療服務崩潰，就要找出禍首，找出問題源頭，在根本上解決它。人間佛教的理念是，苦難的解決辦法是協助受難者，如捐點醫藥費或捐點醫藥物品什麼的。入世佛教認為人間佛教是彌補建制的缺陷，間接助長建制的繼續腐爛，繼續衍生苦難。說不好聽一點就是製造困難的幫兇（借用 Sulak Sivaraksa 的話）。人間佛教認為入世佛教太理想，不實際。是故，佛教長者拿督洪祖豐居士打蛇隨棍而有所詢問： 你走哪一條路線？入世佛教還是人間佛教？
The probable reference to Ang Choo Hong here recalled the latter’s critical position, who in his 2011 essay “What does ‘rushi fojiao’ Mean?” (何謂“入世佛教”？) even went so far as to claim that, “from a sociological point of view, ‘renjian fojiao’ belongs to the ‘Right-Wing’, it is just the exact opposite of the ‘left-wing’ ‘rushi fojiao’” (從社會學的觀點來看，“人間佛教“是屬於“左翼“型，與“左翼“的“入世佛教“剛好相反) (Ang 2011).
In addition to these accusations, Goh reflected on a no less fundamental conflict over the influence of Yin Shun’s legacy on the understanding of “renjian fojiao” in Malaysia. As his influence grew among representatives of the YBAM, and some proponents made the point that one has to make a distinct choice between (Yin Shun’s interpretation of) “renjian fojiao” and “rushi fojiao”, Goh tried to harmonize the positions by drawing attention to practice instead of theory:
Isn’t the [Malaysian] Buddhist Youth influenced by Yin Shun’s thought of “renjian fojiao”? The influence is there, but only functional. The Buddhist Youth is [concentrated on] social practice, not intellectual research (治學研究). Our manpower is limited, and resources cannot be wasted. In the most limited time and space, we promote the transformation of Buddhist society in Malaysia. To be honest, it is a waste of resources to satisfy some useless arrangements. If you have once attended the [Malaysian] Buddhist Youth Congress, you will have experienced what kind of “renjian fojiao” or “rushi fojiao” it is. Intellectual research [only] provides theory, whereas social practice should focus on achieving goals based on causes and conditions.(Goh 2021)
佛青受不受到印老人間佛教思想的影響？影響是有，只取有功能性的。佛青是社會實踐，非治學研究。我們人力有限，不容浪費資源。在最有限的時空，達到推動大馬佛教社會的改變。老實說，為了滿足部份無用的安排做法，是資源浪費。若有出席當年的佛青代表大會，就能體會那是怎樣的人間佛教，抑或入世佛教。治學研究提供理論，社會實踐當依因緣達至目的為重心。
In addition to the concern that infiltrating the YBAM with the thoughts of Yin Shun could mean an over-“intellectualization”, Goh also warned against the misleading influence of scholarly over-“academization”. He regarded scholars of Buddhist studies as responsible for an unnecessary demarcation between “renjian fojiao” and “rushi fojiao”:
“renjian fojiao” and “rushi fojiao” are the self-definition of intellectual research, which is convenient for explaining the historical situation, so as to be able to write papers and make some trends visible. This is the difference between academic research and social practice. As far as those [academic] interpretation tools are concerned, there is no need to waste energy on the question to which master what can be traced back to. As for academic researchers, we should respect that they continue academic research to clarify the blind spots of social practice. When [our] social practice has access to analysis based on academic research, it should be able to sort out strategies. [In this sense,] my personal observations and readings focus on the continuous improvement of social practice, and part of this is due to academic research. To which master it can be traced back to is not the point!(Goh 2021)
人間佛教，與入世佛教，乃學術研究的自我定義，方便解釋歷史現狀，以能寫成論文，整理方向。學術研究和社會實踐的差別在於此。對此詮釋之工具，無須費神追究出自那家。學術研究的，繼續容他們學術研究，也有好處，厘清社會實踐的盲點。社會實踐有學術研究分析，當能整理方策。我一向看看讀讀，比較在乎不斷改良的社會實踐，有部份當感謝學術研究。出自那家，不是重點！
These comments show how the coexistence of “renjian fojiao” and “rushi fojiao” could lead to conflicts among Chinese-speaking Buddhists when these concepts have been defined too restrictively by either Buddhist intellectuals (particularly “concept-affirming” proponents), or by scholars of Buddhist studies (either in the aforementioned “concept-distancing” sense or a “concept-processing” sense).
5.2. Potential for Conflict: The Case of BAC
Another potential for conflict is given in mainland China in cases where “Engaged Buddhism” is associated with scholarly definitions that emphasize a more radical political engagement or with politically sensitive activities of “concept-affirming” proponents of the INEB, such as Thích Nhất Hạnh, Sulak Sivaraksa and the Dalai Lama.56
In the official magazine of the BAC, Fayin 法音 (Voice of Dharma), there are only very few mentions of “Engaged Buddhism”, all of which are concentrated on non-Chinese-speaking areas such as Southern East Asia. However, from the perspective of the BAC, there is a linguistically indirect, yet quite clear position, documented on their official homepage for more than ten years, emphasizing that (their understanding of) “renjian fojiao” is the only way to practice Buddhist engagement in the sense of “rushi”—“entering the world”:
Then, how will Buddhism smoothly pass through the time tunnel of the 21st century, so that the Buddhist sun can shine in a wider time and space? The only way is to stick to the path of “renjian fojiao”. Now, there is no need, and there is no necessity to dispute about the issue of “whether or not” in the discussion of this topic, and there is no need to quote classics and excerpts from various works to make theoretical explanations, but we have to think about “how to do it”, in order to guide, promote, expand, and improve the practice of “renjian fojiao”. In short, this is [how] to explore the way of Buddhism entering the world [fojiao de rushi zhi dao].(BAC Buddhist Association of China 2012)57
那麼，佛教又將如何順利地通過21世紀的時光隧道，讓佛日能夠閃耀在更廣闊的時空呢？ 只有堅持走“人間佛教”的道路。現在，關於這一話題的議論，已經不需要、也沒有必要再討論“要不要”的問題，也不需要再引經據典、尋章摘句去作理論的闡釋，而是要思考“要怎麼做”的方法問題，去引導、推動、光大、完善人間佛教的實踐。簡而言之，就是要探討佛教的入世之道。
While “Engaged Buddhism” as a term used by INEB members is not a choice in the PRC,58 “renjian fojiao” became established as a term with the predicate of a “guiding thought” since the end of the 1980s. Although its connotations changed over the decades and it is far from the (explicit) focus of recent internationalization efforts of the BAC, such as the initiative of a “World Buddhist Forum” (Shijie fojiao luntan 世界佛教論壇) since 2006, its importance is highly significant.59 In addition to its geopolitical function on an international level in inevitable (but not exclusive) competition with the concept of “Engaged Buddhism”, “renjian fojiao” is being (re)shaped by Buddhists and scholars on the mainland in order to gain interpretative sovereignty (sometimes spoken out as “zhanling huayuquan”占領話語權), first and foremost, over “renjian-fojiao” concepts “made in Taiwan”.60 As this implies a strong emphasis on the role of Taixu as the father of the concept “made in China”, it is not impossible that a narrative will be further developed to subordinate not only Yin Shun and Hsing Yun, who fled the mainland, and other Taiwanese proponents, but even the “father” of “Engaged Buddhism”, Thích Nhất Hạnh, to a concept of “renjian fojiao” defined by the BAC. However, the question may then be to what extent the “concept-corresponding” proponents of “renjian fojiao” in Taiwan and elsewhere, and even some of its “concept-affirming” proponents, such as Chao-hwei, have the better (historical) arguments for their “lineage”—or still feel the need at all to hold on to the term “renjian fojiao”.
6. Conclusions
As the analysis of various sources in recent decades has shown, the Chinese discourse on the international concept of “Engaged Buddhism” strongly depends on how the term “Engaged Buddhism” is rendered in Chinese, which Buddhist or academic conceptualization it refers to, and in what way it is related to what kind of “renjian fojiao” in the Chinese Buddhist field.
In summary, we can see how the most prominent Buddhist “concept-affirming” proponents of “renjian fojiao”, such as Chao-hwei, Fo Guang Shan, and the BAC, opted for different approaches. In contrast to the debate(s) about an interreligious “tripolar typology”, etc.,61 we should think here about a more intra-religious phenomenon of Buddhist positionings, with the categories of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism, complemented by a certain pragmatism:
The BAC avoided entering into a dialogue with “concept-affirming” proponents of “Engaged Buddhism” and regarded “renjian fojiao” as “guiding thought” in an exclusivist manner. “Renjian fojiao” appears here as a religious concept with changing functions according to socio-political circumstances, to reconcile mainland Buddhists with their CPC directives, and to serve dialogues (and/or the competition for interpretative sovereignty) along the Taiwan Strait.
In contrast, the Fo Guang Shan provided the platform for an academic dialogue involving both mainland Chinese scholars and Western “concept-processing” scholars in 2009, some of whom emerged as (at least) “concept-corresponding” proponents of “Engaged Buddhism”. However, Fo Guang Shan rendered “Engaged Buddhism” here as “canyu fojiao” and avoided the terminology of INEB (“rushi fojiao”) as well as an association with INEB on other occasions. Furthermore, it presented both concepts as possible role models in a pluralistic manner by maintaining a certain distance from “canyu fojiao” and putting “renjian fojiao” on an equal footing with it.62 However, as can be seen from the discursive development considering the aforementioned Fo Guang Shan background of the 2006 event (Xue Yu), the contributions of Yo Hsiang Chou with his Fo Guang Shan background (2007), the promotion of research on Hsing Yun in comparison to Thích Nhất Hạnh (2012/2013), and the exhibition-in-process on “Engaged Buddhism”/“renjian fojiao” (2022), that Fo Guang Shan seems to be indirectly leaning towards a more inclusivistic approach of subsuming other Buddhisms under its version of “renjian fojiao”.
The most direct and intensive exchange with “concept-affirming” proponents of “Engaged Buddhism” at eye level was cultivated by Chao-hwei, who invited the INEB to two conferences in Taiwan and received the honorary title of its “patron” (Chin. “spiritual supervisor”). Although she based her theoretical framework on her understanding of Yin Shun’s “renjian fojiao”, Chao-hwei was not afraid to present herself at the same time as a “concept-affirming” proponent of “Engaged Buddhism”, alias “rushi fojiao”. With this initiative, she seemed to pursue a semi-inclusivistic approach, but in particular, one that tended to be pragmatic: First, she integrated “concept-corresponding” proponents of “renjian fojiao” into her portrayal of Taiwanese (“concept-corresponding”) proponents of “rushi fojiao”. Second, she used the context of “rushi fojiao”, whether by Taiwanese or indirectly by non-Chinese proponents, to discuss issues of “rushi” versus “chushi”, connecting it with her Mahāyāna Buddhist-inspired blueprint of “renjian fojiao” in its broadest sense. Although Chao-hwei in many ways represents only a minority position within the overall Taiwanese Buddhist community, she played a crucial role in the encounter between proponents of “renjian fojiao” and “Engaged Buddhism”, engaging in dialogue with the INEB in an increasingly institutionalized way that also forces (or triggers) some other (major) actors to take a position on the two(!) concepts under discussion.
In a less intellectual way, Goh Tay Hock justified the coexistence of “renjian fojiao” and “rushi fojiao” in the Malaysian context by invoking pure pragmatism. This was in reaction to arguments by Ang Choo Hong and others, including Sulak Sivaraksa, who regarded “renjian fojiao” as inferior to “Engaged Buddhism”, alias “rushi fojiao”. Ang Choo Hong went so far as to blame “renjian fojiao” as a more conservative “youyi fojiao” (“Right-Wing Buddhism”). His exclusivistic approach from the “rushi fojiao” point of view emphasized the politically leftist, non-governmental strengths of “Engaged Buddhism”. As Ang complained:
In recent times, Western “rushi fojiao” [“Engaged Buddhism”] has become more moderate, and the scope of its concern has moved toward social practices such as gender equality and environmental protection (although these matters are still inevitably political, they are less direct). This new development is in the direction of “renjian fojiao”, although in name they still call themselves “rushi fojiao”. [….] Today’s “rushi fojiao” has been diluted.(Ang 2011)
近代以来西方“入世佛教”已变得温和，其所关注的范围也朝向社会性实践，如性别平等、环保等 （虽然这些事务仍无可避免地要牵涉政治，但比较不直接）。這種新發展，倒是朝向了“人間佛教”，雖然在名堂上他們仍以“入世佛教”自居。[….] 現今的“入世佛教”已經淡化了。
Can we see proponents of “Engaged Buddhism” outside of Taiwan whose teachings are diluted—or inspired—by “renjian fojiao”? Can we see proponents of “renjian fojiao” whose teachings are influenced by “Engaged Buddhism” via “rushi fojiao”? As the INEB conferences in Taiwan and some pragmatic approaches in Malaysia showed, both concepts are currently being adapted to each other by “concept-affirming” and “concept-corresponding” proponents, depending on local circumstances.63
So were the terms and concepts used by Buddhist representatives, with their ambiguous and changing semantics, sufficient to be adopted literally by academics and transformed into scientific categories? Or would a scientific description of these Buddhists’ concepts as “Left Wing”/“Right Wing” or as “Buddhist Activism”, etc., more appropriate? Since the rendering of “Engaged Buddhism” with different terms in Chinese led to different degrees of Buddhist and academic demarcation, integration, and subordination, it also raises the opposite question of how “renjian fojiao” was interpreted in non-Chinese languages.
In Western countries, scholars increasingly questioned whether “Engaged Buddhism” became more and more a product of relatively biased (“concept-processing”) scholars.64 It is something that we can also observe in relation to “renjian fojiao”. More has to be accomplished by scholars in order to avoid further misunderstandings concerning the level at which they discuss existing Buddhist concepts or scholarly categories.65 If we look, for example, at the debate among Western critics who warn that, due to the overemphasis on “Engaged Buddhism”, a “Disengaged Buddhism” should also be discussed, we can see that a similar debate in Chinese-speaking countries is already decades old. Of course, while it makes a lot of sense to learn from those foregoing debates of Chinese Buddhists and scholars, one has also to be aware of different contexts that played a role there.
This comparative observation of Buddhist positions and academic categorizations in Chinese-speaking communities requires a much more systematic analysis. At what various levels do “concept-affected” (“concept-affirming”, “concept-negating”, and “concept-corresponding”) and “concept-unaffected” Buddhist proponents, as well as “concept-distancing” or “concept-processing” scholars in the discourse, embrace what kind of concept? Whether it is the journey of “renjian fojiao” or of “Engaged Buddhism”, it is about much more than only one conceptual history.
Funding
This research was funded by German Research Foundation (DFG), 463407334, in the context of the research project “Buddhist Positioning in the People’s Republic of China (1978–2023)”.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Notes
| 1 | This article is based on a presentation at the panel of the Hong Kong conference “Beyond Civilizational Clash: The Coalescence of Human Civilization” in August 2023. The research received funding from the German Research Foundation (DFG), research fund 463407334. I would like to thank the conference organizers for their acceptance of my proposal and the participants as well as the reviewers for their constructive comments. |
| 2 | For a general understanding of these two concepts and related secondary literature, see the comprehensive entries of Ann Gleig (2021) on “Engaged Buddhism” and of Stefania Travagnin (2022) on “Humanistic Buddhism (Rensheng Fojiao 人生佛教/Renjian Fojiao 人間佛教)” in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion. |
| 3 | The best-known translation of this term is “Humanistic Buddhism”, which is often associated with Fo Guang Shan as the “concept-affirming” proponent who uses it as its own label in its many international publications. In mainland China, “renjian fojiao” has been translated in official publications, such as Fayin (法音, “Voice of Dharma”, here only in the translation of the “Contents”), as “Buddhism of Human Society” in the 1980s, and as “Popular Buddhism” in the 2000s. However, many scholars prefer the more literal translations, of which Marcus Bingenheimer suggests distinguishing between the “descriptive” “Buddhism of (or in) a Human Realm” and the “normative” “Buddhism for a Human Realm”, depending on the particular proponent (Bingenheimer 2007, pp. 141–43). In the following article, I use traditional Chinese characters for all Chinese words. The spelling of Chinese names follows the rules of pinyin, except for people from Taiwan and other countries who use their own transcription (Yin Shun, Hsing Yun, etc.). Finally, the monastic representatives are introduced with Ven. (Venerable), but only when they are mentioned for the first time. |
| 4 | For further analysis on the term “engaged” and its relation to the French word “engagé”, and the Vietnamese phrase “đi vào cuộc đời” (or, indirectly, “nhập thế”), see below. |
| 5 | This article is inspired by the title of a panel from the Hong Kong conference “Beyond Civilizational Clash: The Coalescence of Human Civilization” in August 2023 (see note 65 below). Therefore, it is not a direct, dedicated replica of Laliberté’s 2024 article on “‘Buddhism(s) for this World’ and ‘Engaged Buddhism’: Some Key Differences”, which also focuses on the relationship between the two concepts and has only recently been published. A comprehensive discussion of his article would require critical statements on many more aspects, which cannot be provided here. However, I am confident that a careful reading of my article will make clear the different focus, leading to other approaches, sources, and research findings. Nevertheless, I will also return to Laliberté’s main argument of a possible geopolitical clash between the concepts later on. |
| 6 | This is comparable to (though not identical with) Deng’s (2011) “greatest common denominator” of (all interpretations of) renjian fojiao proponents (insofar as he acknowledges them) which he also extends to what he understands under “canyu fojiao” as “Engaged Buddhism”. |
| 7 | In his “Introduction” of 1996 (based on a 1990 conference panel), Queen formulated “the need for a phenomenology of Buddhist liberation movements”, which on the surface could be seen as a “concept-distancing” approach (see below). However, it seems in this context that this phenomenology merged with a “concept-processing” adaptation of the term and concept of “Engaged Buddhism” itself (see Queen 1996). For a comprehensive overview of the conceptual history and subsequent interpretative developments, see Gleig (2021). |
| 8 | Hsu (2022, p. 22) remarks: “The term ‘Engaged Buddhist Studies’ (Kraft 2000; Morgan 2004) was coined at the height of the Anglophone Engaged Buddhism period in order to distinguish a scholarly, self-reflexive discourse and community (‘Studies’) from its object (‘Engaged Buddhism’)”. |
| 9 | However, Hsu mixed certain “scholars and practitioners” here in an ambiguous way: “I propose ‘Academic Engaged Buddhism’ as a label for this community of English-speaking scholars and practitioners of Buddhism and the theoretical discourse they produced” (Hsu 2022, p. 21). |
| 10 | This type seems very similar to the way Deng (2011) defined what scholars should responsibly consider “renjian fojiao” proponents, i.e., those who (a) explicitly adhere to “renjian fojiao” (ming cong zhuren 名從主人), and (b) speak and act coherently in accordance with “renjian fojiao” (yanxing yizhi 言行一致). However, Deng considers part of this responsibility to be an academic definition of what he calls the “original meaning” (benyi 本意) of “renjian fojiao”, thus excluding those Buddhists who call themselves representatives on behalf of “renjian fojiao” but do not conform to (t)his definition in their actual actions. Deng’s categorization results in the essentialist treatment of issues such as “What is ‘renjian fojiao’?” and “Who is a proponent of ‘renjian fojiao’?”, based mainly on the “late thinking” (wannian sixiang 晚年思想) of Taixu, Yin Shun etc., rather than taking into account the different modes (including changes) of discursive positioning (over the course of their own and others’ lives). |
| 11 | In a similar way, Deng (2011) also excluded those Buddhists who argue and act in accordance with “renjian fojiao” (or with selected components of it) but do not explicitly refer to this concept (while he did not assign them to any other category), accusing other scholars of irresponsibly labeling them as proponents of “renjian fojiao”. However, while Deng only gave Chungtai Shan as an example, I would like to open the field more consistently to potentially all participants in Taiwan and the PRC who emphasize their own label (instead of or despite “renjian fojiao”); this could also include the “concept-avoiding” (“renjian-fojiao”-avoiding) behavior of Zhao Puchu in the 1950s to 1970s. |
| 12 | See for example the (not always clearly defined) terminology of “scholar-practitioners” (Prebish 2024a; Temprano 2013) and “engaged Buddhist scholars” (Lele 2019). For a discussion of “scholars”, see also the Special Issue on “Buddhists and Scholars of Buddhism: Blurred Distinctions in Contemporary Buddhist Studies” of the Journal of Global Buddhism edited by Rocha/Baumann who state: “As Buddhist Studies scholars wrestle with the identity of their field, as well as their own identities, they shape knowledge of Buddhism and may even contribute to shaping Buddhism itself in the West as well as in Asia” (Rocha and Baumann 2008, p. 81). See also, for Northern America, (Salguero and Lang 2024; Prebish 2024b). |
| 13 | On the terminology used by Taixu in the 1930s and 1940s, see (Bingenheimer 2007). |
| 14 | See the homepage for https://www.uaohbc.org/ (accessed on 31 August 2024, also preserved at https://web.archive.org). The official English name does not include a translation of Chunghua 中華 (liter. “Chinese”). |
| 15 | For a diachronic development, see (Krause 2019, 2023). |
| 16 | On the sinicization strategy of Buddhists in the PRC, see (Ji and Fang 2023; Krause 2021). The “intra-religious” competition over the concept of “renjian fojiao” between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait has intensified in the wake of sinicization policies. The establishment of related think tanks, and a new series of conferences in the PRC should be taken much more seriously than it is perceived in the West. However, the generalized view of Laliberté (2024) neglects the previous and current diversity of interpretations in the PRCand tends to downplay the ongoing differences between “renjian fojiao” in the PRC and in Taiwan. |
| 17 | See for example DeVido (2009), with reference to Thich’s (1967) publication Vietnam: Lotus in a Sea of Fire and other sources. Furthermore, it is reported by T. C. Nguyen (2016) that Thích Nhất Hạnh was introduced to the ideas of Taixu’s “rensheng fojiao” by none other than the 13th Dalai Lama’s (1876–1933) mentioning of “‘rensheng fojiao’ (Buddhism in life) [sic]”. As Nguyen does not provide any evidence, I am cautious with this information. However, there is no doubt that Thích Nhất Hạnh was also inspired by many other people and sources outside of Vietnam that reinforced his appreciation for Taixu. |
| 18 | With regard to the influence by Taixu and reform-oriented Vietnamese Buddhists, see, for example, DeVido (2009). With more emphasis on traditional Vietnamese Buddhism, see also (H. A. Nguyen 2016, pp. 273–74). As Nguyen shows with her work, Thích Nhất Hạnh was evidently aware and proud of his predecessors. However, Ngyuen’s reference to the “spirit of ‘rushi fojiao’ [Engaged Buddhism]”, which postulates that it existed much earlier under Kang Senghui’s 康僧會 (?–280) and Trúc Lâm “Bamboo Grove’s” 13th century influence on Vietnamese Buddhism, cannot be convincingly substantiated with the quotes from Thích Nhất Hạnh cited by Nguyen (ibid., pp. 264–71). |
| 19 | Cited from Ly Thi Suong (2020, p. 275, fn. 30). In his English interview of 2008, Thích Nhất Hạnh stated that he started to write “ten articles with the title, ‘A Fresh Look at Buddhism’” in 1954 and went on: “So Engaged Buddhism dates from 1954.” Afterwards, he mentioned his 1964 book “on the theme of Engaged Buddhism”, called Đạo Phật ngày nay (though it seems to have been published after Đạo Phật đi vào cuộc đời). It is unclear to me what terminology Thích Nhất Hạnh used in these works and whether “le Bouddhisme engagé” already appeared in the French translation of Đạo Phật Ngày Nay by Le Vinh Hao from 1965 (Aujourd’hui le Boudhisme). However, for the programmatic book title Đạo Phật đi vào cuộc đời of the year 1964, Thích Nhất Hạnh clearly stated in his interview: “Cuoc doi here is ‘life’ or ‘society’. Di vao means ‘to enter’. So, these were the words that were used for Engaged Buddhism in Vietnam: di vao cuoc doi, ‘entering into life, social life’.” (Thich 2008) This 1964 book was later translated into English and published under the title (according to DeVido’s (2009, p. 449) reference list): “Thích Nhất Hạnh, 1965. Engaged Buddhism (with other essays), trans. Trinh Van Du. Saigon: Typewritten manuscript”. |
| 20 | This is, among others, illustrated by the current Chinese website of Plum Village which refers to the 1964 book Đạo Phật đi vào cuộc đời by translating its title as “入世佛教 [rushi fojiao]” and explaining that it “means in English ‘Buddhism Entering Society’ or ‘Engaged Buddhism’”, see https://plumvillage.org/zh-hant/books/入世佛教buddhism-entering-into-society-1964 (accessed on 31 August 2024, also preserved at https://web.archive.org). |
| 21 | This does not mean that the idea of “renjian fojiao” is less (or not at all) political as often postulated in Buddhist studies, nor that it is only supportive of conservative/nationalist regimes, as most recently generalized by Laliberté with regard to the entire sphere of “renjian fojiao” in contrast to the sphere of influence of “Engaged Buddhism” (Laliberté 2024). The relationship between the state and (“renjian fojiao”-based) Buddhism has been a controversial subject of many Chinese-language contributions. Madsen’s summary, at least for the case of Taiwanese big players (“concept-affirming” and “concept-corresponding”), is worthy of further elaboration: “It is too early to tell if they will be sufficient to sustain Taiwan’s troubled democracy, but one can make a persuasive argument that without their important contributions, Taiwan’s troubles would have been much worse” (Madsen 2007, p. 15). |
| 22 | Xue Yu did not make clear which Western scholar statements he was referring to. In fact, too much “individualism” (derived from the English term “Humanistic”) does not seem to have been the main reason for Westerners’ distinction between the Chinese concept of “renjian fojiao” and their notion of “Engaged Buddhism”. The more prominent line of demarcation appears to have been the extent to which activities by proponents of “renjian fojiao” could be viewed as part of fairly independent civic engagement. |
| 23 | Cited from the mainland Chinese version in simplified characters. Here, Xue Yu also included readers from mainland China in his audience. |
| 24 | Interestingly, Lau ignored the fact that Thích Nhất Hạnh himself constructed his “Le Bouddhisme engagé” on the colloquial Vietnamese phrase of “Buddhism Entering the Life” (Đạo Phật [道佛] đi vào cuộc đời), which was semantically closely related to the Sino-Vietnamese nhập thế = rushi and would make “rushi fojiao” appear appropriate (see above). Instead, he regretted having lost an article, stating that Thích Nhất Hạnh himself had spoken of “Left-Wing” early in the 1960s. However, Lau felt vindicated by his correspondence with Thích Nhất Hạnh’s management, who in 2005 replied to him that “he had ‘not used [that term] anymore’ in recent years” (近年“不再使用”) (Lau 2019, p. 43, fn. 51). |
| 25 | Lau mentioned (without citing sources) the longest list of all kinds of (possible) Chinese translations of “Engaged Buddhism” which I have seen so far (Lau 2019, p. 33)—and rejected all of them, such as: rushi fojiao (入世佛教; “World-entering Buddhism”), shushi fojiao (淑世佛教; “World-improving Buddhism”), sheshi fojiao (涉世佛教; “Wordly-oriented Buddhism”), jijin fojiao (激進佛教; “Progessive Buddhism”), ganyu de fojiao (干預的佛教; “Interfering Buddhism”), jieru de fojiao (介入的佛教; “Interventional Buddhism”), kangzheng de fojiao (抗爭的佛教; “Opposing Buddhism”). |
| 26 | Lau criticized the fact that although Chinese-speaking academics translate the term “Engaged Buddhism” in different ways, they only use one translation term for all the phenomena that “Engaged Buddhism” stands for in different societies. Instead, he referred to Japanese academics who would translate “Engaged Buddhism” differently depending on the society, as he did with “zuoyi fojiao” as a translation term for the case of “Engaged Buddhism” in Thailand and Malaysia (Lau 2019, p. 36). For Japanese terms of translation, see also (Hsu 2022, p. 19). |
| 27 | While Lau only mentioned that his term was “basically still in use” (基本上仍在使用), he without further elaboration explicitly cited (Lau 2006, p. 3, fn. 3; 2019, p. 33, fn. 28), a statement by Xuan Fang 宣方 (Renmin University) as an example of a critic. Early in 2005, Xuan Fang wrote in the Taiwanese Hongshi 弘誓:
|
| 28 | In chapter 1.5 of his book, Lau discusses a more nuanced distinction between three kinds of “Right-Wing Buddhism”, with either a fundamentalist, nationalist, or capitalistic accent, Lau (2019, pp. 49–55). |
| 29 | This seems similar to the idea of Lau, who proposed a diversification of academic (or even Buddhist) terminologies, with the difference that Chao-hwei indirectly presented herself as a “concept-affirming/-corresponding” proponent of all these concepts. |
| 30 | According to my reconstruction above, one may question here whether Thích Nhất Hạnh had *Phât giáo nhập thế (“rushi fojiao”) in mind first, and then chose “Le Bouddhisme engagé”/“Engaged Buddhism” as its Western equivalents. |
| 31 | However, later in his article, he also recognized fundamental differences:
|
| 32 | The dissertation by Liu Wen-Fang 劉文芳 (Shih Chuan-Fa釋傳法) on the INEB conferences in Taiwan (2007, 2017) can serve as an overview here. However, it is mainly based on published material as found in Hongshi 弘誓, the central organ of the Buddhist Hongshi College, which is led by Chao-hwei and is also the home institution of the thesis’ author. An example of the unsatisfactory depth of this work is how it hints at the extremely short-term (only one month) mediation of the event at the Buddhist Hongshi College by Yo Hsiang-chou and David Reid, but does not explore the reasons for this in the slightest (see W.-F. Liu 2019, p. 95). |
| 33 | In 2007, Raid was also INEB’s “executive board member” (zhixing lishi 執行理事) and served as the conference’s “secretary” (mishu 秘書). It is somehow unclear to what extent Reid was not only “lost in translation” here, as he summarized at the end (and it is somewhat unclear whether he talks of his own understanding or the understanding of others based on his translation skills):
|
| 34 | In a panel discussion, the seemingly evolutionary aspect of the conference title (“From…to…”) was transformed into the dichotomous question: “Dana: Social Welfare or Social Change?” (佈施：社會福利或社會改革？). The conference title was thus to be understood as a description of the INEB’s spectrum (and interrelationship) of topics, ranging from social “welfare” to social “change” (not anymore talking of “revolution”, which would be more indicative of a change of system). For the complete conference program, see the Special Issue of Hongshi (2007). |
| 35 | These categories were also in the center of another panel titled “rushi and chushi: Twofold Directions of Buddhism” (入世與出世：佛教的雙重面向). |
| 36 | The keynote speech was titled: 緣起、護生、中道—佛教倫理學與戒律學的系統理論 [“Dependent Origination, Life Protection, Middle Path—Systematic Theories of Buddhist Ethics and Discipline”], whereas the title of the Special Issue highlighted the “rushi”/“chushi”-dichotomy: 緣起、護生、中道—出世與入世之間的平衡槓桿 [“Conditioned Arising, Protecting Life, and the Middle Way. The Balancing Between chushi and rushi”]. |
| 37 | See for example the early article by (H. Yang [1988] 2006), and a summary of arguments against the “chushi”-critics by Chiang and Chao-hwei (2002). See also my further analysis of Chao-hwei’s rhetoric below. |
| 38 | See the title as well as the whole work, especially the final discussion in (W.-F. Liu 2019, pp. 98–101). Based on this undifferentiated North-/South-contrast, Liu also interpreted the two keynote speeches by Chao-hwei (緣起、護生、中道——佛教倫理學與戒律學的系統理論 (“Dependent Origination, Life Protection, Middle Path—Systematic Theories of Buddhist Ethics and Discipline”)) and Sulak Sivaraksa (痛苦及其成因 (“Dukkha and its Causes”)) as representing the theoretical foundations of the engaged Buddhist movements of the Northern and Southern traditions (W.-F. Liu 2019, p. 95). Interestingly, in contrast to the above generalization, the mainland Chinese scholar Li Silong 李四龍 attributed the whole “Engaged Buddhism” (alias “canyu fojiao”) to the European-American sphere (Li 2009, pp. 467–70). |
| 39 | See for example the positive feedback by many participants as documented in (Hongshi 2007). |
| 40 | Chen (2010, p. 81). The Chinese word jingshen daoshi 精神導師 (“spiritual supervisor”) is used as translation of “patron” in (Hongshi 2017, p. 1). There are only three other (male) “patrons” of INEB: Dalai Lama, Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (1906–1993), who was succeeded by Maha Somchai Kusalacitto, and Thích Nhất Hạnh. |
| 41 | This is also in line with the way that Xue Yu already talked about “Engaged Buddhism” in his foreword to the 2006 Hong Kong conference which was financed by Fo Guang Shan Headquarters. |
| 42 | The conference volume, which includes 15 contributions in Chinese, 12 in English, 1 in Japanese, and 1 in Korean, was not officially published. |
| 43 | In the Chinese-speaking world, for example, there are two master theses by Vietnamese students comparing Hsing Yun with Thích Nhất Hạnh, both of whom seem to have not known of/quoted from each other (Sang Ho 2012; Chau 2013). |
| 44 | See (Chiu 2011). |
| 45 | In her words:
|
| 46 | For “renjian fojiao” Chao-hwei gave the simplistic definition that—despite the differences between the proponents of this concept—“all [of them] advocate the bodhisattva practice of ‘strictly purifying the land and maturing sentient beings’” 諸家「人間佛教」莫不提倡「嚴淨國土，成熟有情」的菩薩行 (Chao-hwei 2012, p. 8). |
| 47 | Here she quoted from Taixu’s travel record “Xuexing” 學行 (see Taixu 1998), without referring to him by name, but Yin Shun and many others also frequently referred to this phrase. |
| 48 | The full title of her article is: 印順學與人間佛教—由「無諍之辯」到「求同存異」 [“Yin Shun Scholasticism and renjian fojiao: From ‘Arguing Without Controversy’ to ‘Seeking Unity while Preserving Diversity’”). |
| 49 | In 2007 there were more than 60 participants from more than 20 countries, while in 2017 more than 170 guests from 23 countries participated in the INEB conference. See the assessment in the Hongshi report:
|
| 50 | Compared to ten years ago, the afternoon panel added the category of “social justice” to “social welfare” (台灣入世佛教之社會福利與社會公義 [Social Welfare and Social Justice in Taiwan’s rushi fojiao]), while the morning session also included some more controversial aspects (台灣入世佛教之衝突與慈悲 [Conflict and Compassion in Taiwan’s rushi fojiao]) in relation to the conference’s general topic (相即：以慈悲轉化衝突 [Interbeing: Transforming Conflict by Compassion]), see (Hongshi 2017). |
| 51 | See (Hongshi 2017, p. 24). Again, it seems possible that a high-level reception of INEB representatives was not welcomed by Fo Guang Shan due to diplomatic issues. |
| 52 | One example of the role model function of Taiwanese Buddhism is the fact that the “International Young Bodhisattva Program” (Guoji qingnian pusa peixunying 國際青年菩薩培訓營) was introduced in the course of the 2017 INEB conference and takes place regularly at the Buddhist Hongshi College. |
| 53 | For more about the historical developments of Buddhism in the Chinese-speaking community of Malaysia, see the dissertation of Ven. Guangchi 光持 (Saik 2022, p. 275, esp. chap. 6.2), see also (Lau 2019, pp. 325–86). Guangchi discusses the way in which a particular “engagement” of Buddhists first arose without emphasizing one of the labels “renjian fojiao”/“rushi fojiao”. With regard to a more conscious interest in “renjian fojiao”, she distinguishes three phases, beginning with (a) inspiration through delegation visits to Taiwan in the 1970s, (b) followed by the influence of various Buddhist groups from Taiwan becoming active in Malaysia in the 1980s/1990s, and finally dominated by (c) the thought of Yin Shun, transmitted by Ven. Jicheng (Chi Chern) 繼程, who had been President of the YBAM from 1990 to 1996, after his return from Taiwan in the early 2000s (p. 280). The teachings of Thích Nhất Hạnh labelled as “rushi fojiao” became popular with his first visit in the 2000s, but as Guangchi stated, according to her “observation, the YBAM did not attach importance to the clarification of concepts or theories” (根据笔者观察，马佛青并不重视概念或理论的厘清) (ibid.). |
| 54 | It seems to me that this comes from Ang Choo Hong 洪祖丰, who was Deputy President (署理縂會長) of the YBAM from 1986 to 1992, and still serves as its advisor (會務顧問). He quoted Sulak Sivaraksa as saying verbatim that the proponents of “renjian fojiao” “appear to be doing good for the oppressed, but are actually acting as accomplices of those in power” (表面上對被壓迫者行善，實際上是當起當權者的幫兇) (Ang 2011). Although Sulak Sivaraksa also included the discussion of “institutionalized” aspects (here of violence), that should be addressed more fundamentally, in his keynote speech in 2007 on “Dukkha and its Causes” (痛苦及其成因) (see fn. 37 and (W.-F. Liu 2019, p. 95)), he does not appear to have made any public criticism of “renjian fojiao” in Taiwan during his 2007 and 2017 stays. So, it remains unclear (to me) whether this criticism stems from his earlier time, was hidden by him in Taiwan or only referred to a certain group of “renjian-fojiao”-proponents, or whether it was toned down more generally from then on due to his positive experience. |
| 55 | To a certain degree, these views were also expressed in Guangchi’s overall judgement, although it is unclear on which concrete sources in the Malaysian context she relied:
|
| 56 | While Sulak Sivaraksa and the 14th Dalai Lama were not invited to the PRC, and books such as that of Lau (Zuoyi fojiao) on “Engaged Buddhism”, in the sense of a “Left-Wing Buddhism”, seems not to have been published in mainland China, the case of Thích Nhất Hạnh is more ambivalent. He was given many opportunities to visit mainland China and also to publish some works in Chinese translation. However, he seems to have avoided politically sensitive topics. Interestingly, in an obituary published in mainland China, Thích Nhất Hạnh was reported to have introduced “Engaged Buddhism” with the aim that “Buddhists should strive to apply their inner experience of meditation and the teachings of the Buddha to society, politics, the environment and the economy”. And then he was quoted: “We want to offer a new kind of Buddhism that will help save the country from the desperate situation of conflict, division, and war” (佛教徒應該努力將他們內在的禪定體驗與佛法教義應用在社會、政治、環保和經濟之上。[…] “我們想提供一種新的佛教，幫助國家從衝突、分裂和戰爭的絕境中解救出來。”). Despite his pro-government stance, the author did not conceal the fact that Thích Nhất Hạnh once had left Vietnam because of conservative Buddhist and state opponents (N. Yang 2022). The most recent dissertation in mainland China which is about the “rushi fojiao” of Thích Nhất Hạnh takes a similarly friendly and largely apolitical tone when discussing his work in terms of its roots in the Chinese Linji school (臨濟宗), see (Ly Thi Suong 2020). |
| 57 | This article was originally published in Fayin 9 (2001), pp. 11–13, written by Shi Suo 釋索 (Shi Suo 2001) who is identical with Liu Yuanchun 劉元春 who reprinted this article in a 2004 book collection entitled Huadao yu fansi—fojiao rushi zhi dao 化導與反思—佛教入世之道 [Transformation and Reflection—The Buddhist Way of Entering the World] (Y. Liu 2004). |
| 58 | There may be a (conscious) shift (by scholars from mainland China, perhaps in line with the BAC) towards occupying the concept of “rushi” in the sense of an academic category that encompasses more than what has been made of “renjian fojiao” (Hong 2024). While a monograph by Chen Bing 陳兵 (Chen et al. 2000), designed as a textbook on renjian fojiao for monks by the Buddhist Association of Hebei, emphasized the development of “renjianhua” 人間化 (popularization, humanization), this new book, edited by Hong Xiuping 洪修平et al., focused on the development of the “rushi-transformation [transformation of entering the world] of modern Buddhism” (jinxiandai fojiao rushi zhuanxing 近現代佛教入世轉型). According to the Foreword, “in the future development of Buddhism in China, the rushi-transformation and the promotion of the theory and practice of renjian fojiao, will be in mutual perfection and support with the Sinicization of Buddhism ((入世转型、推进人间佛教的理论与实践，与佛教的中国化将是相辅相成、相互促进的) (Hong 2024, p. 28). |
| 59 | In contrast to Laliberté’s statement that “the World Buddhist Forum has proven successful so far at embodying the trends of ‘Buddhism for the human realm’ [‘renjian fojiao’] that prevails in the Sinosphere” (compare (Laliberté 2024, p. 60)), “renjian fojiao” does not yet seem to have been communicated offensively in connection with the Forum’s agenda. One could even speculate that the BAC is hampered by the fact that “renjian fojiao” can easily lead to misunderstandings in an international context (e.g., confusion with the “renjian fojiao” of Fo Guang Shan) and that the BAC wants it to be interpreted by domestic experts rather than (international) forum participants. From this perspective, in addition to (or instead of) the “nationalistic” ambitions which are certainly there, it would perhaps be more appropriate to describe this as a “domestic” approach rather than a “nationalist” one. |
| 60 | This does not exclude the geopolitical ambitions stressed by Laliberté, but it makes the field of discourse much more complicated. As for the most prominent “concept-affirming” proponents of “renjian fojiao” in Taiwan, there seem to be two contrasting approaches: Chao-hwei recently strengthened the Taiwanese identity and established a “Center for the Study of Buddhism in Taiwan” at Hsuan-chuang University at the end of 2022, the official English translation of which obscures the fact that it bears in its Chinese name the emphasis on the more and more popular term “Taiwan Buddhism” (Taiwan fojiao yanjiu zhongxin 台灣佛教研究中心). The Fo Guang Shan, however, founded the “United Association of Humanistic Buddhism, Chunghua” (see above), which in its Chinese title puts an emphasis on “Chunghua”, (greater) China. While it “only” includes members from Taiwan, it functions as a vehicle for the dialogue with mainland Buddhists. Possibly as a reaction in order not to be embraced by such initiatives, a recent trend in mainland China was the establishment of similar associations, such as the establishment of some “renjian-fojiao”-related think tanks, which again founded an umbrella organization with the impressive title “Research Alliance on renjian-fojiao-Thought and Practise Base for the Sinicization of Buddhism in the Yangzi River Delta” (Renjian fojiao sixiang yanjiu lianmeng ji Changsanjiao fojiao zhongguohua shijian jidi 人間佛教思想研究聯盟既長三角佛教中國化實踐基地). |
| 61 | See, for an overview of an (ongoing) discussion, (Schmidt-Leukel 2006). |
| 62 | In December 2022, I visited an exhibition with the Chinese title 入世佛教面面觀, translated into English as “Engaged Buddhisms” at Fo Guang University on the first day. After leaving, I was told by the organizers that the exhibition was only a preliminary version. It was unclear to me which details were “incomplete”. But one can assume that it is still a challenge for “concept-affirming” proponents of “renjian fojiao” like the Fo Guang Shan to make clear where they stand. Interestingly, the Fo Guang Shan brought over the Chinese “rushi fojiao” instead of “canyu fojiao”. In the exhibition’s introduction, which refers to Ann Gleig’s entry on “Engaged Buddhism” in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion (2021), a very brief history of “Engaged Buddhism” started (historically) with Ambedkar and Thích Nhất Hạnh. There it added: “Recently, scholars have also pointed out that the reform of Chinese Buddhism by grandmaster Taixu (1890–1947) had some impact on ‘rushi fojiao’ [‘Engaged Buddhism’]” (近來，學界也指出太虛大師（1890–1947）對中國佛教的改革，曾對“入世佛教”產生若干影響). Unexpectedly, the poster on Thích Nhất Hạnh did not include a reference to Taixu, though their indirect relation has become part of the narrative in many Chinese-speaking reports on “Engaged Buddhism.” |
| 63 | A further example that demonstrates how the Fo Guang Shan promotes the image of a “renjian fojiao”, which is not far removed from the more political concept of “rushi fojiao”, is the scholarly contribution by Jai Ben-Jay at a Fo Guang Shan conference, entitled “The ‘rushi-Participation’ of ‘renjian-fojiao’”, where he concludes:
|
| 64 | See for example (Lele 2019; Hsu 2022). |
| 65 | The Hong Kong conference “Beyond Civilizational Clash: The Coalescence of Human Civilization” in August 2023 was an excellent example of how confusing a “scientific” conference can be: The English title of a Sub-Conference did not contain half of the Chinese version and vice versa (Engl.: “Engaged Buddhism for an Engulfed World: New Perspectives on Humanistic Buddhism”; Chin.:“競爭與互鑒： ‘人間佛教’面臨的現實情境與佛教的跨文化傳播”). Furthermore, the Chinese summary only focused on “renjian fojiao”, whereas the English version “translated” “renjian fojiao” as “Humanistic Buddhism” and “Engaged Buddhism”. |
References
- Ang, Choo Hong 洪祖丰. 2011. Hewei “rushi fojiao”? 何謂入世佛教？ [What does “rushi fojiao” Mean?]. Cibei 慈悲 [Compassion] 75. Available online: http://liaukm.blogspot.com/2011/07/blog-post_26.html (accessed on 26 October 2023).
- BAC Buddhist Association of China 中國佛教協會. 2012. Fojiao de rushi zhi dao 佛教的入世之道 [The Way of Buddhism Entering the World]. Probably Deleted Recently, Together with the Whole Rubric of foxue yanjiu 佛學研究 [Buddhist Studies]). First Published under the Name Shi Suo 釋索 in Fayin 法音 200 (First Published 2001): 11. Available online: https://www.chinabuddhism.com.cn/yj/2012-11-08/1841.html (accessed on 9 July 2023).
- Bingenheimer, Marcus. 2007. Some Remarks on the Usage of Renjian Fojiao 人間佛教 and the Contribution of Venerable Yinshun to Chinese Buddhist Modernism. In Development and Practice of Humanitarian Buddhism: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Edited by Mutsu Hsu, Jinhua Chen and Lori Meeks. Hua-lien: Tzuchi University Press, pp. 141–61. [Google Scholar]
- Chao-hwei [釋]昭慧. 2007a. Hainei cun zhiji, tianya ruo bilin 海內存知己，天涯若比鄰 [As Long as We Are True Friends, Even If the Friends Are Far Away, It Still Feels Like They Are Next Door]. Translated by David Reid. Hongshi 弘誓 89. Available online: https://www.hongshi.org.tw/userfiles/ethics/hongshi/mag/89/89-2.htm (accessed on 7 December 2023).
- Chao-hwei [釋]昭慧. 2007b. Yuanqi, husheng, zhongdao. Chushi yu rushi zhijian de pingheng ganggan 緣起、護生、中道—出世與入世之間的平衡槓桿 [Conditioned Arising, Protecting Life, and the Middle Way. The Balancing Between chushi and rushi]. Hongshi 弘誓 89. Available online: https://www.hongshi.org.tw/article-view.php?code=EA7CFE0F2B68F05C9BB61627ED747C95#gsc.tab=0 (accessed on 7 December 2023).
- Chao-hwei [釋]昭慧. 2012. Yinshun xue yu renjian fojiao—You “wuzheng zhi bian” dao “qiutong cunyi” 印順學與人間佛教——由「無諍之辯」到「求同存異」 [Yin Shun Scholasticism and renjian fojiao: From “Arguing Without Controversy” to “Seeking Unity while Reserving Diversity”]. Xuanzang Foxue Yanjiu 玄奘佛學研究 [Hsuan chuang Journal of Buddhist Studies] 17/3: 1–32. [Google Scholar]
- Chau, Ngoc Thanh [釋]行秀. 2013. Xingyun dashi “renjian fojiao” sixiang yu Yixing chanshi “rushi fojiao” sixiang de bijiao yanjiu《星雲大師「人間佛教」思想與一行禪師「入世佛教」思想比較研究》 [A Comparative Study of Venerable Master [Hsing Yun]’s “Humanistic Buddhism” and Thích Nhất Hạnh’s “Engaged Buddhism”]. In “Renjian fojiao congshu” 2013 Xingyun dashi renjian fojiao lilun shijian yanjiu (xia) 《人間佛教叢書》2013星雲大師人間佛教理論實踐研究(下) [Series on Humanistic Buddhism. 2013. Studies on Theory and Practice of Humanistic Buddhism of Grandmaster Xingyun]. Edited by Foguangshan Renjian Fojiao Yanjiuyuan 佛光山人間佛教研究院 [Fo Guang Shan Institute of Humanistic Buddhism]. Gaoxiong: Foguang Wenhua Shiye Gongsi 佛光文化事業公司, pp. 652–703. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Bing 陳兵, Li Yin 尹立, Tongbin Luo 羅同兵, and Yonghui Wang 王永會. 2000. Renjian fojiao 人間佛教. Shijiazhuang: Hebeisheng Fojiao Xiehui 河北省佛教協會. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Wenling 陳文玲. 2010. Taiwan fojiao de duoyuan zongjiao shijian yu “rushi fojiao” de guoji jiegui 灣佛敎的多元宗敎實踐與「人世佛敎」的國際接軌 [The Diverse Religious Practices of Buddhism in Taiwan and the International Convergence of “rushi fojiao”]. In 2010 Taiwan Zongjiao Xuehui Nianhui 2010 台灣宗敎學會年會 [2010 Annual Conference of the Taiwan Association for Religious Studies]. Taiwan: Taiwan Zongjiao Xuehui 台灣宗敎學會 [Taiwan Association for Religious Studies], pp. 71–83. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Wenling 陳文玲, and Shih Chuan-Fa 釋傳法. 2017. Guoji rushi fojiao xiehui di 18 jie shuangnianhui baodao 國際入世佛教協會第18屆雙年會報導 [Report on the 18th Biennal Conference of the International Network of Engaged Buddhists]. Hongshi 弘誓 151: 6–20. [Google Scholar]
- Chiang, Tsan-Teng 江燦騰, and Chao-hwei [釋]昭慧. 2002. Shiji xinsheng: Dangdai Taiwan fojiao de rushi yu chushi zhi zheng 世紀新聲：當代台灣佛教的入世與出世之爭 [New Declaration for the 21st Century: The Struggle about “rushi” and “chushi” in Contemporary Buddhism in Taiwan]. Taoyuan: Fajie Chubanshe 法界出版社. [Google Scholar]
- Chiu, Min-chieh 邱敏捷. 2011. “Yinshun xuepai de chengli, fenliu yu fazhan” fangtanlu “印順學派的成立、分流與發展”訪談錄 [Interviews on the “Establishment, Division and Development of Yin Shun School”]. Tainan: Miaoxin Chubanshe 妙心出版社. [Google Scholar]
- Deng, Zimei 鄧子美. 2011. Renjian fojiao gainian de xiqing yu jieding 人間佛教概念的釐清與界定 [Clarification and Definition of the Concept of renjian fojiao]. Renjian fojiao yanjiu 人間佛教研究 [International Journal for the Study of Humanistic Buddhism] 1: 55–73. [Google Scholar]
- DeVido, Elise A. 2009. The Influence of Chinese Master Taixu on Buddhism in Vietnam. Journal of Global Buddhism 10: 413–58. [Google Scholar]
- Gallie, Walter Bryce. 1956. Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56: 167–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gleig, Ann. 2021. Engaged Buddhism. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia, Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goh, Tay Hock 吳德福. 2021. Rushi fojiao. renjian fojiao 入世佛教·人間佛教 [“rushi fojiao” and “renjian fojiao”]. Available online: https://www.enanyang.my/%E7%99%BB%E5%BD%BC%E5%B2%B8/%E5%85%A5%E4%B8%96%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%C2%B7%E4%BA%BA%E9%97%B4%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E5%90%B4%E5%BE%B7%E7%A6%8F (accessed on 9 July 2023).
- Hong, Xiuping 洪修平, ed. 2024. Jinxiandai fojiao rushi zhuanxing yanjiu 近現代佛教入世轉型 [Studies on the rushi-Transformation of Modern Buddhism]. Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe 中國社會科學出版社. [Google Scholar]
- Hongshi 弘誓. 2007. INEB2007 quanqiu dahui laibin fangtan jiyao INEB2007全球大會來賓訪談紀要 [Interviews with the Conference Guests of INEB 2007]. Hongshi 弘誓 89. Available online: https://www.hongshi.org.tw/userfiles/ethics/hongshi/mag/89/89-6.htm (accessed on 8 September 2024).
- Hongshi 弘誓. 2017. Fanei shouzude lishixing jihui 法內手足的歷史性集 [Historical Assembly of Dharma Friends]. Hongshi 弘誓 151: 1–51. Available online: https://hongshi.org.tw/admin/upload/file/151hongshi-10702.pdf (accessed on 7 September 2024).
- Hsu, Alexander O. 2022. Coming to Terms with “Engaged Buddhism”: Periodizing, Provincializing, and Politicizing the Concept. Journal of Global Buddhism 23/1: 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ip, Hung-yok. 2009. Buddhist Activism and Chinese Modernity. Journal of Global Buddhism 10: 145–92. [Google Scholar]
- Jai, Ben-Ray 翟本瑞. 2016. Renjian fojiao de rushi canyu 人間佛教的入世參與 [The “rushi-Participation” of “renjian-fojiao”]. Renjian fojiao xuebao yiwen 《人間佛教》學報‧藝文 [Humanistic Buddhism. Journal, Arts, and Culture] 5: 32–61. [Google Scholar]
- Ji, Zhe. 2012. Chinese Buddhism as a Social Force. Reality and Potential of Thirty Years of Revival. Chinese Sociological Review 45/2: 8–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ji, Zhe, and Xuan Fang. 2023. The “Sinicization” of Religion: Culture as Political Rhetoric. Review of Religion and Chinese Society 10: 78–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, Sallie B. 2009. Engaged Buddhism and Humanistic Buddhism: A Comparison of Principles and Practices. In 2009 nian foxue yanjiu lunwenji. Renjian fojiao ji canyu fojiao moshi yu zhanwang 2009年佛學研究論文集—人間佛教及參與佛教模式與展望 [2009 Collection of Essays on Buddhist Studies—Models and Prospects of Humanistic Buddhism and Engaged Buddhism]. Edited by Fo Guang Shan 佛光山. pp. 422–45. [Google Scholar]
- King, Sallie B. 2018. The Ethics of Engaged Buddhism in Asia. In The Oxford Handbook of Buddhist Ethics. Edited by Daniel Cozort and James Marc Shields. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 479–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraft, Kenneth. 2000. New Voices in Engaged Buddhist Studies. In Engaged Buddhism in the West. Edited by Christopher S. Queen. Boston: Wisdom Publications, pp. 485–511. [Google Scholar]
- Krause, Carsten. 2019. Changing Functions of renjian fojiao 人间佛教 in Mainland China. Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies 17: 117–43. [Google Scholar]
- Krause, Carsten. 2021. Zur “Sinisierung” der Religionen: Was heißt das für Buddhisten? [On the “Sinisation” of Religions: What Does That Mean for Buddhists?]. China Heute 209: 37–51. [Google Scholar]
- Krause, Carsten. 2023. The Invention and Vicissitudes of the “Three Great Marvelous Traditions” (san da youliang chuantong 三大优良传统) in Contemporary Chinese Buddhism. Review of Religion and Chinese Society 10: 38–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laliberté, André. 2024. “Buddhism(s) for this World” and “Engaged Buddhism”: Some Key Differences. Journal of Social Innovation and Knowledge 1: 44–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lau, Lawrence Y. K. 劉宇光. 2006. Zuoyi fojiao (Engaged Buddhism): Jijin foxue, shisu gongmin shehui yu xiandai fojiao de zhengzhi fanxing 左翼佛教（Engaged Buddhism）: 激進佛學、世俗公民社會與現代佛教的政治反省 [Zuoyi fojiao (Engaged Buddhism): Progressive Buddhism, Secular Civil Society, and Political Reflection in Modern Buddhism]. Shijie Zongjiao Xuekan 世界宗教學刊 [Journal of World Religions] 6: 1–42. [Google Scholar]
- Lau, Lawrence Y. K. 劉宇光. 2019. Zuoyi fojiao he gongmin shehui. Taiguo he Malaixiya de fojiao gonggong jieru zhi yanjiu 左翼佛教和公民社會——泰國和馬來西亞的佛教公共介入之研究 [Le Bouddhisme engagé and Civil Society. A Study of Buddhist Public Engagement in Thailand and Malaysia]. Taoyuan: Fajie Chubanshe 法界出版社. [Google Scholar]
- Lele, Amod. 2019. Disengaged Buddhism. Journal of Buddhist Ethics 26: 240–89. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Silong 李四龍. 2009. Oumei fojiao xueshu shi: Xifang de fojiao xingxiang zu xueshu yuanliu 歐美佛教學術史：西方的佛教形象與學術源流 [A History of Buddhist Studies in Europe and America]. Beijing: Beijing Daxue Chubanshe. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Wen-Fang 劉文芳 [also Shih Chuan-Fa 釋傳法]. 2019. Nanbeichuan rushi fojiao zai Taiwan de huiyu: Yi fojiao hongshi xueyuan yu Taiguo guoji rushi fojiao xiehui de jiaoliu wei li 南北傳入世佛教在台灣的會遇：以佛教弘誓學院與泰國國際入世佛教協會的交流為例 [The Encounter between Theravada Engaged Buddhism and Mahayana Engaged Buddhism in Taiwan: The Interaction between Buddhist Hongshi College and International Network of Engaged Buddhists]. Ph.D. dissertation, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Yuanchun 刘元春. 2004. Huadao yu fansi—fojiao rushi zhi dao 化導與反思—佛教入世之道 [Transformation and Reflection—The Buddhist Way of Entering the World]. Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe 中國社會科學出版社. [Google Scholar]
- Ly Thi Suong [Shi Shenshui 释真水]. 2020. Yixing chanshi rushi fojiao sixiang jiqi guoji jiaowang yanjiu 一行禪師入世佛教思想及其國際交往研究 [The Study of Zen Master Thích Nhất Hạnh’s Engaged Buddhism and Its International Buddhist Exchange]. Master’s thesis, Xibei Daxue 西北大學 [Northwest University], Xi’an, China. [Google Scholar]
- Madsen, Richard. 2007. Democracy’s Dharma: Religious Renaissance and Political Development in Taiwan. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
- Main, Jessica L., and Rongdao Lai. 2013. Introduction: Reformulating “Socially Engaged Buddhism” as an Analytical Category. The Eastern Buddhist 44/2: 1–34. [Google Scholar]
- Morgan, Peggy. 2004. Skillful Means and Socially Engaged Buddhism. In New Paths in the Study of Religion: Festschrift in Honour of Michael Pye on His 65th Birthday. Edited by Christoph Kleine, Monika Schrimpf and Katja Triplett. Munich: Biblion Verlag, pp. 359–69. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, Thi Cam 阮氏錦. 2016. Yixing chanshi de rushi fojiao guan 一行禪師的入世佛教觀 [Thích Nhất Hạnh’s View of Engaged Buddhism]. Nan Minzu daxue xuebao 南民族大學學報 [Journal of Southwest Minzu University] 3. Available online: https://kknews.cc/culture/o8pvko.html (accessed on 7 September 2024).
- Nguyen, [Thi] Ha An 阮[氏]荷安. 2016. Yixing chanshi de rushi fojiao sixiang yu Yuenan renjian fojiao tanxi 一行禪師的入世佛教思想與越南人間佛教探析 [A Study of Master Thích Nhất Hạnh’s Engaged Buddhism and Vietnamese Humanistic Buddhism]. In Fayu zhongguo—Purun yazhou: Renjian fojiao zai dongya yu dongnanya de kaizhan 法雨中國–普潤亞洲：人間佛教在東亞與東南亞的開展 [Rained in China—Benefiting Asia: The Development of Humanistic Buddhism in East and Southeast Asia]. Edited by Chen Chien-huang 陳劍鍠. Hong Kong: Xianggang Zhongwen Daxue Renjian Fojiao Yanjiu Zhongxin 香港中文大學人間佛教研究中心 [Centre for the Study of Humanistic Buddhism of the Chinese University of Hong Kong], pp. 262–92. [Google Scholar]
- Prebish, Charles. 2024a. The New Panditas. Available online: https://www.lionsroar.com/the-new-panditas/ (accessed on 29 August 2024).
- Prebish, Charles, ed. 2024b. Generations of Buddhist Studies. A Collection of Biographical/Career Sketches and Reflections on the Field of Buddhist Studies. Available online: https://networks.h-net.org/group/39 (accessed on 29 August 2024).
- Queen, Christopher S. 1996. Introduction: The Shapes and Sources of Engaged Buddhism. In Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia. Edited by Christopher S. Queen and Sallie B. King. Albany: State University of New York Press. [Google Scholar]
- Queen, Christopher S., and Sallie B. King, eds. 1996. Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia. Albany: State University of New York Press. [Google Scholar]
- Renjianshe 人间社. 2007. Guoji rushi fojiao xiehui 2007 quanqiu dahui 國際入世佛教協會 2007 全球大會 [2007 Global Assembly of the International Network of Engaged Buddhists]. Available online: https://fo.ifeng.com/news/detail_2007_09/07/238970_0.shtml (accessed on 23 November 2023).
- Rocha, Christine, and Martin Baumann. 2008. Introduction: Buddhists and Scholars of Buddhism: Blurred Distinctions in Contemporary Buddhist Studies. Journal of Global Buddhism 9: 81–82. [Google Scholar]
- Saik, Chee Teng 释光持. 2022. Malaixiya fojiao qingnian yundong yanjiu. Yi Malaixiya fojiao qingnian zonghui wei zhongxin 馬來西亞佛教青年運動研究——以馬來西亞佛教青年總會為中心 [A Study on Young Buddhist Movement in Malaysia: Centered on the Young Buddhist Association of Malaysia]. Ph.D. dissertation, Renmin University, Beijing, China. [Google Scholar]
- Salguero, C. Pierce, and Emily Lang. 2024. The Secret Spiritual Lives of Buddhist Studies Scholars—Buddhistdoor Global. Available online: https://www.buddhistdoor.net/features/the-secret-spiritual-lives-of-buddhist-studies-scholars/ (accessed on 29 August 2024).
- Sang Ho (also Fuxi [釋]福喜). 2012. Yixing chanshi “rushi fojiao” yu Xingyun fashi “renjian fojiao” zhi yanjiu《一行禪師「入世佛教」與星雲法師「人間佛教」之研究》 [The “Engaged Buddhism” of Ven. Thích Nhất Hạnh and the “Humanistic Buddhism” of Ven. Hsing Yun]. Master’s thesis, Hsuan Chuang University, Hsinchu, Taiwan. [Google Scholar]
- Schmidt-Leukel, Perry. 2006. Exclusivism, Inclusivism, Pluralism. The Tripolar Typology Clarified and Reaffirmed. In The Myth of Religious Superiority. A Multifaith Exploration. Edited by Paul F. Knitter. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, pp. 13–26. [Google Scholar]
- Shi Suo 釋索. 2001. Fojiao rushi zhi dao 佛教入世之道 [The Buddhist Entering the World]. Fayin 法音 [Voice of Dharma] 9: 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Taixu 太虛. 1998. Xuexing 學行 [Travel of Learning]. In Taixu dashi quanshu 太虛大師全書 [The Collected Works of Great Master Taixu]. Edited by Yinshun 印順. Taibei: Shandaosi Fojing Liutongchu 善導寺佛經流通處, Cited from CBETA 2023.Q3, TX18, no. 10. [Google Scholar]
- Temprano, Victor Gerard. 2013. Defining Engaged Buddhism: Traditionalists, Modernists, and Scholastic Power. Buddhist Studies Review 30/2: 261–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thich, Nhat Hanh. 1967. Vietnam: Lotus in a Sea of Fire. New York: Hill and Wang. [Google Scholar]
- Thich, Nhat Hanh. 2008. Dharma Talk: History of Engaged Buddhism—The Mindfulness Bell. Available online: https://www.parallax.org/mindfulnessbell/article/dharma-talk-history-of-engaged-buddhism/ (accessed on 6 December 2023).
- Travagnin, Stefania. 2022. Humanistic Buddhism (Rensheng Fojiao 人生佛教/Renjian Fojiao 人间佛教). Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xuan, Fang 宣方. 2005. Zuowei fangfa de Yinshun: Wenti yishi, quanshi xiaoying ji qita. 作為方法的印順：問題意識、詮釋效應及其它 [Yin Shun as Method: Problem Awareness, Interpretive Effects, and Beyond]. Hongshi 弘誓 76. Available online: https://www.hongshi.org.tw/article-view.php?code=113C5BFDCCA80EAA5B313E54F163F268#gsc.tab=0 (accessed on 7 December 2023).
- Xue, Yu 学愚, ed. 2010. Chushi yu rushi 出世與入世 [Entering the World and Leaving the World]. Beijing: Zhongguo Shehuikexue Chubanshe 中國社會科學出版社. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Huinan 楊惠南. 2006. Dangdai Taiwan fojiao “chushi” xingge de fenxi 當代台灣佛教「出世」性格的分析 [Analysis of the character of “chushi” in Contemporary Taiwanese Buddhism]. Reprinted in Yang, Huinan 楊惠. Dangdai fojiao sixiang zhanwang 當代佛教思想展望 [Prospects of Contemporary Buddhist Thought]. Taipei: Dongda 東大, pp. 1–38. First published 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Nan 杨楠. 2022. Yixing chanshi: Fang zhadan dazai renmen shenshang 一行禪師：當炸彈打在人們身上 [Master Thích Nhất Hạnh: When Bombs Were Shot at People]. Nanfang renwu zhoukan 南方人物週刊. Available online: https://www.nfpeople.com/article/11220 (accessed on 9 July 2023).
- Yo, Hsiang-chou 游祥洲. 2007a. Guoji rushi fojiao xiehui qian liangci de quanqiu dahui 國際入世佛教協會前兩次的全球大會 [About the Two Previous Global Conferences of the International Network of Engaged Buddhists]. Hongshi 弘誓 89. Available online: https://www.hongshi.org.tw/article-view.php?code=8EC6E2F8C753719D9B8857E9D080F3D0#gsc.tab=0 (accessed on 7 December 2023).
- Yo, Hsiang-chou 游祥洲. 2007b. Lun quanqiu rushi fojiao zhi fazhan jinlu—jianlun qi sheji gonggong shiwu shi zhi zhengzhi quxiang 論全球入世佛教之發展進路—兼論其涉及公共事務時之政治取向 [On the Development Approach of Global Engaged Buddhism. Discussing its Political Orientation with Regard to Participation in Public Affairs]. Hongshi 弘誓 88. Available online: https://www.hongshi.org.tw/userfiles/ethics/hongshi/mag/88/88-2.htm (accessed on 7 December 2023).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).