Buddhist Cosmopolitanism? Abbot Chao Kung and the International Interaction of Modern Chinese Buddhism

Abstract

Master Chao Kung 照空 (Ignatius Trebitsch Lincoln, 1879–1943), who asserted to be the first European to undergo monastic ordination in China, possessed a multifaceted identity. According to the Chinese newspapers of the 1930s, Master Chao Kung was documented simultaneously as a clergyman, a British Parliamentarian, and a German spy before he transitioned into monastic life. Throughout his activities as a monk in China, Chao Kung garnered significant attention from both the public and the domestic Buddhist community and frequently engaged in matters concerning Japan and Tibet, where he elicited mixed evaluations. This paper endeavors to scrutinize Chao Kung’s monastic journey during his residence in China based on an array of historical sources, to analyze the distinctiveness of his role and its impact on Chinese Buddhism as well as on the global Buddhist network, by situating it within the broader framework of the globalization of Buddhism in the modern era and the context of the intricate political dynamics of the Republican period.

1. Preamble

In the second half of the nineteenth century, with the opening of the country’s gates and the end of the Republican Era, Chinese Buddhism stood at the crossroads of ancient and modern times of China and the outside world, and underwent major changes and transformations. While continuing its traditions, it also presented many new facets that influenced the trajectory of contemporary Chinese Buddhism. In this modern Buddhist reform movement, monks like Taixu 太虛 (1890–1947) proposed a series of measures aimed at promoting a new direction for Humanistic Buddhism. However, Holmes Welch argued that these so-called innovations were not truly new compared to developments in Buddhism prior to modern times, and that only institutions like Buddhist colleges and societies exhibited some nascent features (Welch 1968, p. 264). Another important innovation he highlighted and dedicated a chapter to is the effort by Chinese Buddhists, along with Buddhists abroad, to initiate an ecumenical Buddhist movement. In this chapter, Welch briefly examined Chao Kung’s life, arguing that he reversed the dynamics of pre-Christian missions in China, resulting in the spread of Buddhism to Europe and America (Welch 1968, pp. 187–90). Following the reopening of the country in the modern era, the Buddhist community became integrated into a much broader international exchange than during the Ming and Qing dynasties, consciously cultivating a sense of cosmopolitanism within Chinese Buddhism. Master Taixu, for instance, viewed cosmopolitanism as a key element of the Buddha’s teachings and advocated for ‘a world movement of Buddhism’, thereby initiating the global spread of Dharma (Chan 1953, pp. 58–59; Pittman 2001, p. 105). This global consciousness and movement have not only become an important feature of modern Buddhist reform, but also an important source of the transnational Buddhist networks in the contemporary Humanistic Buddhism movement (Ji et al. 2019, p. 7).

Current research on this cosmopolitan feature of modern Chinese Buddhism focuses on the following aspects:

The first aspect is the exploration of the sources and influences of cosmopolitan thought in modern Buddhism. Previous studies have highlighted the significant external pressures that drove the transformation of modern Buddhism, including competition and challenges in the religious landscape brought about by political and cultural colonization. This process intensified with the arrival of foreign religious believers, such as Western missionaries and Japanese monks, in the second half of the 19th century (Chen 2016). Although it has had a profound impact on China’s inherent religious ecology, it has also inspired a sense of awakening and renewal in native religions, making both the religious and political communities realize the necessity of confronting the changes and new knowledge in the external world (He 2015). As a result, a group of monks began to emerge within the Buddhist community who were willing to engage with the outside world and primarily aimed to find their own path through interaction with others. These interactions included learning new ideas from the West, socializing with foreign religious figures, and undertaking personal visits and investigations. For example, Taixu was exposed to many Western concepts in his early years and took an interest in anarchism, Marxism, theories of evolution, and so on (Ritzinger 2017). Even before him, a group of Buddhist scholars in the late Qing Dynasty had already begun attempting to transform Buddhism by integrating Eastern and Western ideas, such as Yang Wenhui 楊文會 (1837–1911), maintained close contacts with overseas Buddhists and developed plans for the global spread of Buddhism. In this sense, the revival of modern Buddhism can be seen as emerging from these interactions with the wider world.

Secondly, there are historical studies of the exchanges and interactions between Chinese and foreign Buddhist communities in modern times. These studies can be approached from several perspectives, each with a different focus. One is to take figures as clues, for example, studies examining the experiences of foreign Buddhists coming to China as well as modern monks traveling and attending conferences abroad are relatively abundant (Chen 2022; Fan 2021). Especially Taixu, who has been specifically discussed in a case-by-case manner, from his founding of the World Federation of Buddhists 世界佛教聯合會, his participation in the East Asian Buddhist Congress 東亞佛教大會, and the organization of the World Academy of Buddhist Studies 世界佛學苑 to his global Dharma propagation project, and his tours to Southeast Asia in wartime (Wang 2018, 2020). Another is a more systematic examination of the interaction between the Chinese Buddhist community and various other countries by taking the region as a clue. For example, the influence of Japanese Buddhism on the reform and revival of China is seen in the light of its exchanges with China since the late Qing Dynasty (Xiao 2003; Schicketanz 2016), the pioneering attempts at a global Buddhist network in the light of early European converts to Asian Buddhist traditions (Bocking et al. 2015), and the relationship between Chinese people and Buddhism in Malaysia and Singapore in the light of the local history of Buddhism (Hou 2021; Xu 2020). The third one is to take the time period as a clue, for instance, to conduct studies on Buddhist international interactions for different time periods, such as the late Qing Dynasty, the 1920s, and the anti-war period, to summarize the different characteristics and their impact on the current era (Gong 2017; Li 2022). The general idea of these studies is that the cosmopolitan movement of Buddhism in modern China has failed to fully unfold or fulfill its goals.

Thirdly, a more theoretical perspective has been adopted to interpret the modern global Buddhist movement. For instance, modern Buddhist cosmopolitanism has been analyzed through the lens of transnational Buddhist networks (Havnevik et al. 2017). This research paradigm implies that while theories of globalization can explain religious phenomena in the context of increased international interaction, they still rely on regional divisions between the center and periphery and maintain a top-down macro perspective. Transnational studies pay more attention to micro-level perspectives, including bottom-up approaches. Moreover, for Buddhism, transnational connections have a much longer history than the modern phenomenon of globalization. One important way to break away from the traditional macro perspective is to examine the trans-regional movement of Buddhism from the standpoint of migratory flows. For example, this could involve studying how the Buddhist beliefs of modern Chinese migrants have influenced the formation of Buddhism in the countries of the South China Sea region (Chia 2020). Numerous scholars have also integrated this history of transnational movement with the concept of Buddhist modernity, aiming to demonstrate that this global phenomenon originates from the modernist impetus for reform within Buddhism, which has subsequently driven its modern transformation (Yoshiko and Wank 2009; Kiely and Jessup 2016). These studies typically transcend a narrow focus on Chinese Buddhism and do not treat the trans-regional movement and interaction of Buddhism as mere historical events. Instead, they highlight the critical role of these dynamics in shaping modern Buddhism and even national consciousness.

The above studies have condensed ‘cosmopolitanism’ as an important feature of modern Buddhism and examined it in detail from the perspectives of ideological theory and Dharma propagation practice, which have laid a great foundation for the research of this paper. At the same time, further expansion of the existing research results is still possible. The first point is that most of the existing studies treated the contact between the Chinese Buddhists and the outside world in the modern era as an isolated action, they did not look at these seemingly isolated incidents from the perspective of global history and did not explore their significance sufficiently. For example, the meeting between Yang Wenhui and Dharmapala (1864–1933), even though it was an event in 1894, it implied Yang Wenhui’s years of concern for the Buddhist community in the West and in Japan, as well as Dharmapala’s dream of a global renaissance of Buddhism that he had just returned from the World’s Parliament of Religions in Chicago, and therefore, there was a complexly shaped global network behind the individual case. The second is that it was often simply assumed that the cosmopolitan ideals of modern Buddhists have not been achieved at the practical level, which led to a lack of summary of its positive significance and a lack of exploration of its possible value for the development of contemporary Chinese Buddhism. The third point is that insufficient attention had been paid to overseas sources, and the actual impact of Chinese Buddhism overseas had been confined to the narrative of domestic literature, which was insufficiently comprehensive, in-depth, and inaccurate.

In this article, we will also discuss a story about modern interactions of Chinese Buddhism with the outside world, but what is special is that the protagonist was not a Chinese monk who went overseas to preach Buddhism, but a European who came to China around the same time as Taixu’s visit to Europe and the United States. This will be a change of perspective, and it will also reflect overseas historical materials and the Western world’s views on Chinese Buddhism, which will make up for the shortcomings of the above research to a certain extent. When a Jew named Ignatius Trebitsch was born in Hungary in 1879, no one could have possibly imagined that more than 40 years later he would become the first European to become a Buddhist monk in China. But in addition to this, as with his changeable name and forged passports, he had many other international identities better known to the world, such as a missionary, British parliamentarian, German spy, coup participant, warlord’s entourage, and so on. Though the figure of a Chinese ‘foreign monk’ may represent just one chapter in Trebitsch’s illustrious and multifaceted life, his presence has imparted a unique and significant influence on the narrative of modern Buddhism in China. While we have come to realize that modern Japanese and Chinese Buddhists had presented Buddhism to Western society not merely as a one-way orientalist path, but at the same time recast it as a world religion attractive to the Western world (Snodgrass 2003), the role played by Westerners had often been more crucial in the realization of this goal. In particular, the special attention that European and American monks had received in the Chinese political and religious circles, as well as their views on Chinese and Western civilizations, Buddhism, and the future of the world, provided valuable inspiration for us to understand the characteristics of Chinese Buddhism. These perspectives also provide a significant reference for evaluating the potential role of Buddhism in the contemporary globalized world.

There are not many studies on modern Western Buddhists, and the focus is on their interactions with Buddhist traditions in Japan, India, and Southeast Asia (Bocking et al. 2015). As such, Chao Kung will provide a good example of Western Buddhists in the Chinese tradition. There are good overall studies on his entire life story (Wasserstein 1988), and there are also some examinations of his experiences in specific periods (Holch 2020), but there is currently a lack of dedicated discussion of his life as a Buddhist. More importantly, most studies believe that Chao Kung’s identity was complicated, thus questioning the orthodoxy of his Buddhist identity. This leads to a lack of serious discussion on his Buddhist thoughts and views on Eastern and Western civilizations, which in turn fails to present his significance for the cultural exchange between Chinese and Western Buddhists.

2. Global Consciousness and Sino-Western Interactions of Modern Chinese Buddhism

2.1. Chinese Buddhism After the World’s Parliament of Religions

In discussions of the global engagement of modern Chinese Buddhism, Master Taixu often emerges as a pivotal figure. Renowned for his deliberate efforts to bridge Eastern and Western spiritual traditions, Taixu undertook multiple visits to Japan and Southeast Asia while actively promoting his teachings in Europe and the United States. His ambition was to establish an interconnected network, facilitating cross-cultural dialogue and fostering a more unified global Buddhist community. However, it is important to acknowledge that Taixu’s initiatives were predicated on the fact that a nascent Buddhist network, either globally or at least within the Asian region had already begun to take shape. Prior to Taixu’s efforts, a cohort of Chinese monks had already demonstrated a keen interest in the global dynamics of Buddhism. These monks had embarked on international journeys, engaging in investigations, exchanges, and the propagation of the Dharma, thereby laying the groundwork for Taixu’s subsequent endeavors.

The year 1893 is of particular significance. It is no coincidence that during the World’s Parliament of Religions held in Chicago that year, there was a notable convergence of religious figures from across Asia. This gathering marked a critical moment of cross-cultural religious exchange and highlighted the growing interest in fostering a dialogue between Eastern and Western religious traditions. Among the attendees were Buddhists from various Japanese sects, representatives of the Japanese Theosophical Society, and the missionary John Gilbert Reid (1871–1928), who later founded the International Institute of China 尚賢堂 in China to promote interreligious dialogue. Also present was the Ceylonese Dharmapala, who engaged extensively in exchanges across India, China, and Japan, as well as Peng Guangyu 彭光譽 (1843–1897), a prominent proponent of Confucianism. Yet, conspicuously absent was any representative from Chinese Buddhism. This absence did not indicate that Chinese Buddhism was marginalized from the global religious movement. Domestically, Chinese intellectuals had already begun to engage with the ideas of figures such as Henry Olcott (1832–1907).1 After the conclusion of the Parliament, Dharmapala proceeded to Shanghai, where he, facilitated by Timothy Richard (1845–1919), met with Yang Wenhui. It is also likely that Theosophical Society networks began their dissemination and development in China around this period. Moreover, Higashi-Honganji’s Chinese mission has been in existence for nearly twenty years, and its Chinese-version Buddhist publication was officially born with its strong sectarian consciousness and international outlook. These ostensibly discrete occurrences were, in fact, interlinked in a dynamic interplay, and two decades later, Taixu, a prominent disciple of Yang Wenhui, significantly impacted the Chinese Buddhist community by advocating for a radical reform of Buddhism. His provocative actions at Jinshan Temple 金山寺 in Zhenjiang stirred considerable controversy and catalyzed widespread debate within the religious community. His subsequent visits to Japan, his travels in Europe and America, his contacts with members of the Theosophical Society, and his alliance with Ceylonese and Indian Buddhists were accomplished in the context of the global pattern of modern Buddhism that had already been formed at the end of the nineteenth century.2

2.2. Teaching Abroad and Learning in China: Interaction Between Chinese and Foreign Monks in Modern China

As a foreign religion, the development of Buddhism in China is itself a history of Sino-foreign contacts. Historically, there were both Indian and Central Asians who came to China to spread Buddhism, as well as Chinese who traveled west to seek Dharma. Some Chinese masters traveled to East Asia to teach Buddhist philosophy, as well as Japanese and Korean monks who came to learn in China.

Since the Ming and Qing dynasties, the patterns and circumstances of interactions between Chinese and foreign monks underwent significant transformations. For instance, Sino-Japanese Buddhist exchanges, once notably close, experienced a marked decline starting in the 17th century. This shift was largely due to Japan’s isolationist policy. Consequently, from the late Ming to the mid-Qing period, while some Chinese monks continued to travel to Japan, records of Japanese monks visiting China became increasingly rare (Chen 2002, p. 89). Such a situation did not change until around the time of the Meiji Restoration along with the changes in Japanese Buddhism. In July 1873, Ogurusu Kocho 小栗棲香頂 (1831–1905) traveled through Shanghai to Beijing and resumed the interrupted Sino-Japanese Buddhist exchanges.3 After this, various sects of Japanese Buddhism also joined the ranks of those who came to China for Buddhist pilgrimage. Of course, their aims quickly changed from seeking the Dharma to spreading Buddhism or initiating reforms. In the meantime, Chinese monks and lay Buddhists began to make frequent contact with the Japanese Buddhist community, most notably Yang Wenhui’s association with Nanjo Bunyu 南條文雄 (1849–1927) and his acquisition of hundreds of sutras from Japan, as well as other intellectual elites who showed a keen interest in the development of Buddhism in Japan at the time. With the advancements in transportation technology, ordinary Chinese monks also began to visit Japan (Shao 2019b).

Additionally, Buddhist exchanges between China and the West were mainly dominated by missionaries introducing the status of Chinese Buddhism to the West during the Ming and Qing dynasties. Since the 19th century, Buddhist ideas, including Chinese Buddhist scriptures, began to be spread to the Western world through Japanese monks. Due to Japan’s earlier opening to the world compared to China, it commenced the export of Buddhism sooner. In the late 19th century, following their conversion to Buddhism in Japan, several Europeans played a pivotal role in introducing and disseminating Buddhist teachings across Europe and America. In China, a similar role as we know it was played by Taixu. As for Taixu’s world circumnavigation, he received help and introduction from Chao Kung. Taixu himself directly referred to Chao Kung’s conversion as one of the pieces of evidence that Chinese Buddhism was valued in the Occident.4

3. Shanghai Abbot: Chao Kung’s Life and Legacy as a Chinese Monk

In the Anglophone world, Bernard Wasserstein’s monograph The Secret Lives of Trebitsch Lincoln (Wasserstein 1988) provided a comprehensive and detailed examination of Chao Kung’s life. However, this book mainly utilized documentary sources in English and focused on Trebitsch’s life as a whole, without focusing on his experiences as a monk and his influence on Sino-Western Buddhist exchanges. In the book Shanghai: The Adventurer’s Paradise written by G.E. Miller (1900–?) and later translated into Chinese, the author dedicated a chapter to recounting the adventures of the ‘Monk C.K.’. However, the work was largely a semi-literary account, blending fact with narrative embellishment.5 Therefore, it remains essential to draw upon both Chinese and Western sources, particularly those concerning Chao Kung’s monastic life, to thoroughly assess his understanding of and influence on Chinese Buddhism during his time as a monk.

3.1. Chinese Monk or Western Convert? Chao Kung’s Early Life and Path to Renunciation

Trebitsch’s father, a prosperous Jewish merchant, endeavored to raise his son to become a Jewish rabbi. However, the young Trebitsch was restless, not only did his father’s traditional Jewish upbringing fail to resonate with him, but he was also once arrested for theft. He traveled to England and while in London after 1897, became involved with charitable organizations established by the Presbyterians. He was later baptized in Germany on Christmas Day in 1899. The following year he converted to Lutheranism and travelled to Canada as a missionary with the Montreal Mission to help convert Jews to Christianity. Yet, when he returned to England in 1903, he was again accused of misconduct and financial problems in his mission. Nevertheless, with his remarkable eloquence, Trebitsch secured the favor of the English Christian community, leading the Archbishop of Canterbury to offer him a parish. However, Trebitsch himself remained deeply dissatisfied with the climate and environment. In 1906, following the death of his father-in-law, he unexpectedly inherited a substantial fortune, which enabled him to sever his ties with the parish. Leveraging his connections with a cocoa magnate, he secured a seat in Parliament as a Liberal Party member. However, the Liberal government soon fell, and this former Member of Parliament quickly found himself sought by British authorities on charges of forgery, necessitating his flight to New York. Despite this, Scotland Yard successfully exerted considerable pressure on U.S. authorities, resulting in his detention in Brooklyn during the extradition process. During this time, Trebitsch made an attempt to escape from custody; however, he was eventually extradited to London and remained imprisoned until 1919. This period significantly influenced Trebitsch’s subsequent endeavors, as he devoted the latter part of his life to efforts aimed at undermining the British Empire. Following his release, he relocated to Germany and became involved in the Kapp Putsch, an attempted coup against the Weimar Republic. Amidst ongoing political instability, Trebitsch was again arrested in Vienna, Austria, and his release was secured only under the condition of permanent exile from Europe (Wasserstein 1988).

Subsequently, Trebitsch traveled from the United States to China, where he became a prominent guest of General Yang Sen 楊森 (1884–1977) of the Sichuan Army and sought to align himself with the warlord Wu Peifu 吳佩孚 (1874–1939), who was a powerful ally of Yang. Later, during a visit to Europe as part of a Chinese military delegation, Trebitsch hoped to regain European trust. However, he discovered that his previous schemes and deceptions had left a lasting negative impression across the continent’s consular services. As a result, numerous countries, including his native Hungary, refused to issue him visas, effectively thwarting his plans to leverage his association with Wu Peifu (SCMP 1925, p. 8). Following his journey to China, Trebitsch’s attention began to shift towards the vast territories beyond the Western world. He was about to embark on a life characterized by constant movement between China and the West, during which he gradually transformed from a Westerner and follower of Western religions into a Chinese Buddhist monk.6

His travels in Asia after 1925 and his encounters with members of the Theosophical Society on his journeys finally led Trebitsch to identify Buddhism as his next spiritual destination. Over the next few years, he made expeditions to India and Sri Lanka (TT 1926, p. 15) and was formally ordained in the early 1930s, when Trebitsch became the Monk Chao Kung. In 1931 he was ordained at Baohua Mountain 寶華山 near Nanjing, and Master Juzan 巨贊 (1908–1984) once vividly documented what he saw and experienced when he and Chao Kung were ordained together, as well as recalling Chao Kung’s life in his later years. Juzan’s memoirs also contained a description of how Chao Kung understood the Buddhist precepts and how he interpreted the essentials of the Buddhadharma. It is said that he was tonsured as a monk at the same time as Zhaoxin 照心 (1873–?) at Zhunti Pavilion 准提閣 in Wushan 吴山 (also known as Chenghuang Mountain 城隍山), and they were ordained together in the same year. Their master was Jiyun 寂雲 (?–?), the abbot of Zhunti Pavilion, formerly known as Xie Guoliang 謝國梁. He had built a temple in Tiantai Mountain to worship Master Hongyi 弘一 (1880–1942) and later traveled to Siam with Zhaoxin and others to pursue Buddhist studies. After returning to China in 1930, he was ordained as a monk by Master Zhuanfeng 轉逢 (1879–1952) at Nanputuo Temple 南普陀寺 and then resided at Hangzhou Zhunti Pavilion after being ordained at Baohua (Zhu 2008, pp. 546–54; HCY 1931, pp. 104–7).

It is difficult to say with certainty that Trebitsch became monk Chao Kung after he shaved his hair, ironed his scar, and put on his monk’s robes, but all of these actions meant precisely changing from a person in the world to a person outside the world in Chinese Buddhism. Precepts played a role in helping to enhance religious authority and legitimacy in modern Buddhism (Campo 2017), which was something Chao Kung also had a definite understanding of. The Longchang Temple 隆昌寺 on Baohua Mountain was particularly important because it was home to what had been the most influential ordination platform in China since the end of the Ming dynasty. It represented the orthodoxy of Buddhism in the revival of Vinaya in modern times (Bianchi 2017). This is why Chao Kung took great pride in his ordination according to Chinese Buddhist rites and asserted that he was the first European to be ordained as a Chinese monk. Although he felt it inhumane for many senior monks to hit the youngers with poplar branches during the ordination process, he generally agreed with the religious practices of Chinese Buddhism, such as burning the precept scars, which were often considered cruel by outsiders (Zhu 2008, p. 547). In other words, he placed significant emphasis on his identity as a Chinese monk. And after leading foreign disciples to Shanghai, he proudly called himself the ‘Shanghai abbot’. However, he was still primarily regarded as a foreign monk within the Chinese Buddhist community, meaning that he was considered a Westerner first and a monk second. Furthermore, there was skepticism among Buddhists regarding his understanding of Chinese Buddhism, given that he could not speak Chinese and was believed to lack a true grasp of the essence of Chinese Buddhist teachings. This issue will be discussed further in the following sections.

3.2. A Monk, Spy, or Fraud?

Although Chao Kung was commonly active as a Buddhist in China in the 1920s and 1930s, the complexities of his early years and his nationality identities seemed to have continued into Chao Kung’s monastic life. This made many people believe that he did not truly become a monk as he claimed.

In his autobiography “Why I Became a Monk”, Chao Kung offered the following explanation for his ordination: “I am an ordinary person who resolutely chose to leave secular life and become a monk to pursue Buddhist teachings. This is both my will and my sole purpose” (Chao Kung and Daoping 1937, p. 91). Chao Kung believed that the various professions and desires pursued by people inevitably led to disappointment, as the notion of lasting happiness was nothing more than an illusion. The hope of attaining lasting joy from the gods offered by different religions has proved to be purely futile. Instead, Buddhism offers the truth and wisdom that can lead to true freedom from anxiety and liberation. Chao Kung reflected on how he abandoned his role as a Christian clergyman, transcended Western philosophical ideas, and turned to embrace Buddhism. He claimed to be the first foreigner to come to China to study Buddhism and be ordained as a monk, and he spent years organizing groups and promoting Buddhist teachings across Europe and America. In his view, Buddhism had already begun to spread in the Western world, although its ideas, scriptures, and organizations remained in a state of disarray (Chao Kung and Daoping 1937, pp. 96–97).

Certainly, on the one hand, we should admire Chao Kung’s endeavors in shaving his head, taking precepts, accepting disciples, and spreading the Buddhadharma. Notably, he had made a vow to promote Buddhism in Europe, but unfortunately, his past made it nearly impossible for him to gain entry into many European countries, let alone engage in propagating the Dharma. Therefore he could only persuade people in Europe to become monks in China. He once led more than ten European Buddhist disciples to land in Shanghai and was warmly welcomed by the local Buddhist community (Figure 1). He also led them to Nanjing in 1934 to take the precepts at Qixia Temple 棲霞寺, which attracted a lot of attention from public opinion and received strong support from the Chinese political and religious authorities. However, public opinion was still somewhat wary of foreign Buddhists. Consequently, Qixia Temple, wary of the potential repercussions, declined to receive them. The group thus sought provisional lodging at Longtan Temple 龍潭寺 in Longtan Town (SSXB 1934, p. 3). His disciples included Daojun 道峻7, Daozheng 道正, Daowei 道巍, Daole 道樂, Daoda 道達8, Daojing 道靜, Daogu 道固, Daoming 道明, Daoping 道平, Daoxun 道循, and Daoqian 道謙, etc. (Figure 2). One of them, Daojun (Martin Steinke), set up the Buddha Society in Potsdam in 1922. Daole (Margot Markus), was the most devout of Chao Kung’s disciples. Subsequently, Chao Kung once again led his European disciples to Europe with the intent of spreading the Buddhadharma. The endeavor was fraught with difficulties, and instead, amidst a series of hardships, the disciples dispersed, leaving him to return to China in destitution, where he spent his remaining years in obscurity.

On the other hand, although Chao Kung’s efforts did not proceed as smoothly as anticipated, he leveraged his status as a foreign monk to establish close connections with prominent figures and esteemed masters in the Chinese Buddhist community. Moreover, in his capacity as a monk, he sought to involve himself in Tibetan Buddhist affairs. For instance, in 1939, he issued a warning to Western nations, asserting that if they continued waging war without ceasing, the spiritual leaders of Tibetan Buddhism would bring about their downfall (NYT 1939, p. 5). He even claimed that he would be the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama after his death. Panchen Lama (1883–1937) had promised to meet him on his return from Mongolia at the end of 1933 before he took foreign disciples to be ordained. According to the available information he was met by Panchen in early 1934 on the recommendation of Dai Jitao 戴季陶 (1891–1949)9. Following the outbreak of hostilities between China and Japan, he also offered numerous commentaries on the conflict. He advocated for cooperation rather than confrontation between the two nations, which drew the attention of Japanese authorities and was reported in Japanese newspapers. Conversely, he also remarked that China lacked the capacity to resist Japanese aggression, suggesting that the anti-Japanese resistance was a misguided effort. He acknowledged his affection for China but asserted that the country’s poverty and turmoil were instigated by the Kuomintang and foreign powers. He contended that Japan could have been a benefactor to China but lamented that its approach, characterized by extreme warfare, was unfortunate. Despite this, he described Japan’s administration in northern China as relatively benign. He expressed these views to journalists and was unperturbed by being labeled as an apologist for Japan (MX 1938, pp. 230–32; SEPM 1938, p. 16). There were even suspicions in the media that he had joined Kokuryū-kai 黑龍會 in Japan (TCWR 1937, p. 1). Overall, Chao Kung exhibited considerable tolerance and goodwill toward Japan. However, there were also rumors suggesting that his death was the result of Japanese interference during surgery (Zhu 2008, p. 553). The first Buddhist Congress in Europe led by him was also rumored to have close ties with the Nazis at that time. This seemingly inextricable relationship was not an empty one. In 1940s war-torn Shanghai, Chao Kung tried to write to Hitler to arrange for his visit to Germany, offering the promise that he could help Germany win in Asia by fomenting rebellions in the Tibetan region and India through Buddhism (Holch 2020). Additionally, in 1940, he requested that the U.S. Consulate in Shanghai issue him a visa to present a ceasefire peace proposal to President Roosevelt in Washington. Predictably, his request had not been approved (NYT 1940, p. 45). It is hard for us to judge whether Chao Kung’s continuing engagement with these political issues after his ordination, stemmed from residual personal ambition, a renewed understanding of global political dynamics under the influence of Buddhist teachings, or merely as a tactic to garner attention and resources.

Naturally, Chao Kung’s many politically inclined words and actions did not necessarily mean that he was truly capable of navigating between political groups but were more likely to be mere bluffs. Taking advantage of the complex political dynamics in the war era, Chao Kung might only hope to satisfy his demands, such as lifting his deportation order and restoring his normal rights to travel around European countries. That is why when he was in Europe under the name of warlord Wu Peifu’s personal advisor, Wu Peifu had asked Reuters to deny Chao Kung in this capacity, claiming that he had never heard of this person. Upon closer examination of the advice he offered to the Chinese people and government during a 1932 interview with the North-China Herald, much of it appears to be impractical and destined to be disregarded as empty rhetoric. Among his suggestions was the expansion of foreign appointments within government and military sectors, apart from making it easier for Chao Kung to benefit from it, we do not see anything in the suggestion that could favor China (NCH 1927, p. 227; SCMP 1932a, p. 13). During an interview with a reporter from the Shanghai Evening Post and Mercury, he specifically emphasized that, as a monk, leading his disciples back to Europe to propagate Buddhism was both legitimate and justified. He further highlighted that when his European disciples were to receive ordination at Qixia Mountain, Chu Mingyi 褚民誼 (1884–1946) would invite consuls and ambassadors from France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, and Russia to attend, expressing his hope that these European countries would realize the popularity of him (FB 1933a, p. 572). Although Chao Kung had expressed himself more than once in interviews that he was simply a monk and not a politician, his actions did not make his pronouncements convincing most of the time (TCP 1934a, p. 4).

Chao Kung’s aforementioned actions were not in line with our imagination of a traditional monk. Paradoxically, his various attempts in politics were unsuccessful, but as a self-proclaimed Chinese monk, he gained increasing recognition, and he himself published increasingly more articles on Buddhism from the 1930s onwards. People did not completely deny his Buddhist identity because he was too involved in politics. This might have something to do with the rise of Humanistic Buddhism at that time. For example, Taixu had never shied away from participating in politics and believed that Humanistic Buddhism should actively pay attention to worldly affairs.

3.3. Western Monks in China: A Growing Occidental Interest in Oriental Buddhism

In the context of modern interactions between Chinese and foreign Buddhism, much attention has been given to the efforts of Chinese monks in propagating the Buddhadharma abroad and the activities of foreign (primarily from traditional Buddhist countries) monks within China, but instances of Westerners ordaining as monks in China and subsequently engaging in Dharma propagation in the Western world are exceedingly rare. In Japan, Charles Pfoundes once spread Japanese Buddhism to the West (Bocking 2013). In China, Chao Kung can be taken as a typical example.

It is difficult for us to say how deeply the monks in Western China understood the Chinese Buddhist tradition, in fact, Chao Kung’s grasp of Chinese Buddhism was also notably limited. Although his process of conversion and identity was rooted in Han Chinese Buddhism, his knowledge of Buddhism was largely derived from Western interpretations of primitive and Theravada Buddhism (HCY 1934, p. 3). Many understandings of Buddhism were not even purely in the Buddhist sense. The Theosophical Society, for example, which we have mentioned, was an early and significant intermediary in the collision and interface between Chinese and Western Buddhist knowledge in the modern era. Yang Wenhui and Tan Sitong 譚嗣同 (1865–1898) called this organization the ‘Buddhist Society’ or the ‘Buddhism Association’. Since the 19th century, many Westerners professed an interest in Buddhism, however, their interpretations often incorporated elements from other religious traditions, such as Hinduism. Chao Kung’s interactions with Theosophists during his time in the United States highlighted his confused understanding of Asian Buddhist traditions was not merely incidental. It is also crucial to acknowledge that these syncretic belief systems had significantly influenced figures on Chinese and Western monks such as Henry Steele Olcott, Charles Pfoundes (1840–1907), Chao Kung, and Taixu, marking a notable characteristic of modern Sino-Western Buddhist exchanges.

During approximately the same period as Chao Kung, a group of Western monks traveled to China to learn Buddhism, and many of them were influenced by Chao Kung. Many of these individuals were not merely superficial observers of an exotic religion, rather, they were driven by deep faith to seek out conversion, tonsure, ordination, and parlance. Additionally, some were motivated by a strong sense of mission to propagate Buddhist teachings to the Western world. Compared to coming to China, Western Buddhists appeared earlier and more often in countries such as India, Ceylon, and Japan. This situation changed somewhat after the 1930s. Julius Goldwater (1908–2001) was a monk in the United States. He once visited Hangzhou in 1937 and argued that Western society was in urgent need of Eastern Buddhist teachings and that China should intensify its efforts to promote Buddhism worldwide. He noted that Japan had already established over a hundred temples in the United States, with the oldest having a history of fifty years. Moreover, Japanese and Indian Buddhist scholars frequently delivered lectures at American universities, whereas Chinese voices were notably absent. Goldwater asserted that sending Chinese Buddhists to the U.S. would undoubtedly be well-received (FR 1937a, p. 1). During his visit to China, Goldwater also mentioned another American Buddhist, Dwight Goddard 高智安 (1861–1939), who had also followed Chao Kung (or Jiyun) (FB 1933b, p. 505) to be ordained at Chenghuang Mountain in Hangzhou, was planning to build a temple in Santa Barbara when he returned to the United States. Besides, In 1931, it was reported that two American monks, Guyun 固雲 and Mozhai 墨齋, came from Japan to find a temple in Peking to study scriptures (SCMP 1931, p. 13). As for Europe, Mrs. Alice Leighton Cleather (1846–1938), a disciple of Mrs. Blavatsky (1831–1891) of the Theosophical Society, went to Tibet to learn Buddhism. After 1925, she went to Peking to meet the Panchen Lama and had contact with Taixu and others. Another British monk who came to China, B. L. Broughton (?–?), was ordained at the Peking Buddhist Lay Association. It was also reported that the Shanghai Buddhist community had already hosted British monk Bao Ledeng 包樂登 (suspected to be Broughton) when he came to China in 1932, but the reception was even larger when Chao Kung came to China in 1933. In addition to his disciples who accompanied Chao Kung to China for ordination, several Western Buddhists also followed in his footsteps and traveled to China. For instance, in 1936, reports indicated two German monks with the names of Jixi 吉喜 and Xinxi 欣喜, would follow a similar path to Chao Kung. They initially devoted themselves to rigorous practice in China before returning to Europe to propagate the Dharma (SSXB 1936, p. 3). After Chao Kung’s passing, another Italian-born Dharma Master came to Jade Buddha Temple 玉佛寺 in Shanghai, dressed in yellow cloth and barefoot slippers. He originally studied chemistry at Columbia University, and after reading Buddhist books in English, he converted to Buddhism at the age of 27 (TB 1947, p. 1). The arrival of these Western Buddhists in China reflected a modern wave of interest in Oriental religions, indicating that the Western understanding of Buddhism had begun to encompass Chinese Buddhism. Moreover, it demonstrated a growing expectation that the wisdom and monastic traditions of Chinese Buddhism could exert greater influence in the Occident (TCWR 1931, p. 361).

4. The Role of Buddhism in the Modern Global Landscape

During the latter half of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th century, a period marked by significant upheaval and turmoil, humanity not only instigated numerous wars and disasters but also sought pathways to resolution. Among these efforts, the pursuit of salvation through religion emerged as an important approach. This presented a dilemma for China: on the one hand, Western religions entered China along with colonial invasions, causing the populace to harbor deep resentment toward religion, particularly Christianity, and leading to the belief that religion was unnecessary for the Chinese people. On the other hand, some modern Chinese observed that the Western powers all attached great importance to religions and sought to emulate this by establishing their own versions of Confucianism and Buddhism, but none of these attempts were successful. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, some Westerners have similarly developed a sense of cultural crisis, believing that their civilization and religious traditions were insufficient to address the challenges faced by humanity. Consequently, they had begun to seek resources from oriental cultures. Buddhism had become an intellectual resource of considerable interest in this modern cross-cultural exchange between East and West. Chao Kung was a typical representative of this type of exchange, however, due to his multiple and complex identities, his Buddhist beliefs were often perceived as opportunistic strategies. As a result, not enough attention had been paid to Chao Kung’s Buddhist thought. By analyzing Chao Kung’s published works and statements, we can gain insight into the prevailing mindset of Western Buddhists at the time, thereby enabling us to comprehend the deeper motivations underlying the Buddhist cultural exchange practices between East and West during that period.

4.1. War, Politics, and the Fate of Humanity

While we will always be wary of the rhetoric of a man as deceptively multifaceted as Trebitsch, perhaps we need to return to Chao Kung’s own views on the causes of monkhood, the value of the Dharma, global conflicts and the fate of humanity in order to achieve a fuller view of the tension that emerged from his monastic career and intricate practice. Based on Chao Kung’s published works, such as “Why I Became a Monk”, Dawn or Doom of Humanity, Can War Be Abolished, and various interviews featured in newspapers, it is evident that he engaged in deep reflection on his early experiences, European religions, global conflicts and the future of humanity. His reflections were permeated with a sense of disillusionment, yet also revealed how he found hope within Buddhism. In Chao Kung’s booklet Dawn or Doom of Humanity, he argued with certainty that Western Christendom had collapsed and that Christian states and governments could only bring about force and war, deepening human conflicts and the destruction of nature. He blamed almost every area of Western society, such as politics, justice, and the press, only to attribute the cause of these depravities to the Christian culture of these nations. In contrast, there was the kind, peaceful, authentic civilization and wisdom of Asia. It almost reminded us of the praise and admiration of Chinese thought that was raised two centuries ago by some European Enlightenment intellectuals. Notably, in this book, Chao Kung identified China and Japan as representatives of this Asian civilization and explicitly asserted that only the union of these two countries can guide us out of the Christian world’s incompetence, greed, violence, and barbarism (HCY 1936, p. 40).

In his letters to Chinese people, Chao Kung portrayed the Western world as exaggerated, arrogant, deceitful, immoral, degenerate, and materialistic, thus positioning Chinese civilization as the true resource for the salvation of humanity (SSXB 1933b, p. 2). During the welcoming ceremony held in the hall of Examination Yuan 考試院 by Dai Jitao after the ordination of his foreign Buddhist disciples, Chao Kung again remarked that what Western civilization brought to the East were cannons, warships, poison gas, opium, brandy, and whiskey. In contrast, what China brought to the West was supreme wisdom, global enlightenment, and human happiness (SSXB 1933a, p. 3). In War or Peace, Chao Kung also took a strong stand in calling for the liberation of China, India, Japan, and all other Asian countries from the corrupting influence of the Christian world. He advocated for sowing the seeds of a better order, grounded in kindness and compassion, with the aim of fostering assistance rather than conflict and healing, rather than harm (SCMP 1933, p. 16).

From the aforementioned writings, letters, and interviews, it was evident that in the 1930s, Chao Kung was deeply concerned about global developments and the impact of conflicts on humanity’s future. As a Buddhist, he repeatedly argued that Buddhism offered the ultimate path to transform human thought, adjust interpersonal relationships, resolve political crises, and save the world’s destiny. Why did he say that? Chao Kung believed that Buddhism offered more than just conventional knowledge. It provided, from a perspective of impartial equality, a concept of reality that is unborn, uncreated, unoriginated, and eternal. This reality theoretically offered an impeccable metaphysical framework and, in practice, holds significant inspirational value. Only Buddhist disciples could eliminate the delusions or hallucinations common to all living beings and thus understand existence, life, and the world correctly (Chao Kung 1937a, p. 6). The law of cause and effect ensured that no one could theoretically escape the consequences of their actions, and only by recognizing this could war be eliminated (SCMP 1932b, p. 14).

From a practical standpoint, Chao Kung advocated for minimizing distinctions based on race, nation, and other political categories, instead emphasizing the shared characteristics of humanity. This view derived from Buddhist teachings was in line with Chao Kung’s life story of being a cosmopolitan person and also hinted at why the development of modern Buddhism, including Humanistic Buddhism, placed so much emphasis on worldwide exchanges. However, he did not promote an extreme form of internationalism that seeks to eliminate national boundaries in their entirety. He believed that completely dismantling historical divisions such as families, tribes, clans, groups, nations, and races was neither necessary nor feasible. Nevertheless, this perspective did not diminish the fundamental fact of our shared humanity. He used the example of cooking to illustrate this: there was no need to advocate for everyone to cook Cantonese cuisine. People were free to prepare food according to their own preferences, as long as they adhered to certain timeless dietary and cooking principles (Chao Kung 1937b, p. 13). This reflected a wisdom reminiscent of the ancient Chinese principle of harmonious diversity.

4.2. Why Did Chao Kung Choose Buddhism and Specifically, Chinese Buddhism?

It is fair to say that Chao Kung did not mince words in praising Buddhism in his narrative for its irreplaceable role in helping Western and indeed people all over the world remove the chaos of the times and in attaining peace of mind and spirit. One might argue that Chao Kung’s critique of European civilization still contained his vengeful feelings towards a group of European countries and governments such as the United Kingdom, it was simply that his gradual old age had prevented him from protesting more radically. However, in the mind of someone who had experienced various religious lives, who possessed a European perspective shaped by a rare combination of diverse personal experiences and a global worldview, and who was active during the tumultuous era of two World Wars, why did the final peace of the world and the destiny of mankind depend on an oriental religion like Buddhism to achieve it? Why did he ultimately spend the longest period of his life as a monk until his death?

In Chao Kung’s own account, exploring Buddhist teachings became his personal conviction and sole focus in his later years. It was a natural shift towards true teaching after he recognized that Christianity and other Western civilizations could not adequately explain the illusions of the world and the desires of human life (Chao Kung and Daoping 1937, p. 95). It was also said that Chao Kung had fully retreated into monastic life after experiencing the profound grief of losing a child (Wasserstein 1988, p. 226). While we cannot easily dismiss Chao Kung’s account of his spiritual journey, it is evident that after declaring his adherence to Buddhism, he frequently used his identity as a Buddhist and his practice of propagating the Dharma as a rationale for exerting pressure on the British government and seeking favor with the German government in an attempt to seek a place for his political status. It may be difficult to explain why a person converts to Buddhism for a sole reason, nor can we easily question the authenticity of his beliefs, but objectively, Chao Kung’s conversion promoted the interaction between Eastern and Western Buddhist cultures. Moreover, from many of his Buddhist treatises, it was obvious that he still had his own unique understanding of Buddhism, and was not merely using the appearance of monkhood as a form of political capital. In “Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy”, Chao Kung delved into the subtleties of the Buddhist concept of ‘emptiness’ from perspectives such as the nature of the world, human cognition, and the eradication of desire. He explored the path to liberation from suffering and contrasted it with other religions and philosophical theories in the world, and concluded that only the truth of Buddhism was most capable of addressing the ultimate problems of the world, life, and the existence of the self (Chao Kung 1943, p. 13).

At the same time, we have to reflect on why, despite Chao Kung’s globally notorious reputation10, his identity as a Buddhist monk continued to receive significant and positive recognition in China, particularly within the Buddhist community. In other words, why did the Chinese so urgently need foreign monks like Chao Kung to promote Chinese Buddhism, even though he had many flaws?

Among the Asian countries where the Buddhist faith is prevalent, Japan and Sri Lanka have been involved with the West earlier than China. The spread of Japanese Buddhism to the United States had already been reported in the 1900s. Yekon Furukawa (?–?) was an American monk who came to San Francisco in 1931 to spread the Rinzai sect of Japanese Buddhism to the Americans (TCWR 1931, p. 361). The German monk Nyanatiloka Mahathera (1878–1959)11, who had become a monk in Sri Lanka, as early as 1907 was considering building a monastery in Germany or Switzerland (Li 2018, p. 7). Although this plan ultimately did not come to fruition, it indicated that the earliest Western Buddhists who propagated Buddhism in Europe and America were usually influenced by Japanese or South Asian Buddhist traditions. Even later monks who visited China or were ordained there, such as Chao Kung, Dwight Goddard from the United States, Mrs. Cleather from the United Kingdom, Alexandra David-Néel (1868–1969) from France, and Martin Steinke (1882–1966) from Germany, etc., had first engaged with Buddhism in other Asian countries before establishing connections with the Chinese Buddhist community.

Given that Chao Kung claimed to be the first European to become a monk in China, what particular affection did he have for Chinese Buddhism? In his later article “Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy”, there appeared to be no significant indication of his understanding of the Dharma rooted in Chinese Buddhist traditions. In an interview with Master Fafang 法舫 (1904–1951), Chao Kung mentioned that there were no true monks in China yet, claiming that he would shoulder the responsibility of spreading the Dharma there. This statement provoked resentment among both Chinese and foreign monks, as well as the public. After his lecture, Fafang arranged a meeting with a few others to further discuss Chao Kung’s understanding of Buddhism, which lasted for about an hour and a half. The conclusion was that Chao Kung had some knowledge of Theravada Buddhism in Pali but did not fully comprehend it. He was seen as having the problem of preconceived ideas, a narrow-minded perspective, reflecting a conceited subjectivity. Nevertheless, his understanding of the Buddhist concept of non-self was considered correct (HCY 1934, p. 5). From this account, it was apparent that Chao Kung’s Buddhist thought not only did not pay particular attention to the Chinese Han Buddhism tradition but was also rather contemptuous of it. His understanding of Buddhism primarily stemmed from German and English translations of Pali texts, as well as English writings by Japanese authors He did not understand Chinese Buddhist scriptures. Chao Kung once discussed the meaning of ‘all is vanity’ with the governor of Jiangning 江寜 when he was ordained at Mount Baohua, and arrogantly believed that the governor, who had studied abroad, did not have an understanding of Buddhist emptiness. He even disagreed with his master Jiyun’s understanding (Zhu 2008, p. 548).

In summary, rather than saying that Chao Kung was a liar who accidentally chose Buddhism and used it as one of his identities and means of deception, it is better to say that this was a specific product of the cultural exchange between China and the West in that era. Even in the absence of Chao Kung, numerous Westerners with diverse backgrounds would still critically reassess Western culture and express interest in Chinese Buddhism. On the other hand, without Chao Kung, the Chinese Buddhist community would still promote numerous stories of Westerners embracing Buddhism and utilizing the resources of Western Buddhists to advance the global propagation of Buddhism. Although these foreign monks might not truly understand the distinctive features of Chinese Buddhism or fully respect its traditions, Chinese Buddhist elites still needed such figures to bolster their confidence in their own religious traditions. This was determined by the common problems faced by the modern world. There existed a group of people in both the East and the West who hoped to find solutions to their problems from Buddhism. This had not only become the driving force for Buddhism to pay attention to the real world but also became a common discourse platform for cultural interaction between the East and the West. This was also an important reason why Engaged Buddhism or Humanistic Buddhism had emerged in different countries at the same time.

4.3. Practical Impacts of Buddhist Cosmopolitanism

In 1933, when Dai Jitao was hosting the reception for Western monks brought to China by Chao Kung after their ordination, he said optimistically that ‘the opportunity and time were ripe for Buddhist Cosmopolitanism’. This optimism was not entirely unfounded. During the period when Chao Kung was traveling in and out of China, eminent monks such as Taixu visited Europe and the United States, and other Western monks also frequently came to China to study or receive ordination. This gave Chinese Buddhists hope that Buddhism could serve as a bridge between Chinese and Western civilizations and even transform western society. During this period, organizations such as the Society for Promotion of Buddhism in Occident 歐美佛化推行社 appeared in Hangzhou and Dharmaloka Society 法明學會 was established in Shanghai. Their objectives were to foster international cooperation among Buddhist organizations and to promote the spread of Buddhism in Western countries, ultimately aiming to benefit humanity.12

However, we cannot help but ask, what kind of influence did Chao Kung and other foreign monks have on the development of Chinese Buddhism? How much influence did they have on Western societies when they went back to the West? Did Buddhism really play a role in world peace and war elimination? From the available materials, Chao Kung’s understanding of Chinese Buddhist doctrine appeared limited. Despite having over a dozen European disciples, he did not attract many Chinese students as apprentices. However, he did propose a series of reform suggestions for the future revival of Chinese Buddhism. These included enhancing government oversight of monastic communities, standardizing and strictly regulating ordination procedures, and establishing various schools and a university within the Buddhist community (Chao Kung 1944, pp. 24–27). Many of Chao Kung’s suggestions addressed the shortcomings of Chinese Buddhism at the time, but they also aligned with the reform issues that were of concern to the Chinese monastic community. Therefore, it was difficult to attribute the impetus for reform in Chinese Buddhism solely to Chao Kung. While objectively speaking, the activities of foreign monks in China and their efforts to propagate Buddhism in the Occident at least significantly boosted the confidence of the Chinese Buddhists and increased the awareness of Chinese Buddhism in the Western world.

Yet had, Chinese Buddhism increased in popularity in Western countries? That is also a tough question to answer. Judging from Chao Kung’s own experience, he hardly ever had the opportunity to land in Europe to spread the Buddhadharma, and most of the European disciples he recruited left him finally. His idea of establishing Buddhist temples in Europe was never realized until he passed away. It is therefore difficult to say what specific impact Chao Kung had on Western society because of his Buddhist attainments. However, as an internationally renowned spy or fraud, Chao Kung’s conversion to Buddhism caused repercussions in European and American societies, which paradoxically aroused the attention of Westerners at the time to Chinese Buddhism. Nonetheless, represented by a group of foreign monks such as Chao Kung, Chinese Buddhism began to emerge on the world stage from the 1920s to the 1940s together with Asian Buddhist traditions such as Japan and Sri Lanka. Although their voice might not be as representative of the Chinese Buddhist tradition as Taixu and other Chinese monks,13 the basic pattern and influence of Chinese Buddhism in the contemporary Occident had been gradually established.

Chao Kung ultimately passed away in Shanghai in 1943 and was buried in the Buddhist section of Shanghai’s public cemetery. There were rumors that he died while undergoing surgery at the missionary hospital (Renji Hospital) run by the British since the British Empire still wanted to eliminate him at all costs. Others believed that the Japanese occupied Shanghai and took over the hospital so Chao Kung was poisoned by Japanese agents. Regardless of the facts, this foreign monk who devoted himself to Buddhism in his later years died in the political game during the wartimes. We cannot assume whether his view of the world and humanity would have changed if he had survived beyond the war when the global landscape was reshuffled. While Chao Kung might not have been a fully competent Buddhist within the Chinese tradition, his role as a figure emerging in the modern world and his involvement in cross-cultural exchanges rendered him a peculiar character in the history of Sino-Western religious and cultural interactions. Even today, the development of Chinese Buddhism might still draw lessons from his reflections on Buddhists as human beings, transcending racial and national boundaries to contribute more profoundly to human civilization’s intercultural dialogue.

5. Concluding Remarks

Although Chao Kung did not seem to have completely become a Buddhist monk who lived in seclusion or chanted Buddha’s name all day long, and he did not have a deep understanding of Chinese Buddhism or even lacked interest in it, he paid more attention to his identity as a Chinese Buddhist in his later years. Even though it was difficult to say that his many exchanges between China and European countries in the name of spreading Buddhism were intended to enhance the cosmopolitanism of Buddhism, he objectively brought Buddhism into the eyes of Westerners and attracted quite a few followers. More importantly, his experiences allowed the Chinese Buddhist community to see the possibility of relying on European monks to spread Chinese Buddhism. Chao Kung’s mission might not be satisfactory, but at least it reflected the Chinese Buddhists’ eager desire to spread the Dharma worldwide. It is in this sense that we assume his activities promoted modern Buddhist cosmopolitanism.

The importance of Chao Kung was also in line with the general trend of Humanistic Buddhism at that time, which sought to intervene in public affairs and address human problems. As the most famous representative of Buddhist cross-cultural exchanges in modern times, Chao Kung embodied the international and worldly participation characteristics of Humanistic Buddhism. His example also showed the common driving force behind the rise of reformed Buddhism in the context of globalism.