The Influence of “Using the Temple Property for Schools” Movement on the Organization of Han Buddhist Monastic Education in Modern China

Abstract

Under the influence of “Using the Temple Property for Schools”(UTPSs) movement, the monastic education of Han Buddhism 漢傳佛教僧教育 in modern China, as a whole, has gradually moved towards the mode of Buddhist colleges, through the establishment of the Buddhist Educational Affairs Public Office (BEAPO) 佛教學務公所, the Institution of Monastic Education (IME) 僧教育會, and the institution of Buddhist education 佛教教育機構 with international outlook and has become the prototype of the educational institution of Han Buddhism in contemporary China. The attempts to run schools during the period of the BEAPO at the late Qing Dynasty objectively stimulated the awakening of the consciousness of the Buddhist community to establish schools and to promote education 辦學興教 and became the precursor of the rise of the wave of monastic education after the Xinhai Revolution, especially since the 1920s. The goal of “uniting the national Buddhism” proposed by the BEAPO became the direction for the development of subsequent Buddhist organizations. The BEAPO also accumulated experiences for the construction of later Buddhist organizations and stimulated the awakening of the monks’ sense of subjectivity. The organizational structure and many ideas of the BEAPO were later inherited by the IME; most of the contents of the constitution of it were also inherited and improved by the IME. As a Buddhist organization, the BEAPO made positive efforts to reconcile the tensions between monks and laypeople under the context of UTPS at that time. After the Xinhai Revolution, the Han Buddhist community focused on interacting with secular society, and the practice of Buddhist education reflected the awakening of self-consciousness to “establish schools to promote education”. In terms of the school operation mode, the diversified curriculum and modernized academic system reflect the characteristic of a balance between internal and external studies. During this period, the establishment of Buddhist educational institutions with an international outlook provided a guarantee of talent for the path of the “universalization” of Han Buddhism, as well as provided continuity for the sustainable development of it. Under the influence of the two UTPS movements, the tortuous development of Han Buddhist monastic education in modern China is, in fact, the epitome of the situation of the whole Chinese Buddhism in modern society. At the same time, it also reflects the proactive adaptation of Chinese Buddhism, in modern times, to external pressures and its self-remodeling in the struggle for survival space.

1. Introduction

The dichotomy of “Zhong Xi” (中西) and “Gu Jin” (古今), i.e., how to choose between “East and West” and “tradition and modernity”, was a major issue that modern China pondered at the crossroads. This issue involves the choice of political system, the direction of the trend of culture and other questions. China’s loss in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894–1895 and other resistance further stimulated the Chinese intellectuals on striving for strength and reform. Many intellectuals proposed to establish industry, revitalize education, and then achieve national wealth and strength. Under this background, it became a basic consensus among all ranks and classes of modern China to run a new style of education and to learn advanced ideas and technologies from the West. However, the government of the late Qing Dynasty was poor in financial resources and was pounded on all sides. Under such circumstances, it was proposed that all kinds of ancestral halls and temples throughout the country should be converted into places for running schools in order to realize the goal of saving the country through education. The movement of “Using the Temple Property for Schools” (UTPS) refers to the “movements that emerged in the late Qing Dynasty and flourished during the period of the Republic of China, which used temple buildings, fields and properties around the country to establish education, including the allocation of temple properties and fields to subsidize tuition fees, and the use of temple buildings as school buildings” (Ji 2015). Influenced by this movement, Chinese Han Buddhism has changed from passively running schools to actively doing so and propelled the process of the organization of monastic education, through the creation of the Buddhist Educational Affairs Public Office (BEAPO), the reorganization of the Institution of Monastic Education (IME), and the establishment of Buddhist colleges with a global perspective.

Initially, Kang Youwei 康有為 filed a petition to the Guangxu Emperor in 1898, titled “Requesting the Transformation of Academies and Unofficial Temples into Schools in Various Provinces” 請飭各省改書院淫祠為學堂折 (Kang 2018, pp. 336–38), advocating for the conversion of numerous temples into schools and the use of public properties as public funds. Subsequently, on 20 May 1989 of the Lunar Calendar, Guangxu Emperor issued an oracle,1 “As for the folk temples, those that are not included in the official canon of sacrifices should be ordered by the local officials to be transformed into schools according to the people’s wishes” (Tang and Chen 1993, p. 56). A dozen days later, on the seventh day of the sixth lunar month, Zhang Zhidong 張之洞 presented specific measures for UTPS to Guangxu Emperor, and this was recognized by the Emperor (Z. Zhang 1973, p. 14537). Since then, the UTPS movement was rapidly carried out in all parts in the country, and this was the first movement of UTPS in modern China. As the religion with the larger property, Buddhism was naturally hit harder by this movement. Overall, the attitude of the monks during the first UTPS movement was mostly one of avoidance and wait-and-see, “the courts order had just been issued, and the monks were glad that they temporarily did not need to raise or manage temple properties” (Education Magazine (Tianjin) 1905, issue 16, p. 8). Some scholars pointed out the politico-religious relationship in the late Qing Dynasty: “Late Qing state agents and local elites partook in a project to implement a homogeneous, elite religious culture throughout China. Under pressure and incentive, many local religious communities and specialists adapted to this drive, but most aspects of such adaptation are better analyzed as accommodation and disguise than actual cultural homogenization” (Goossaert and Palmer 2011, p. 34). In the first movement of UTPS, the attitude of the Chinese Buddhist community of “passively running a school” reflected the dynamics of the relationship between religion and state. Therefore, if we look at it in the context of the politico-religious relationship in modern China, the first movement of UTPS reflects the reconsideration of the modern Chinese government with the politico-religious relationship. “From 1898 to 1911, and later during the whole course of the twentieth century, the confiscation and destruction of temples were more than a side effect of social and political modernization. They were the effect of a religious policy, that is, a conscious, purposeful new relationship between the state and religious institutions, and this policy was initiated by the religious reform heralded in 1898” (ibid., p. 49).

There have been two movements of UTPS in the history of modern Chinese Buddhism, except for the first UTPS at the end of the Qing Dynasty, the second one appeared from 1912 to 1937. The common denominator of the two UTPS movements was the government’s implementation of the conversion of temple property into schools, so that the issue of “temple property” was an important thread, in fact, throughout the development of Buddhist education in modern China. However, there was a slight difference between the two movements. In the first, the monks were passive in running schools in order to protect the temple property in disguise, believing that they could avoid the confiscation of the temple property by running their own Buddhist education. In the second, Chinese Buddhism began to realize that in order to revive Buddhism, it was necessary to cultivate talents, and the attitude of running schools began to change from “passive” to “active”. The scramble for temple property was not only reflected in the response to the government’s second UTPS movement but also in the different attitudes of the conservatives and reformers within Buddhism towards running schools.

The brief period of Sun Yat-sen’s government was characterized by a relatively lax religious policy, not only because of the nascent regime’s need to unite all segments of society, but also “without the support of religious groups, the Nationalist Republicans would have found it difficult to survive and succeed in overthrowing the Qing Dynasty during the Chinese Republican Revolution in the first decade of the twentieth century” (Tao 2017). However, after Dr. Sun Yat-sen, the government’s management of religion became increasingly strict, and the development of the second UTPS movement was roughly divided into two stages. The first stage was 1912–1929. At this stage, the management of temples was based on three temple management regulations issued by the Beiyang Government, which were the “Provisional Rules for the Management of Temples” (PRMT) in 1913; the “Regulations for the Management of Temples” (RMT), with 31 articles, in 1915; and the “Revised Regulations for the Management of Temples” (RRMT), with 24 articles, in 1921. At this stage, the wave of school building in China was still going on, and the building of schools on temple property was still one of the most important ways to realize the goal of running schools. A wave of confiscation of temple property to build schools arose at that time in Zhejiang, Jiangsu, Anhui, Sichuan, Guangdong, Guizhou, Chahar, Shaanxi, Gansu, and other places, and lawsuits concerning the seizure of temple property were still coming out one after another at that time. The second stage began in January 1929, when Nanjing National Government published a single-issue legislation of temple management, namely “Ordinance on Management of Temples” (OMT), and this stage was ended in 1937 with the outbreak of the Anti-Japanese War. During this time, there was a prominent proposal within the National Government’s Ministry of Interior at that time, which was the idea of converting monasteries and temples into schools. Tai Shuangqiu 邰爽秋,2 a professor of the Central University, put forward the specific program of UTPS (Mingyang and Zhaocheng 2004, p. 66), which once again stimulated the Chinese Buddhist community, which had just experienced the UTPS movement in the late Qing Dynasty. The development of the second UTPS was influenced by changes in the government’s policy on temple management, and judging from the Buddhist community’s reaction to the policy, one of the greatest concerns and influences continues to be the provisions relating to the issue of temple property.

From a comprehensive point of view, from the perspective of the vertical development process, there are two stages of the modern Chinese UTPS movement; the first stage is 1898–1911, that is, initiated by Guangxu Emperor, the first UTPS movement was motivated by using the temple property to run a school to seek the country’s wealth and strength. The second stage is 1912–1937; that is, in the context of the continuous wave of modern education, the government of the Republic of China promulgated a series of temple management regulations.

Under the influence of the two UTPS movements, the development of the organization of Buddhist education in China can be divided into three phases: the first is the period of the BEAPO from 1898 to 1906; the second is the transitional phase of the process of organizing Buddhism in China, i.e., the period of the IME, which lasted from 1907 to 1911; and the third is the period of the organized attempts of Chinese Buddhism to run schools on its own initiative and to run schools in a global way, which lasted from 1912 to 1937.

From the above background, it can be seen that the development of monastic education of Han Buddhism in modern China has always been accompanied by the entanglement of “the Issue of Temple Property”. In fact, it has become one of the important and consistent threads in the development of Han Buddhism in modern China. The idea of establishing a Buddhist organization in a Chinese Buddhist community originated from the external pressure of the late Qing Dynasty’s UTPS movement and was realized in the context of the UTPS movement of Republic of China. The establishment of monastic education and the search for a unified Buddhist organization were almost simultaneous. The organization of Han Buddhist monastic education in China was profoundly influenced by the two movements of UTPS. Therefore, in terms of research perspectives, this paper tries to take the two UTPS movements as an important motive in the process of organizing Buddhist education in modern times, and it is the stimulation of the two UTPS movements that made the Chinese Buddhist community advance the development of Buddhist education from passive to active in a difficult way. In terms of the use of materials, some scholars have suggested that “most of the previous studies of modern Buddhism have been limited to the use of internal materials, such as monks’ writings, Buddhist periodicals, and monastic internal documents, but seldom used public documents outside the Buddhism, such as the general press, governmental archives, and extra-religious collected works, and even less attention was paid to the use of foreign archival materials” (S. Wang 2018, p. 388). Taking into account both internal and external Buddhist literature, this paper attempts to outline the three phases of Buddhist education and its basic patterns in modern China, under the influence of the two UTPS movements.

2. Buddhist Educational Affairs Public Office: The Beginning of the Organization of Han Buddhist Monastic Education in China

The first UTPS movement in the late Qing Dynasty was the most direct and important internal motive for the establishment of the BEAPO. In the course of the movement, the phenomenon of compulsory donating of temple property radicalized the conflicts between the monks and the laypeople; the monks in Zhejiang Province attempted to protect the temple property attached to the Japanese Honganji Temple 本願寺, and all these became the direct cause of the establishment of the BEAPO.

When the first UTPS movement began in the late Qing Dynasty, the phenomenon of compulsory donating of temple property, creating troubles on the pretext of excuses, which occurred in many places, became one of the direct causes of the establishment of the BEAPO, although Guangxu Emperor issued an edict to stop, with little effect. During this period, the monks tried to resolve disputes over temple properties and achieve the goal of protecting these assets through legal proceedings. However, the actual results did not meet expectations; disputes over temple properties in various places continued unabated, with such incidents increasing and frequently reported in the media. In an effort to protect part of the temple properties, some monasteries even resorted to the strategy of sacrificing the lesser to save the greater. “With no other choice, they had to leave sixty acres of land in the temple for the younger monks to clean and worship Buddha, using the remaining eighty-six acres as funds to establish their own primary school” (Education Magazine (Tianjin) 1905, issue 16, p. 8). The authorities also praised such actions in order to promote the movement of UTPS, commending it by saying “this approach has far exceeded the ordinary situation and is exceptionally outstanding” (ibid.). In this process, the Chinese Han Buddhist community in the late Qing Dynasty attempted to reshape its social role and enhance its social discourse by passively managing education and attempting to establish Buddhist organizations, in order to achieve the inherent demand for protecting temple property.

As the problem of the misappropriation of temple property became more and more prominent, and the way of resistance through evasion and litigation did not achieve the expected results, the monks had to turn to themselves as a way of solving this problem. They began to plan for the establishment of a Buddhist organization to run a school on their own initiative as a way of avoiding the encroachment of temple property. Therefore, this period of Buddhist education was not a conscious and voluntary behavior of the Chinese Buddhist community. In fact, it was an expedient measure, under the pressure of UTPS, for the Buddhist community to protect temple property. The initiative to establish the organization was also an attempt to reshape the social role of Buddhism itself, to enhance its own voice and social participation and to realize the demand for the protection of temple property and the safeguarding of the rights and interests of Chinese Buddhism. From this point of view, the practice of running schools and establishing organizations in the Chinese Buddhist community during this period was a kind of “reluctant initiative under compulsion”.

The incident in which Zhejiang monks attached themselves to the Japanese Honganji Temple in order to protect the temple property was the second direct reason for the establishment of the BEAPO. This incident originated in 1905 when Zhejiang Provincial Governor Nie Zhongfang 聶仲芳 proposed to establish an Arts and Crafts Institute. Gao Eryi 高爾伊, who was responsible for the implementation, planned to take over Hangzhou Longxing Temple 龍興寺 on the pretext of insufficient funds, ordering the temple monks to relocate. “The monks were terrified and sought protection from the Japanese monk Ito Kenmi 伊藤賢道. Ito personally went to the temple to hang a plaque with the inscription ‘General Buddhist Teaching Ground’ 總佈教場” (Dongfang Magazine 1905, issue 3, p. 18). Subsequently, as Japanese monks from the Honganji Temple widely propagated their teachings in mainland China, Chinese monks, hearing rumors that temple property would be seized to fund school fees, became increasingly anxious, fearing the loss of their possessions. Consequently, thirty-five temples in Zhejiang Province, including Faxi Temple 法喜寺, were the first to openly convert to Japanese teachings, and corrupt monks in Quanzhou 泉州, Fujian, Liangzhou 廉州, Guangdong, as well as in the provinces of Hunan, Jiangsu, and Jiangxi, all harbored thoughts of relying on this foreign influence (Shen Bao 1905, April 14, p. 1). At the same time, the public was extremely dissatisfied with the expansion of missionary work by Japanese monks, and many Japanese temples were burned down, with extreme incidents such as the “Fuzhou 福州 Japanese Honganji Temple was burned down by local people” (The Universal Progressive Journal 1906, issue 101, p. 6).

The Zhejiang monks attached themselves to the Japanese Honganji Temple mainly to take advantage of the judicial privilege granted to foreign powers in China in 1843, known as “extraterritoriality”. This privilege was extended to Chinese converts under the protection of missionaries, who were no longer subject to the Chinese jurisdiction when they broke the law. As a matter of fact, some Chinese monks at that time tried to attach themselves to the Japanese Hongwanji Temple with the aim of protecting their temple properties by means of this judicial privilege and avoiding the impact of the UTPS movement. Officially, this makes local governance more difficult; from the perspective of the laypeople, there is an inequality in judicial rights between the general public and the converts. Both the authorities and the laypeople had strong resistance to the incident of thirty-five temples in Zhejiang attaching themselves to Japanese monks. Thus, some people called for the establishment of a BEAPO, pointing out “recently, in various places, monasteries have been preventing people from opening schools or using their buildings, and some have even turned to Japanese monks for protection. With the establishment of this public office, there is no need to worry about anything, and it is also a good opportunity to advance learning. It is truly the best thing to do, and I strongly advise monks to quickly join with the public office” (Shaoxing Vernacular Newspaper 1905, issue 104, p. 3).

In addition, there are some indirect reasons for the establishment of the BEAPO. For example, the differentiation of modern social structures has led to an increased willingness to organize associations spontaneously within the various groups in society. Among them, there are associations formed for specific purposes, which mainly include charitable groups, cultural and artistic organizations, revolutionary associations and political parties, national movement groups and social improvement groups, women’s groups, and religious organizations (Kohama 2003, pp. 34–36). The emergence of social associations in modern times influenced and informed the formation of organizations for the Buddhist community. In addition, during this period, overseas study in China was on the rise, especially when the number of students studying in Japan reached its peak,3 which led to the importation of new ideas, and new organizational concepts flowed into China, as well as the Chinese Buddhism, and influenced the shift of its concept of organizational value. At the same time, the consciousness of establishing Buddhist organizations began to awaken in the world during this period, such as the Buddhist Church of San Francisco established in North America in 1905 (Morgan 2004, p. 115), and the Young Men’s Buddhist Association established in Yangon (Sarkisyanz 2013, p. 128), Burma in 1906, which was the first modern Buddhist organization in the region. The establishment of Buddhist organizations has also become a trend in the development of Buddhism in the world. Some perceptive early Buddhist students who studied abroad keenly recognized this trend. Their advocacy and promotion became an important driving force for the establishment of the BEAPO. During the process of the establishment of BEAPO in various regions, some students who had returned from studying in Japan played a significant role. They had witnessed various schools set up within Japanese Buddhism and recognized that “the decline of our country’s Buddhism is due to the monks’ lack of learning” (Shi Bao 1905, June 23, p. 6); thus, after returning to the homeland, they all devoted themselves to appealing for and participating in the organization of the establishment of the BEAPOs. For instance, in 1905, the initiative to establish the Buddhist General Public Office of China 中國佛教總公所4 in Beijing was led by Shi Juexian 釋覺先, a Buddhist monk who had studied in Japan; “Wang Jun 汪君, a student from Zhejiang who studied in Japan”,5 was one of the initiators who planned the establishment of Zhejiang Buddhist General Office in 1905.

According to the author’s statistics, in 1905–1906, the Chinese Han Buddhism community established at least five BEAPOs, which are the General Public Office of Buddhist Education in China 中國佛教學務總公所 (1905), Zhejiang Buddhist General Public Office 浙江佛教總公所 (1906), Shanghai Buddhist Association 上海佛教公會 (1906), Ningbo Buddhist Public Office 寧波佛教公所 (1906), and Fengtian Buddhist Public Office 奉天佛教公所 (1906).

In terms of the organizational structure, BEAPO has the characteristic of taking into account both the monastic and the secular, with its members roughly divided into two parts: monks and laypeople. Take the Zhejiang BEAPO as an example, one part of the organizational structure was “a superintendent assigned by the school affairs office to preside over all matters of school affairs” (Beijing Daily 1905, vol. 7, p. 4); the other part was a group of monks, “a principal monk to preside over all matters within the office; two deputy monks to assist in all matters within the office; a secretary to take care of correspondence; an accountant to take care of incoming and outgoing money” (ibid.). The BEAPO established during this period was basically of this monastic and secular organizational structure, such as the abbot of Tiantong Temple 天童寺, Jing’ an (靜安), who planned to set up a Buddhist general office in Ningbo and also planned to invite principal and deputy superintendents from Confucianism and Buddhism. In the official reply, the local government specifically pointed out that “all gentries who apply for the positions of principal and deputy superintendent will be considered for extension of invitation and visitation by our office” (Shi Bao 1906b, September 27, p. 3), emphasizing that local government must personally assess the proposed superintendents for Buddhist offices before they can be employed. When the Shanghai Buddhist Association was established, it also focused on balancing both monastic and secular power, “raising Zhengsheng 正生, the president of Monks’ Association (僧會司) of Jing’ an Temple 靜安寺, as the president; and cordially inviting gentleman Chen and gentleman Yao to serve as members of the board of directors; furthermore, inviting approximately ten gentries to gather at various temples to deliberate and establish regulations, aiming to unite all the temples in the area into one entity without any discord” (Xinwen Bao 1906, October 5, p. 3). In terms of disciplinary mechanisms, the BEAPO also proactively coordinated with local government. For instance, the General Office of Buddhist Educational Affairs in China 中國佛教學務總公所 established four types of disciplinary measures in its statutes: “First, for those who break the rules, the BEAPO will ask the local government to handle the situation according to the law (送糾). Second, in serious cases, the Office will request the government to order the violators to leave the monastic life and return to being laypersons (削籍). Third, those who engage in misconduct while in their official duties, according to Article 31 of the regulations, will be dismissed from their positions (免職). Forth, penalties for violations will be carried out following the traditional disciplinary practices of the monasteries” (Beijing Daily 1905, vol. 7, p. 5).

There are two main reasons for the absorption and coordination of secular forces in the organizational structure of the BEAPO in this period, both internal and external. As far as Buddhism itself is concerned, in the context of UTPS, absorbing the power of the local gentries into Buddhist organizations helped to ease tensions between monks and laypeople, with the expectation that this would protect the temple properties. As far as the external environment is concerned, in the late Qing Dynasty, the social status of gentries as a whole was at an inflated stage. “At the end of the Qing Dynasty, high-level land gentry 高級土紳, low-level upper gentry 低級上紳 and wealthy commoners 豪民, in the upper and middle reaches of Yangtze River, became united through militia training 团练, and the power of the gentry was expanded unprecedentedly; and the land gentry class used the militia training as a tool to expand their power, resulting in a great expansion of the power of the gentry at that times” (K. Zhang 2000, p. 395). At the national level, the Qing government was unable to bear the financial burden required to carry out educational affairs, and hence, it became necessary to “rely on the power of the gentry to supplement the insufficiency of the officials, so that local educational affairs could flourish” (Dongfang Magazine 1906, vol. 3, issue 9, p. 207) Consequently, they had to delegate authority to the local gentry to participate in fundraising and the management of schools. However, when it came to the real level, this organizational structure had dual outcomes. On one hand, through the power of the gentry, it brought positive effects to the development of Buddhism; the strength of the gentry became an important influential factor in the establishment of Buddhist organizations. On the other hand, temple properties became targets of covetousness among the gentry, especially in the later stages, resulting in numerous incidents where the local gentry exploited Buddhist organizations to encroach upon temple properties. The lawsuits arising from this situation were also frequently reported in the media.

In addition to “taking into account both the monastic and the secular”, the BEAPO is also characterized by its public nature. Traditional Buddhist monastic organizations primarily function around the dissemination of the Dharma and the religious content of edification. In modern times, the public nature of religious activities in monasteries has led to a subconscious belief among people that temple properties should be owned by the public. This made the contradiction between the society’s identification with the public attributes of the temples and the privatization of the temple properties come to the fore during this period. Additionally, the new social trends of the time, which advocated for innovation and change, considered traditional Buddhist activities to be of no benefit to the nation’s endeavors. This new background demands that the functions of Buddhist organizations have to make appropriate adjustments to cope with these changes, and the public characteristics of the operation of Buddhist organizations in China has thus been highlighted. For example, in terms of temple properties, the General Office of Buddhist Educational Affairs in China 中國佛教學務總公所 proposed in its constitution that “all the temple properties should be compiled into a register and sent to the local authorities for record keeping and protection, and the abbots of the temples should not be allowed to arbitrarily destroy them or mortgage them at their own discretion” (Beijing Daily 1905, vol. 7, p. 5). In terms of educational direction, its constitution also proposed “first, set up some primary school districts for experimentation, and if the results were good, then based on the size of the temples and the number of monks in various places, set up Buddhist normal schools, and schools at secondary and higher education levels to disseminate the teachings of Buddhism, as well as supplement the parts not yet covered by the national education system” (ibid., p. 4).

The publicized character of the BEAPO is mainly manifested in the public nature of the results of schooling. As a Buddhist organization, the important purpose of the BEAPO is to establish schools. Although the fundamental purpose of establishing schools in the Buddhist community during this period was to protect temple properties and the effectiveness of schooling was not remarkable, the few achievements of schooling showed the characteristic of publicization. These schools were mostly open to society and balanced the needs of both monks and laypeople. For example, the Shanghai Buddhist Association 上海佛教公會 clearly stated that “After the establishment of our association, we plan to raise funds to set up compulsory primary schools, where young monks from various temples and children of secular families 民間子弟 can be enrolled” (Xinwen Bao 1906, October 5, p. 3). During this period, the target group of Buddhist schooling not only took into account both monks and laypeople but also actively advocated for the establishment of schools for women. The Shen Bao 申報 reported that “If we establish women’s schools on the basis of Buddhist nunneries, this can change people’s thoughts about valuing education and turn it into a good initiative to promote learning. ……In foreign countries, many of the teachers in women’s schools are female. The women’s schooling in China is just beginning, and it must be carefully planned and worked on in order to progress and develop better and better. If nuns are allowed to serve as school administrators, they will not be burdened with family matters and will surely be able to concentrate on their work, and can expect to see results soon” (Shen Bao 1907a, April 25, p. 21).

For BEAPO, as the earliest organizational form of Buddhism in modern China, reviewing its schooling history, we can see that it inevitably has its historical limitations, which are mainly manifested in the following three aspects:

First, the BEAPO in different parts of the country were run separately and in fact did not form a unified and united organization. This situation has even evolved into extreme conflicts within the monks in some areas, even in Zhejiang, where BEAPOs were established earlier, which was difficult to avoid, and there was even an incident in which a monk of the Buddhist office, Yinwu 印悟, was beaten to death.6

Second was the obstructions of secular forces. Due to the influence of UTPS and the establishment of Buddhist organizations as a specific manifestation of the game between the monastic and secular communities around temple properties, the establishment of Buddhist organizations will naturally be obstructed by secular forces. At that time, some people analyzed why the local government hate these academic offices: “the local officials’ hostility stems from the fear of their rights being infringed upon; the local gentry’s hostility arises from their anger over the loss of profits; and the root of all these issues lies in the mere existence of selfish intentions” (Shen Bao 1906b, May 11, p. 2).

Third, the original purpose of the establishment of these offices was to protect temple properties, not to run a school on its own initiative. This situation was improved only in the 1920s with the gradual awakening of the monks’ awareness of running schools and promoting education. Regarding the operation of schools during the “Buddhist Office” 佛教公所 period, Mr. Zhang Dongsun 張東蓀 once pointed out sharply that “The establishment of BEAPO is right in itself, but the motive for doing so is wrong. Because monks are afraid of losing their temple properties, they use this as an excuse to protect their private properties; those who run educational system also take this opportunity to use these assets to subsidize tuition fees. Therefore, they have only set up two primary schools, thinking that this is enough to fulfill their responsibility” (D. Zhang 1906, issue 1, p. 115).

Although the BEAPO was mostly passively involved in education and existed for a relatively short period, with not-so-remarkable educational outcomes, it undeniably made certain contributions to the social educational endeavors of that period, objectively. Mr. Zhang Yuanji 張元濟, in his 1906 petition in support of the then BEAPOs, emphasized that “Government-operated schools cannot easily reach every area and must rely on the assistance of public and private schools. The act of monks in temples donating money for the establishment of schools is also a form of both public and private education. Although the money they donate may not be much, it adds up and can make a big difference” (Y. Zhang 2008, p. 46).

During this time, the attempt to establish education by Buddhism objectively stimulated the awakening of the consciousness of the Buddhist community to run schools and promote education and became the precursor of the rise of the wave of monastic education after the Xinhai Revolution, especially since the 1920s. As an important part of the evolution of Buddhist organizations in modern China, the positive significance of the BEAPO should not be overlooked. First, the goal of “uniting the national Buddhism” proposed by the BEAPO became the direction for the development of Buddhist organizations in the following years. BEAPO also accumulated experience for the construction of later Buddhist organizations and stimulated the awakening of the monks’ sense of subjectivity. The organizational structure and many ideas of the BEAPO were inherited by the later IME 僧教育會, which became the prototype of the later national Buddhist organization. For example, the organizational structure took into account both the monastic and the secular, and the “official superintendent” 官設監督 and “president monk” 僧長, during the period of the BEAPO, evolved into “gentry superintendent” 紳監督 and “monk superintendent” 僧監督 of the IME; the content of the regulations in the BEAPO was largely inherited and improved by the IME. Second, BEAPO as a Buddhist organization made efforts to harmonize the tensions between monks and laypeople in the context of the UTPS at that time.

3. Institution of Monastic Education: Transitional Stage of the Organization of Han Buddhist Monastic Education in China

Soon after the establishment of BEAPO in various places, the Qing government issued the “Report on the Statutes of the Provincial Education Associations Formulated by the Education Department” 學部奏定各省教育會章程折 on 28 July 1906 (Guangxu 32), which stated that at that time that “the regulations and systems were not uniform, which caused a lot of obstacles and troubles indeed……There is an urgent need to clearly establish unified regulations and systems to standardize them” (Zhu 1993, pp. 247–48). In this document, officials allowed for the formation of educational associations in every part of the country and attempted to unify them. Thus, from 1907 onwards, BEAPOs in various regions were shifted into IME. For example, in March 1907, the Zhejiang Buddhist General Office 浙江佛教總公所 “followed the departmental regulations and shifted to IME, and publicly elected Yu Jun 虞君, who had studied in Japan, to be its president” (Shen Bao 1907d, March 22, p. 9). The Buddhist community in Yanling 鄢陵, Henan Province, newly established the IME in the winter of 1907, “using the Tianning Temple 天宁寺 in the city as a meeting place, which marked the beginning of the establishment of institution of education in Yanling” (Jin 1936, p. 466). The establishment of the IME across the country marked the demise of organizational form of BEAPO, which had existed for only about two years. Consequently, the Buddhist organizations in modern China entered the era of the IME. The IME, as the second form of organization that Han Buddhism in China has attempted to establish since the first UTPS at the end of the Qing Dynasty, has the following two characteristics.

Firstly, the IME is still passively set up, with a fragmented organization and limited effectiveness.

The IME, which was reorganized from the BEAPO, was also a kind of institution established passively by the monks, for the purpose of protecting the temple properties. Although the IME required official approval, the nature of its schooling was private; “the cost is shared by each temple, if there are temples that are not willing to donate money or do not send young monks to school, the government will send people to urge them to donate money or force them to send young monks to school” (Taixu 2005, p. 67). Nonetheless, the attitude of the IME in running a school was not proactive, to the extent that the official authorities became somewhat impatient with the documents related to this kind of school. For example, when the monk Huilan 會蘭 of the Wufu Temple 五福寺 in Shouzhou 壽州 was establishing an IME, he was urged by the authorities with the words, “please go back to the prefecture immediately to start classes as soon as possible, and not to talk empty words or wait for the official approval and filing of the documents at this time, but to open the school first, and then to report to the prefecture and decide on the detailed issues” (Shen Bao 1907c, April 4, p. 11).

The establishment of the IME was basically a separate matter, and there was much resistance even within Buddhist community. For example, the IME of Mount Putuo 普陀山 seeks for self-governing, “taking great effort to plan and bringing together the strong opposition of many people; requests were made to the prefecture and to the province, and it was finally possible to set up their own educational institution” (H. Wang 1934, p. 26). During this time, the dispersion of the organization made the IME fail to develop into a unified Buddhist organization. Judging from the content and target audience of its education, the IME did not have a unified direction for running schools. Some of these institutions mainly focus on teaching monks, some primarily provide general national education, and some even use the institution as a talisman to protect temple properties and do not actually carry out the practice of running a school.

In terms of the direction of schooling, Master Taixu 太虛大師 later pointed out when recalling the history of the IME during this period the “the nature of the IME includes two aspects, first, to run primary school for young monks to cultivate the talent within Buddhist community; second, to run ordinary primary school to supplement national education” (Taixu 2005, p. 66). Monastic schools set up for the purpose of educating young monks, such as Huayu Monastic Primary School 化雨僧小學校 established in the first year of the Xuantong era of the Qing Dynasty were “specializing in educating young monks and do not charge tuition fees. Those who lived far away are provided with meals by the school. Its annual expenses are founded by the Buddhist association” (H. Wang 1934, p. 11). The monastic educational organizations that operated national primary schools, such as the primary school of Fengchong Temple 封崇寺, where land is donated by Zhaorui 照瑞 to establish its own school, emphasizes “providing the funds necessary to help popularize Confucian education” (Education Magazine (Tianjin) 1905, issue 16, p. 8). Another example is the Shaoxing Monastic Primary School 紹興僧立小學, which was managed and led by Zhou Jianren 周建人,7 who served as the principal. Despite its small size and rudimentary facilities, the school had a considerable influence in the area and was known for its unique educational outcomes. It was so respected that even teachers and students from the nearby Shanhui Junior Normal School 山會初級師範學堂 would frequently visit to attend lectures and participate in teaching practice.

From the perspective of the effectiveness of the schooling of the IME, although there are some outstanding examples, such as the Shaoxing Monastic Primary School 紹興僧立小學, more monastic schools did not achieve the expected results. This can be attributed to at least two factors:

The first factor is related to the original intention of the monks to “protect the temple properties” when they established the schools.

Due to the passive nature in the way of the IME running schools, it is not highly motivated. According to the official documents recorded in the “Zhejiang Education Official Newspaper” 浙江教育官報, at that time, the attitudes of the government urging the establishment of schools with phrases like “vigorously manage” 實力辦理, “establish promptly” 克日興立, and “achieve tangible results” 以收實效 are very obvious, such as one of the documents recorded in the text: “Please instruct the education department to notify the local government to supervise and genuinely allocate resources to handle the matter at any time in order to achieve results... The local government should immediately follow the previous instructions, supervise, and ensure that the matter is properly managed. At the same time, notify the chairman to promptly establish Buddhist and national primary schools and report to ensure actual results are achieved, without violating this urgent requirement” (Zhejiang Educational Official Gazette 1908, issue 5).

In addition to the lack of enthusiasm to run schools, there are numerous cases of resistance to donations and non-payment. For instance, the IME in Zhejiang had to deal with the issue of various temples resisting contributions, which led to the government stepping in to convene a meeting with monks and members of the secular community to discuss this matter. According to the records in the newspapers of that time, “Yu Shaohua 虞少華, the president gentry 紳會長 of IME in Zhejiang, Yunjun 允均, the abbot of Jingci Temple 淨慈寺 and the president monk 僧會長 of the institution, successively resigned. Many temples also resisted and refused to make donations. At present, the magistrates of the two counties of Ren and Qian have ordered their officers to notify abbots of the 109 temples to gather for a meeting at the Baiyi Temple 白衣寺 on the 20th. At the same time, they invited Pu Ziquan 濮紫泉, the prestigious chairman of the educational affairs office, Wu Leichuan 吳雷川, and Shao Botong 邵伯絧, two scholars, as well as Zhang Rang 張讓 and two other high-ranking officials to attend the meeting together to discuss the solution. And in the meeting, the monks were advised not to refuse donations in violation of the regulations to avoid being pursued and dealt with” (Shen Bao 1907b, May 2, p. 11). Moreover, to merely cope with the impact of the UTPS movement, they did not actually establish schools, such as the monastic education association in Jiangsu, which just hung up a door plate at its entrance. When people entered into the temple and asked the location of the association and recent activities of the association, the response was criticized as “irrelevant to the question…know that it has a name but no reality” (Longmen Magazine 1911, issue 5, p. 7). This situation is not an exception, and similar conditions exist in various places. “The words ‘Taicang Institution of Monastic Education’ were also hung at the door of the Yufo Temple 玉佛寺, and the same was in this case of a visit to Tianning Temple 天寧寺 in Piling” (ibid.), so much so that the people of the time lamented “Most famous large temples use this as a kind of talisman. … I often hear that although there are plans to establish schools, not many actually come to fruition. … Now there is an attempt to rely on the power of the IME in Jiangsu to restore, but who can say that the institution is dependable?” (ibid.). This also indicates that, overall, the educational outcomes of the IME are not ideal.

The second factor is the interference from secular forces.

During this period, the monks, who were already generally not very enthusiastic about running schools, encountered unreasonable interference from secular forces in the process of establishing schools. This phenomenon further stimulated the monks’ resistance to running schools and their demand to protect the temples’ properties. For example, in the case of extortion at Mount Jing 菁山 Qingliang Temple 清涼寺, there was a local gentry with the surname Zhang 張紳 who had nothing to do and “went around to temples in various towns and villages to lobby for the establishment of the IME, using the name of Yang Shou 楊守 to forcibly allocate funds that each temple had to contribute. At Qingliang Temple in Mount Jing, they even extorted three hundred yuan. Thus, local gentry and officials jointly reported the matter to the higher authorities. However, because Yang was considering the feeling of Zhang, he ignored the issue, and as a result, the case has not been resolved to this day. Due to this incident, ordinary people have developed a prejudice against the entire educational community, making the educational work increasingly difficult to carry out” (Shen Bao 1908, March 29, p. 3). It can be seen that at that time, the phenomenon of encroachment on temple property by means of educational affairs and unwarranted nuisance were endless. In addition, a large number of lawsuits concerned the UTPS during this time, which shows the intensity of the conflicts surrounding this issue, such as “Yuan’s Approval on the Case Reported by monk Xueren in Shanyin Regarding the Dispute over the Property of Huajing Temple”本署司袁批山陰僧學仁稟爭奪花徑寺產一案由 (Zhejiang Educational Official Gazette 1910b, issue 36, p. 138), “Yuan’s Approval on the Case Reported by the Assistant in Jinyun County Regarding the Mutual Accusation over the Property of Changguo Temple, Proposing to Allocate the Property to the Institute for Promoting Education” 本署司袁批佐治員縉雲縣會稟查明昌國寺產互控一案擬將此產撥歸勸學所由 (Zhejiang Educational Official Gazette 1910e, issue 18, pp. 78–79), “Yuan’s Detailed Reply on the Case of the Dispute over the Property of Nangong Temple Reported by Chen Ruixiang and Others in Dongyang County” 本署司袁批東陽縣詳復陳蕊香等互爭南宮寺產一案由 (Zhejiang Educational Official Gazette 1910a, issue 24, pp. 100–1), “Governor Feng’s Approval on the Case Reported by Yuan Zanqing, Principal of Yushan Advanced Primary School in Yichun County, and Others, Regarding the Donation of the Property of Cihua Temple by Monk Fangchi for School Funds, Which Was Hindered by Monk Liaofan and Others Claiming to Operate a Preschool” 撫憲馮批宜春縣公立玉山高等小學堂校長袁贊清等稟慈化寺僧芳池已將寺產捐作學堂經費被同寺僧了凡等藉辦有蒙學從中阻撓一案由 (Jiangxi Official Gazette 1911, issue 4, pp. 74–75), “Zhang’s Approval from the Two Rivers Governor’s Office on the Presentation by the Jiangsu Institution of Buddhist Education Regarding the Incident of the Patrol Committee Searching for and Cunningly Acquiring the Property of Longhua Temple in Shanghai During the Precept Transmission Period” 兩江督院張批江蘇僧立教育會呈上海龍華寺傳戒期間內巡委借故搜査巧取寺產由 (Nanyang Official Report 1911, issue 173, p. 23), “Yuan’s Approval on the Report by Zhu Genbao and Other Civilians from Yongkang, Exposing the Bad Student Who Sold the Temple Property Under the False Name of Starting a School, and Requesting a Secret Investigation by Officials” 本署司袁批永康民人朱根寶等稟劣生假名開學擅賣寺產懇派員密查由 (Zhejiang Educational Official Gazette 1910d, issue 17, pp. 73–74), et cetera. In these litigation cases, the distinction between public and private property is a point of contention. The local government in Jiangsu had issued a special authorization on whether to investigate the temple property being collected: “All temples, except the family temples, need to have their boundaries thoroughly examined. …… In Article 6, it is mentioned that all the properties of ancestral temples 先賢祠廟 and community temples 社廟, etc., which were built by public funds, are considered public property. If they are built by fundraising, or partially built by individual contribution, and the property, if any, is not used for local public purposes, they do not fall under this category. These regulations serve as the criteria for determining whether the property belongs to public ownership after the investigation, and they differ from the standards specifically stipulated in Article 5 regarding the necessity of the investigation. Only through a detailed investigation can it be determined whether the construction is public or funded by donations, thus distinguishing between the two. If the monks of the temple believe that those constructed through donations are not within the scope of the investigation, it is actually a misunderstanding” (Jiangsu Self-Government Gazette 1911, issue 50, pp. 15–16).

Secondly, the role of Buddhist community’s own strength within the IME has been weakened.

Although the main body of the IME is the monastic community, the dominance of this community in it appears to be weakened. The first is due to the fact that the establishment of the IME was a response of the Buddhist community to the pressures of the special context of the UTPS and other special circumstances and that it was not in fact a voluntary, conscious development of monastic education. The second, the plurality of the organizational structure of the IME, makes it impossible for the monastic community to completely dominate the direction of the operation and development of the IME or even the change in personnel.

According to the official requirements, after the Buddhist General Office was transformed into the IME, it was necessary to set up two presidents; one of them was the gentry president, who was generally a local gentry of good reputation and enthusiastic about education; the other one was the monk president, who was a monk. As a matter of fact, the organizational pattern of having two presidents, one for the gentry and the other for the monks, has been the rule since the time of the Buddhist General Office, the predecessor of the IME. For example, when Jing’an 靜安 set up the Buddhist General Office at Tiantong Temple in Ningbo, he was explicitly ordered to hire the principal and deputy gentry superintendents and to elect the principal and deputy superintendents of the monks. According to the official document at that time, “The abbot of Tiantong Temple in You County 郵縣, a monk named Jing’an, now intends to raise funds to set up a general office for Buddhism in Yong Canton 甬郡 (Ningbo). He also intends to add some ordinary monastic schools and primary schools for both monks and laypeople. Yesterday, he has formally submitted an application to the government of Ningbo for the official registration of this program. The governor Yu Shusan 喻庶三 agreed to this request and issued a formal official document asking Yin County 鄞縣 (a county in Ningbo) to protect the program at all times. As for the principal and deputy superintendents of the students, it should be left to the officials of Ningbo government to invite suitable gentry to take up the post. As for the principal and deputy superintendents of the monks, the monks themselves should elect those who had some knowledge of educational affairs and should report to and be approved by the local officials” (Shen Bao 1906a, November 13, p. 9).

Compared to the Buddhist General Office, the supervision structure of the IME has changed from having a principal and deputy superintendents of gentry and a principal and deputy superintendents of monks to having one president gentry and one president monk each, as is the case with the IME in Zhejiang Province.8 That is to say, the establishment of the IME required the support of the local gentry and official approval. On the one hand, this made the IME have official endorsement, and it could unite secular forces and strengthen the connection between the Buddhist community and the official, gentry, and other forces, which objectively helped Buddhism to protect itself. However, on the other hand, it also weakened the dominance of the monks in it. From the initiative and fundraising for the establishment of the IME to its official establishment, secular forces have accompanied it, such as the Anhui IME, “(News from various Provinces) IME fundraising: There are many monks in Anhui Province, and it is imperative to initiate education as early as possible, which is also a necessary preparation for constitutional governance. The general gentries of Anqing 安慶 advocated a meeting, and many people attend that day, with a considerable amount of donations received. At the meeting, a monk from Yingjiang Temple 迎江寺 who is both virtuous and knowledgeable, named Yue Xia 月霞, was publicly elected as the president. An application for funding has been submitted to the local governor for their assistance” (Henan Vernacular Science News 1909, issue 66, p. 1).

Additionally, in terms of personnel appointments and dismissals, the gentry class has a strong sense of participation, and the final decision on personnel matters is made by the government. For instance, regarding the process of electing the gentry president for the IME in Zhejiang Province, “Currently, Wang Xi Jun 汪希君 has repeatedly and firmly declined the position. Yesterday, chairman Pu Ziquan, along with the respected gentries Wu Leichuan, Shao Botong, jointly recommended Yu Shangxian 虞尚賢, a graduate of Japan’s Intensive Courses of Law and Politics School, to take up the position. Yu’s character and learning are highly regarded, and there are no objections from anyone at the moment. He has already received a detailed report from the educational commissioner and a commission from the provincial governor” (Global Chinese Students’ News 1907, vol. 1, issue 4, p. 60). While the monastic community had the right to publicly elect a president monk, as in the case of the IME in Zhejiang, “since the shift from the Buddhist General Office to the IME, there should be a president monk, and it was decided by the monastic community. The abbot of the Jingci Temple 淨慈寺, Yunzhong 允中, was elected as the president, and has been reported to and approved by the Education Commission” (Shen Bao 1907c, April 4, p. 11). However, a gentry may also object to the change of a monk president: “After the establishment of the IME in Huzhou, Hongli 宏禮, a monk from Cigan Temple 慈感寺, used to be in charge of organizing the local branch. However, the local gentries believed that Hongli’s conduct was not upright, so they strongly opposed his involvement. Later, during a meeting at Tianning Temple 天寧寺, gentry Xu Xinshan 徐信善 and the monk Faqing 法慶 from Wanshou Temple 萬壽寺 on Mount Daochang 道場山 were publicly elected as the presidents. Xu had not yet agreed to accept the position, but the news had already spread, and some people had already begun going to various temples to collect donations. Feeling that this was not a good situation, gentry Yu Zonglian 俞宗濂 reported the situation to the county governor Yang, and asked him to take measures to prevent the spread of this undesirable trend” (Dagong Bao (Tianjin Ban) 1908, May 11, p. 5). Under this organizational structure, since the gentry president may not be from within the Buddhist community, with the weakened leadership of the monastic group, the IME has also seen some problems and undesirable practices. Master Taixu later pointed out that in the IME, there were even “corrupt practices such as drinking, eating meat, gambling, and other violations of the monastic precepts. The poorly organized and poorly handled IME, along with the local non-Buddhist gentry presidents who appointed personal connections and manipulated the institution’s affairs for their own benefit, were greatly related to these issues” (Taixu 2005, p. 67). From this, we can not only see the weakening role of the monastic community within the organizational structure of the Institution of Buddhist Education; it also reflects the Buddhist community’s desire to form a unified Buddhist organization and enhance its social discourse and influence.

4. Attempts at Initiative Schooling and Universalization: The Completion of the Organizational Transformation of Buddhist Monastic Education in Modern China

The period from 1912 to 1937 was the second UTPS movement in modern China, which consisted of two phases and was closely related to the evolution of the government’s temple management policies, the core of which and the one that monks were most concerned about was the provision on “temple property”. The first phase of the second UTPS movement was from 1912 to 1929. In this phase, the management of temples was based on three temple management regulations issued by the Beiyang Government, which were the PRMT in 1913, the RMT with 31 articles in 1915, and the RRMT with 24 articles in 1921. During this phase, under the wave of promoting education, the struggle for temple property continued to exist, which was directly reflected by the endless litigation cases at that time. The second phase began in January 1929, when Nanjing National Government published a single-issue legislation of temple management, namely OMT, and this stage was ended in 1937. During the second UTPS movement, the Chinese Buddhist community realized that running monastic education was an important way to revitalize Buddhism, so the attitude of running schools shifted from passive to active. According to the author’s compilation and statistics, there were at least 51 of monastic educational institutions established in various parts of China from 1912 to 1937.

In the first phase, in 1913, the Beiyang Government promulgated the “Temporary Rules for the Management of Temples”, which was intended to change the chaotic situation of “local powerful landlords often used the excuse of promoting education to seize temple properties, causing continuous disturbances” (Wulijitaogetao 2016, p. 359). However, due to the fact that it was too general and “too sketchy to be detailed” (ibid.), there were many lawsuits about temple property in various provinces, which did not really serve to protect the temple property. In view of this, on 29 October 1915, the Beiyang Government at the time promulgated the sixty-sixth order, namely the OMT. However, in specific judicial practice, it still appeared too general. The Ministry of the Interior mentioned in the document revising the regulations, “Only when the legal system is perfected can the policies be effectively implemented” (ibid.). Therefore, on 20 May 1921, the Beiyang Government promulgated the RRMT (Dongfang Magazine 1921, pp. 127–29), which revised the 1915 version of the RMT. Compared with the old and the new regulations, the changes mainly focused on the refinement of the provisions concerning temple property.

Entering the period of the Nanjing National Government, in January 1929, the National Government published a single-issue legislation of temple management, namely OMT. This regulation aroused strong opposition from the Buddhist community. For example, the Sichuan Buddhist community demanded correction of the unequal treatment towards Buddhism, initiated by Shengqin 聖欽, Chan’ an 禪安, Yin Changheng 尹昌衡, and others, with 128 Buddhist associations, numerous temples, and dozens of Buddhist organizations sending telegrams in support of the protest (Jia 2018, p. 649). According to the recollection of Shi Dongchu 釋東初, “the regulation authorized administrative bodies to order the punishment of monks, and the abolition or dissolution of temples. Monks were not allowed to violate party governance. The ownership of temple property belonged to the temple, and the local government and public organizations, together with the monks, formed a temple property custodian committee to manage the temple property, and stipulated that the number of monks participating in the committee should not be more than half of the total number. This regulation was deeply dissatisfied by all parties” (Shi 1995, pp. 136–37).

The reasons for the dissatisfaction of the Buddhist community with the OMT at that time centered on two main points: firstly, the management of temple properties was entrusted to the complex committee, which effectively stripped the monks of their control over temple property. The second is that the new OMT has a distinct “party rule” flavor. For instance, as mentioned above, in the regulations for abolishing or dissolving temples, if monks “violate party governance”, the temple may be abolished or dissolved accordingly; when temples establish various schools, libraries, reading rooms, and lecture halls, their curricula, books, and speeches must include “party principles and scientific knowledge” (Chen 2008). All of these have strongly stimulated the Chinese Buddhist community, which has experienced the UTPS movement at the end of the Qing Dynasty.

Later, amidst fierce opposition from the Buddhist community, the National Government finally repealed the OMT and, in December 1929, promulgated 13 articles of the “Regulations on the Supervision of Temples”. However, in the view of the Buddhist community, the new supervision regulations merely adopted a more moderate approach to restrict and control the development of Buddhism, in order to achieve the encroachment on temple property, and did not treat Buddhism equally with other religions, nor did it treat them fairly. Taixu once commented that the new regulations merely adopted a method of letting temples “live or die on their own” to undermine Buddhism and temple properties. Therefore, Taixu called on the national Buddhist community to unite and respond in four ways: “First, to quickly establish a tight organization for Buddhist associations in each county, province, and throughout the nation. Second, through the Buddhist associations of each county, conduct a thorough survey of temple properties and monks, and compile statistics to serve as the basis for reorganization. Third, the supervision of the regulation is mainly the responsibility of government departments, focusing on the removal, expulsion and accountability of temple leaders……Therefore, to serve as the abbot of each temple, it is necessary for the Buddhist association to openly set up different levels of examination and selection methods to carefully select suitable abbot talents. Otherwise, the temple monks will be eliminated along with the dismissal, expulsion, and investigation of the abbots. Forth, it is especially important to establish Buddhist colleges as soon as possible in all counties, provinces, and even nationwide, and to develop a systematic level of education to produce monks who can serve as abbots of temples so that they can actually carry out work such as preaching the teachings” (Taixu 1930a).

From Taixu’ s four initiatives mentioned above, the establishment of a systematic monastic education has become a top priority, and the development of monastic education requires the establishment of a nationwide strict and leading Buddhist organization as an organizational guarantee. At the same time, it also reflects the initiative of the Chinese Buddhist community in the Republican period to reflect on the stimulation of the two UTPS movements and has recognized that running a monastic education is an important way to revitalize Buddhism and change the current situation of Buddhism.

In terms of the characteristics of schooling, Buddhist education in China during the Republic of China had the following two features: first, while maintaining its uniqueness and religiosity, the monastic education in this period actively learned from the secular education model, reflecting the transformation of modern Buddhist monastic education in terms of the educational philosophy. Second, modern Buddhist monastic education has undergone a transformation in its mode of operation. In terms of the academic system and curriculum settings, if we compare the difference between the monastic education institutions of the late Qing Dynasty and those of the Republic of China, we can see that there is a marked increase in the number of courses in humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, arts, and ideology. At the end of the Qing Dynasty, in order to cope with the movement of UTPS, the practice of running schools mainly consisted of a number of general schools established by monks, including some orphanages of a charitable nature,9 and at the same time, some monastic educational institutions oriented towards monks, specializing in cultivating knowledge of Buddhism were also organized. Among the Buddhist educational institutions established at the end of the Qing Dynasty, the early sprouts of international education can be traced back to Yang Renshan 楊仁山’s Zhihuan Jing She 祇洹精舍, and he once specifically pointed out that “monastic schools are divided into two categories, ‘general subjects’ and ‘specialized subjects’, according to the system of teaching. The ‘general subjects’ are studied for three years, with six classes a day, each lasting one hour. The first class in the morning and the first class in the afternoon is a Buddhist class, and the remaining four classes consist of the country’s literature, science, history, geography, mathematics, Sanskrit, English and Japanese. The ‘specialized subjects’ begin in the fourth year and may last for two or three to five years, with no fixed duration, and focus on the classics of the various Buddhist sects. Students may choose to study one or several subjects in depth, depending on their interests. But in general, one must be proficient in one subject before going on to study the others, and one should not be in a hurry and change the content of one’s studies frequently so as not to end up learning nothing at all” (Yang 2000, p. 333). In the actual practice of running the school, the curriculum of Zhihuan Jing She mainly offers three main categories, including Buddhist studies, Chinese language, and English language. In Yang Renshan’s opinion, Buddhism is the fundamental, Chinese language is the foundation for the study of Chinese Buddhist scriptures, and English is the tool for communication with foreigners, and qualified monks should learn these three subjects well at the same time. After that, monastic educational institutions sprang up all over the country, with different curricula and academic systems. For example, the Huayan University 華嚴大學, founded by Yuexia in 1913, had four main courses: Confucian classics, Buddhism, Chinese language, and writing, and its educational focus was mainly on Buddhism and Chinese language. The Lingdong Buddhist College 嶺東佛學院, founded by Daxing 大醒 in 1933, offers courses in Dharma, geography, mathematics, Chinese studies, physical education, and Art. Jiaoshan Buddhist College 焦山佛學院, founded in 1935 by Renshan 仁山, offers 35% Buddhist studies, 20% Chinese studies, 10% social sciences, 5% natural sciences and mathematics, and 10% foreign languages and extracurricular assignments (Li 2011, p. 441).

There are at least two reasons for the transformation of the modern monastic education in its mode of operation: one is the specificity of monastic education as a religious education and the proactive adaptation within Buddhism on how to harmonize the internal and external learning needs, which involves how to balance the tension between faith and reason. Integrating Buddhist education with the curricula of ordinary schools in humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, arts, etc., became the mainstream of the monastic education mode of schooling at that time. Secondly, as the modernized education system was introduced to China, the education model was subjected to a great impact, in which the monastic education would naturally be affected by this great background. How to combine the traditional monastic education 丛林教育 with the modernized college education, so as to make the monastic education better adapted to the requirements of the society and the background of the times, was an important driving force for the transformation of the monastic education model in this period. Yoshiko Ashiwa pointed out that “the Convert Temples to Schools Movement created a shared recognition among the new state, Buddhists, and the masses that the public interest was a significant criterion and discourse for evaluation and legitimacy” (Ashiwa and Wank 2009, pp. 53–54).

In quantitative terms, although the results of monastic education in this period were relatively outstanding, there were still limitations, and the two most important factors constraining its development were “temple property” and “faculty”. The former determines the economic basis for the establishment of monastic education institutions, while the latter determines the quality of monastic education. Therefore, Master Taixu pointed out keenly that “if the monastic temples and their properties cannot be organized, there is no way to establish such monastic education”. Based on the above dilemma, Master Taixu was pessimistic about the future of monastic education, which was to “cultivate elites of monks capable of presiding over and upholding the Chinese Buddhist tradition” (Taixu 2017, p. 496). In fact, at that time, the Buddhist community generally held a pessimistic attitude towards the state of monastic education. For example, the articles published at that time, such as “Preliminary Thoughts on the Re-education of the Monks” (Suren 1947, issue 53, pp. 1–2), “Ideal Monastic Education” (Dengming 1947, issue 51–52, p. 8), “Revisiting Monastic Education in the Old Tone” (Daxing 1947, issue 8, pp. 8–10), “How to Rescue Monastic Education” (Yumin 1948, pp. 26–27), “A Thought for Monastic Education” (Changhai 1948, issue 6, pp. 9–10), “From Monastic Education to the Current Status of Buddhism” (Shuangzhao 1948, inaugural issue, pp. 22–23), and “On Monastic Education in the Current Phase” (Juefan 1948, inaugural issue, pp. 23–24), etc., all reflected on and even criticized the monastic education at that time from different perspectives. In the article “The Four Major Issues of Monastic Education: System, Economy, Professors, and Students” (Yumin 1946, issue 10, pp. 13–14), Yumin 愚敏 insightfully pointed out the four major difficulties in the operation of monastic education: the lack of a unified standard in the academic system, economic self-governance, uneven levels of professors, and inconsistent educational levels among the students, all of which are factors that restrict the development of monastic education.

Although the Buddhist community at that time was not satisfied with the situation of monastic education, it should be pointed out that, if the course of monastic education in this period is put in the whole history of monastic education since the modern era, it has accumulated valuable experience for later monastic education, and its mode of education has been inherited and innovated by the Buddhist colleges of the later period. In terms of the actual schooling effect, it also greatly surpassed the achievements of the late Qing Dynasty when the BEAPO and the IME were in operation. From this point of view, the practice of monastic education in this period is an important stage in the transformation of the organization of monastic education in the whole modern era. Advancing through twists and turns and proactive reflection are the basic form of monastic education during this period.

In addition to seeking transformation in the philosophy and mode of schooling, Han Buddhism in modern China has also carried out attempts to “globalize” monastic education, which is specifically manifested in the opening of Buddhist educational institutions with an international perspective and the issuance of internationalized Buddhist journals. This attempt at the globalization of monastic education is, in fact, a response of Chinese Buddhism to the stimulus of the two UTPS movements. It is an internal demand for the self-reconstruction of its social role, and this demand is considered to be realized by placing it within a broader perspective.

As early as 1922, the Buddhist organization “World Buddhist Jushi Lin” 世界佛教居士林 was established, and in its basic rules, it clearly stated the following: “Our organization is designed to bring home believers together to study the Dharma, and to help monks to promote Buddhist education throughout the world. Therefore, we do not restrict nationality or differentiate between races, hence the name ‘World Buddhist Jushi Lin’” (World Buddhist Jushi Lin Journal 1923, issue 1, p. 2). Under this organization, there are the Department of Enlightenment and the Department of General Affairs. Within the Department of Enlightenment, there is an “Editorial Department”, whose main job is to “compile and translate Buddhist scriptures from both Chinese and Western traditions; elaborate and explain in depth the writings and thoughts of ancient Buddhist masters, and widely disseminate Buddhist culture and teachings through the issuance of publications of the World Buddhist Jushi Lin” (ibid.). In 1926, Xiong Xiling 熊希齡, Ye Gongchuo 葉恭綽, and others initiated the “All Asia Buddhist Education Association” 全亞佛化教育社 in Shanghai and publicly elected Master Taixu as the chairman, with the aim of “popularizing Buddhist education and realizing peace in the world”, advocating for the “issuance of Buddhist education news, magazines and other publications; encouraging temples in various places to establish Buddhist schools; …advocating the opening of Buddhist specialties in schools or teaching additional subjects of Buddhism” (Buddha’s Voice 1926, vol. 3, issue 4, p. 23). In its program of work, the association proposes to “send commissioners to various countries to study the current state of education in order to improve it” (ibid.). Also in 1926, the Buddhist community in Taiwan responded to the impact of the “temple properties were plundered by local ruffians, and the monks were neglected in the new educational system” (Honghu 1926, issue 68, p. 49) by initiating the establishment of the “Asian Buddhist Reform Mission” 亞洲佛教改良團. The mission’s purpose was to “organize temples’ properties, revitalize Buddhism, and cultivate talents capable of spreading Buddhism to the West in order to promote the prosperity and strength of Asia” (ibid., p. 50). This group was primarily composed of students from traditional Buddhist colleges and monastic schools in Taiwan, calling for the unity of monk students and recognizing that “every student has the responsibility to participate in the reform of Buddhism” (ibid.). Subsequently, in 1937, the organization originally known as the “European and American Buddhism Promotion Association” 歐美佛化推行社 was renamed the “Buddhism Promotion Association in Europe and America” 佛教歐美推行社. Recognizing the inconvenience caused by language barriers in promoting Buddhism in Europe and America, they advocated for “the solicitation of English texts on Buddhism, with the aim of selecting the best to be published in foreign Buddhist magazines, to assist Europeans and Americans in studying the Mahayana teachings of Buddhism in China” (Buddhist Semi-Monthly Journal 1937, issue 153, p. 14), in order to promote the spread of Chinese Buddhism in Europe and America. In 1944, the World Buddhist Youth Association 世界佛教青年會, initiated by Jiang Kanghu 江亢虎 at the Qingliang Temple 清涼寺 in Nanjing, made it clear that the main task of the association was to provide Buddhist education with a global perspective and to promote the unity of Buddhists in the world and set forth several goals to promote Buddhism worldwide, which include the following: “First, to promote religious unity among Buddhists. Second, to study the doctrine and propagate the Dharma. Third, encourage Buddhist living. Fourth, promote the physical, moral, intellectual and welfare of members. Fifth, promote Buddhist education. Sixth, to do our best in charitable work” (Chinese Buddhist Quarterly: Bilingual Edition 1944, issue 2, p. 16) The association takes the development of international Buddhist education and research as the carrier of building a platform for communication with overseas Buddhist communities.

Since modern times, the Chinese Buddhist community has established numerous Buddhist educational institutions with a global perspective. Among these, it is particularly noteworthy that Taixu and others founded the “Institute of Buddhist Theory of the World Buddhist Studies Center” 世界佛學苑教理研究院. Initially, the magazine “Haichao Yin” 海潮音 (The Sound of the Tide) launched a column titled “Newsletters of the Preparatory Office of the World Buddhist Studies Center and Buddhism in Various Countries” 世界佛學院籌備處與各國佛教通訊, through which they established contact with overseas Buddhist organizations, such as the Buddhist College in Paris, the Mahabodhi Temple in India, the Buddhist Friends Association in Chicago, the Buddhist Association in Burma, and the Buddhist Association in Germany. This organization was originally known as the 世界佛學院, but was later changed to the 世界佛學苑. This organization is “a project initiated by Taixu after his return from Europe. It is called ‘World’ because the school is not limited to one country, China, but hopes to establish similar schools on all five continents. The reason for the use of the word 苑 instead of 院 is that Buddhist education is not included in the national education system, and Buddhist educational institutions are not allowed to use the name 院 in order to avoid confusion with formal state schools. Therefore, although it was initially called 院, it is now called 苑” (Liu 1931, vol. 1, issue 2, pp. 127–28). According to Taixu’s vision, the World Buddhist Studies Center was established with the aim of “promoting Buddhism, cultivating culture, enhancing happiness and wisdom in life, and creating peace and happiness in the world. …… collects world Buddhist materials, unites world Buddhist talents, and forms a world Buddhist school. To publicize Buddhism in the world” (Taixu 1930b, vol. 2, issue 1, p. 1). He organized the structure of the World Buddhist Studies Center in six faculties: the Buddhist Hall, Research and Teaching, Theory, Practice, Achievements, and Academy Services. Among them, in the “Research and Teaching” faculty 研教部門, it was planned to set up the Buddhist Relic Institute 佛教法物館 (Department of History, Department of Fine Arts) and the Buddhist Scriptures Institute 佛教典籍館 (Buddhist Scriptures Examination Room 佛典考校室, Buddhist Books Compilation Room 佛書編譯室). In the “Theory” faculty 究理部門, four secondary colleges were set up: “Indian Ceylon College”, “Indian Tibet College”, “Chinese and Japanese College”, and “European and American New School College” (ibid.). During the implementation process, in 1931, Taixu reorganized the previously established Berlin Buddhist Research Institute and the Ceylon Study Group into the “Institute of Buddhist Theory” 佛教教理研究院, serving as the foundation for the “World Buddhist Studies Center” (World Buddhist Jushi Lin Journal 1931, issue 30, p. 6). After the reorganization, “the Berlin Buddhist Research Institute is the Chinese-Japanese Department in the Theory faculty, and the Ceylon Study Group is the Sanskrit-Tibetan Department” (Yuanguang 1933, issue 35, p. 2). The institute (Institute of Buddhist Theory) opened on 3 March 1931, with Venerable Taiyuan 台源法師 serving as the dean, Venerable Changxing 常惺法師 as the director of studies and the main lecturer in Buddhist studies, and Venerable Fafan 法舫法師 as the director of student affairs and a professor of Buddhist studies, with approximately more than forty students. In the specific teaching practice, the institute was “divided into two departments, Chinese and Japanese, Sanskrit and Tibetan. Apart from foreign language classes taught separately, courses such as Buddhist studies and Chinese language were taught in a combined class. The institute also specially hired professors from Peking University and Fu Jen Catholic University as lecturers” (World Buddhist Jushi Lin Journal 1931, issue 30, p. 6). The Institute of Buddhist Theory has demonstrated a clear direction towards internationalization in terms of faculty staffing and curriculum design.

It is worth mentioning that Taixu not only carried his vision of the globalization of Chinese Buddhism into the practice of monastic education but also put forward his “academic view of Buddhicised world religions” 佛教化的世界宗教学术观10 from a macroscopic perspective. Parallel to the eight major sects of Sinicized Buddhism, he further divided the “Buddhism that adapts to the times and society, and meets the needs of all beings” 適化的應世人天佛教 into eight sects: Buddhicised Confucianism (including Laozi and Zhuangzi); Buddhicised Taoism, Shinto in Japan, and other animistic religions; Buddhicised various sects of old and new Brahmanism in India; Buddhicised Christianity; Buddhicised Islam; Buddhicised Philosophy; Buddhicised Science; and the Buddhicised Arts (Taixu 1924, issue 3, p. 6). From this, we can see Taixu’s grand vision of “Buddhicisation” as a means of attempting to universalize Buddhism and to integrate the cultures of the East and West. After Taixu‘s death, his disciples initiated the establishment of the World Buddhist Association 世界佛學會 in his honor, with the aim of carrying on his legacy to “universalize Buddhism”, “so that the world’s academic community will recognize our religion and respect our Dharma, and that not only will Buddhism be enriched, but the masses will also be saved from calamities” (Lian 1947, issue 187–188, p. 38). Although there is no subsequent report on the activities of this group, it at least shows that the concept of “universalization” of Chinese Buddhist education, which has been advocated by a group of visionary monks and Buddhist laypeople, such as Taixu, has been inherited by later generations, opening up the pattern of the “universalization” of Chinese Buddhist education. “Univesalization” also became one of the later trends in the establishment of Buddhist education and periodicals in Chinese Buddhism. The establishment of Buddhist educational institutions with an international perspective has provided a talent guarantee for the “universalization” of Chinese Buddhism and has ensured the sustainability of the “universalization” path for its continuous development. Taking the founding of internationalized Buddhist journals as a carrier, not only does it enable modern Chinese Buddhism to continue to follow up on the trend of the development of Buddhism in the world and to think about the path of remodeling the social role of Chinese Buddhism on the basis of reflection and reference, but it also enables the world to have a better understanding of Chinese Buddhism, which is positively significant for expanding the global influence and opening up the pattern of Chinese Buddhism in the modern era.

5. Conclusions

Under the influence of two UTPS movements, the monastic education of Han Buddhism in modern China, as a whole, gradually evolved towards a Buddhist college model by establishing BEAPO, IME, and Buddhist educational institutes with an international perspective, and it became the prototype of the educational institutions of Han Buddhism in contemporary China.

At the end of the Qing Dynasty, the practice of schooling in the period of BEAPO objectively stimulated the awakening of the consciousness of the Buddhist community to run schools and to promote education, and it became the precursor to the surge in monastic education that emerged especially after the Xinhai Revolution and throughout the 1920s. The BEAPO played an important role in the evolution of Buddhist organizations in modern China. Its goal of “uniting the national Buddhism” became a direction for the development efforts of subsequent Buddhist organizations. The BEAPO also accumulated experience for the construction of later Buddhist organizations and stimulated the awakening of the monks’ sense of subjectivity. The organizational structure and the many ideas of the BEAPO were inherited by the later IME, which became the prototype of the later national Buddhist organization. For example, the organizational structure took into account both the monastic and the secular, and the “official superintendent” and “president monk” during the period of the BEAPO evolved into the “gentry superintendent” and “monk superintendent” of the IME; the content of the regulations in the BEAPO was largely inherited and improved by the IME. As a Buddhist organization, the BEAPO made a positive contribution to the coordination of the tensions between monks and laypeople in the context of UTPS at that time.

After the Xinhai Revolution, reflecting on the two UTPS movements, the community of Han Buddhism in China focused on interaction with secular society, and the practice of Buddhist education reflected by the awakening of the conscious awareness of “establishing schools to promote education”. In terms of the mode of education, the multiple curricula and modernized academic system reflected the characteristics of balanced internal and external education. During this period, the establishment of Buddhist educational institutions with an international perspective provided a guarantee of talent for the path of the “universalization” of Chinese Buddhism and provided continuity for the sustainable development of the path of “universalization”. The tortuous development of Han Buddhist monastic education in modern China is, in fact, the epitome of the situation of the whole Chinese Buddhism in modern society. At the same time, it also reflects the proactive adaptation of Chinese Buddhism, in modern times, to external pressures and its self-remodeling in the struggle for survival space.