From Marginalization to Localization: Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism’s Adaptive Strategies in Theravāda Myanmar

Abstract

Tension between the Mahāyāna and Theravāda Buddhist schools has persisted since early Buddhist times and remains a complex issue. However, recent decades have seen growing joint religious activities and cultural exchanges between followers of these traditions. This paper examines the presence and experiences of Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhist monastics in Myanmar, where Theravāda Buddhism predominates. Given the limited research on Chinese Buddhism’s expansion beyond East Asia, this study addresses an important gap by focusing on Myanmar’s unique sociocultural context. The paper is divided into two main parts. The first provides a historical overview of Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism’s evolution in Burma during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The second, more extensive, section utilizes fieldwork data to analyze the contemporary experiences of Chinese monastics living as religious minorities in a predominantly Theravāda and ethnically Burmese environment. Relations between the two Buddhist communities have improved since the mid-20th century, despite ongoing institutional marginalization. Key factors include second-generation bilingual monastics, international Buddhist exchanges, and joint charitable activities. The Chinese Buddhist Sangha Association’s response to the March 2025 earthquake near Naypyidaw, including substantial aid to Theravāda monasteries, illustrates how humanitarian crises can generate cooperation across sectarian boundaries. Through examining these interactions, challenges, and identity negotiations, this study offers a detailed account of how Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhist monastics navigate Myanmar’s religious landscape as a minority tradition.

1. Introduction

The examination of the developmental trajectory of modern Chinese Buddhism in Myanmar is inextricably linked to the historical context of Chinese migration to Southeast Asia,1 with Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism being introduced to Myanmar from Mainland China during the late nineteenth to early twentieth century. This phenomenon aligns with the general observation that Buddhist practices tend to follow Chinese diaspora communities (Lai et al. 2008, p. 96). Chern (2009, p. 61) emphasizes the crucial role of monastics in facilitating cultural exchange between China and Southeast Asia, noting that the establishment of monasteries or temples often follows Chinese monastic migration, subsequently attracting Chinese immigrant communities. The dissemination and development of Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism in various Southeast Asian countries have been significantly influenced by overseas Chinese, both monastics and laity (e.g., Tan 2011; Ashiwa and Wank 2005; Chern 2009; Hue 2013; Dean 2018; Chia 2020).2 This pattern of religious expansion aligns with Nattier’s (1997, p. 78) concept of ‘Baggage Buddhism,’ which is characterized by its initially monoethnic membership and dual function as both a religious institution and a community support network. However, the transplantation of Mahāyāna Buddhism into predominantly Theravāda countries through immigration or commercial activities has resulted in unprecedented cross-traditional interactions. These interactions encompass communication, conflicts, adaptation, and potential integration between the two Buddhist traditions. The marked differences between Mahāyāna and Theravāda Buddhism, particularly in terms of ritual practices and monastic lifestyles, warrant closer examination.

While the phenomenon of Mahāyāna–Theravāda border-crossing has garnered significant attention within Buddhist Studies, ethnographic research on Chinese Buddhism beyond traditional East Asian Mahāyāna territories remains limited. This paucity of research is particularly pronounced in the context of Myanmar, partly due to the country’s isolationist policies prior to 2010. The subsequent opening of Myanmar to the international community presented a valuable opportunity for scholars to empirically investigate its Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhist community. Most of the fieldwork data were collected in 2018 and 2019, i.e., before the military coup that established Myanmar’s current regime.

Several studies have provided preliminary insights into the evolution and integration of Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism within Myanmar’s predominantly Theravāda societal context, particularly focusing on the period preceding the 2021 military coup. Notable contributions include Wu’s (2006) case study on Chinese Buddhism in Myanmar, which examines the historical development and contemporary challenges faced by Chinese Buddhist monasteries in Yangon. Additionally, Chen and Feng (2016, pp. 57–62) explore the historical and current interdependencies between Chinese Buddhism and the Chinese community in Myanmar. Duan (2015, pp. 43–71) further investigates the influences of Mahāyāna and Theravāda Buddhism on the religious practices and ethnic identities of Sino-Burmese laity in Mandalay, emphasizing varying degrees of localization and cultural assimilation. Most significantly and recently, Taiwanese scholar Wei-Yi Cheng has substantially contributed to the research on Chinese Buddhist nuns in Shan State, Myanmar. In her article ‘Identity in Transnational Buddhism,’ Cheng (2022) critically examines the complexities of identity within transnational Buddhist contexts. Her case study highlights a Chinese Buddhist nun navigating intersecting identities as an overseas Chinese, a Mahāyāna monastic, and a Buddhist nun to build transnational support networks that transcend national boundaries. This study partially builds upon Cheng’s work by examining how Chinese Mahāyāna monastics in Yangon and Mandalay negotiate their religious and ethnic identities within Myanmar’s predominantly Theravāda society, providing complementary insights into the processes of localization, adaptation, and cross-traditional dialogue in contemporary Buddhist communities

Given the predominance of lay Theravāda Buddhists in Myanmar, constituting approximately 88% of the national population,3 this study seeks to explore the impact of the local Theravāda ethos on Chinese Mahāyāna monastics’ experiences as members of a religious minority. This study provides an integrated analysis of the following central themes:

• The historical development and evolution of Chinese Mahayana Buddhism in Myanmar.
• Contemporary Chinese monks’ religious experiences within Myanmar’s Theravada Buddhist society: the ongoing development of Chinese Mahayana Buddhism in Myanmar; the dynamics of interaction between Chinese and Burmese monastic communities; and the marginalization and disadvantaged position that Chinese monks face as a religious minority in Myanmar.

Methodologically, this study employs a multifaceted approach combining historical, textual, and fieldwork methods, as advocated by Overmyer (2004, p. 4), who posits that “knowledge of history and texts can enrich field observation, and field observation can often provide a sense of context for past practices.” The primary qualitative methods utilized were interviews and observation, supplemented by analysis of historical writings and doctrinal texts from Mandalay and Yangon. While bhikṣu and bhikṣuṇī constituted the main interviewees, the study also incorporated a formal interview with a senior local Burmese–Chinese layman. Additionally, viewpoints on Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism held by non-Chinese Theravāda Buddhist laypeople of various ages were collected via email correspondence to ensure a comprehensive representation of the current situation.

Yangon and Mandalay were selected as the primary fieldwork sites due to their significant ethnic-Chinese populations,4 predominantly descendants of early overseas Chinese migrants from Fujian, Guangdong, or Yunnan (Li 2015)5. This selection also aligns with the study’s multiple-case approach, which, according to Yin (2009, p. 53), tends to yield more robust and convincing findings than single-case studies. However, cognizant of Stake’s (2005, p. 451) observation that sample sizes in multiple case studies are typically “much too small to warrant random selection,” this study employed purposive sampling of specific Chinese monasteries to ensure variety and a balanced overview, particularly given the research focus on nuanced, localized differences in religious practices. In total, eleven face-to-face, one-on-one interviews were conducted in Burmese Chinese monastic institutions: seven in Yangon and four in Mandalay. This sampling strategy aims to capture the regional variations in ‘desinicization’ and assimilation observed in postwar Myanmar, particularly the marked differences in Chinese language use and cultural outlook between the Yunnanese Chinese in Mandalay and their Hokkien/Cantonese counterparts in Yangon (Li 2015). This methodological approach enables a nuanced exploration of the complex dynamics shaping Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhist experiences in Myanmar’s predominantly Theravāda context, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of religious minority experiences and cross-traditional interactions in Southeast Asian Buddhism. Thus, total of eleven face-to-face, one-on-one interviews were conducted in Burmese Chinese monastic institutions, seven in Yangon and four in Mandalay, at the sites shown in

Table 1. Interview sites by region.

Yangon	Mandalay
Shifang Guanyin Si 十方觀音寺 (one interviewee)	Jingming Chan Si 淨明禪寺 (one interviewee)
Zangjing Lou 藏經樓 (one interviewee)	Dongmiu Guanyin Si 洞缪觀音寺 (one interviewee)
Daben Chan Si 達本禪寺 (one interviewee)	Yunnan Association 雲南會館 (one interviewee)
Luohan Si 羅漢寺 (one interviewee)	Jin Taw Yan 金多堰 (one interviewee)
Zhonghua Si 中華寺 (one interviewee)
Miaoyin Si 妙音寺 (one interviewee)
Mahā Kusalā Yāma International Meditation Centre 靈鷲山緬甸法成就寺國際禪修中心 (two interviewees)

.

2. The Evolution of Chinese Buddhism in Myanmar: A Historical Perspective

The historical record pertaining to Chinese Mahāyāna monks’ lives and work in 20th-century Mandalay and Yangon is comparatively rich, offering a more comprehensive dataset than that available for other cities or time periods. Meei-Hwa Chern’s research underscores the pivotal role of monastics in the history of cultural interaction between China and Southeast Asia (Chern 2009, p. 61). This interaction typically follows a pattern: the arrival of Chinese monks in a new location often leads to the establishment of monasteries or temples, which subsequently attract groups of Chinese immigrants. A salient example of this phenomenon is the Amarapura Guanyin Temple (洞繆觀音寺), the oldest Chinese Buddhist temple in upper Burma. Historical records indicate that it was initially constructed between 1773 and 1774 in Amarapura, a suburb of Mandalay, by Yunnanese merchants. Following its reconstruction in 1838–46, the temple became a residence for Chinese monks, illustrating the enduring link between monastic presence and immigrant communities (Yuan 2019, pp. 106–13; Li 2015, pp. 3–4). Besides the Amarapura temple, two other key hubs for Mandalay’s Chinese community are the Yunnan Association (雲南會館) and Jin Taw Yan (金多堰). Founded in 1876 by Yunnanese immigrants, the Yunnan Association includes temples for Confucius, Guan Yu, and Guanyin, and acts as a place for religious ceremonies and cultural gatherings.6 Jin Taw Yan, located along the Irrawaddy River, has grown into Myanmar’s largest Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhist temple. It is known for its traditional Chinese architecture and serves as both a charitable organization and a centre for cultural exchange.7 Together, these sites not only keep alive Chinese religious and cultural traditions but also stand as important symbols of the Chinese community’s history and unity in Mandalay.

The Shwedagon Pagoda in Yangon has historically served as a significant pilgrimage site for Chinese monastics (Wu 2006, pp. 16–18). This phenomenon led to the establishment of Chinese Buddhist monasteries in the vicinity, primarily to accommodate the increasing number of Chinese pilgrim monks. Despite their initially limited scope, these dedicated spaces facilitated the dissemination of Mahāyāna traditions in Burma. Longhua Temple (龍華寺), constructed in the 1890s, is widely regarded as the first Chinese Buddhist monastery in Yangon (Leguan Shih [1959] 2012, pp. 98–101; Wu 2006, pp. 19–21; Kan 2019, pp. 43–44). Several renowned masters, including Ven. Xuyun,8 Ven. Maio-Shan,9 and Ven. Ci-hang (慈航, 1893–1954),10 visited or resided in this monastery between the late 1890s and early 1930s, prior to its seizure by the Burmese government. However, an examination of Longhua Temple’s construction history and eventual closure suggests its limited integration into the sociocultural context of Theravāda-majority Myanmar. Historical records indicate that Ven. Xingyuan (性圓), a late Qing dynasty Hokkien monk, established Longhua Temple near the Shwedagon Pagoda solely as temporary accommodation for Chinese pilgrim monks, rather than as a centre for propagating Mahāyāna Buddhism in Burmese society (Luo 1922, p. 3). This narrow focus may explain the monastery’s failure to attract local Burmese Theravāda Buddhists. Ven. Leguan’s11 experiences in 1950s Yangon provide further insight into the cultural dissonance between Chinese and Burmese monastic traditions. His accounts suggest that local Burmese often did not recognize Chinese monks as legitimate clergy due to differences in practices, such as robe colour and adherence to fasting and alms-begging rules (Leguan Shih 1977, pp. 150, 174). In some instances, local laypeople severely criticized those who did not observe these practices, even regarding them as laity.12 Yet, as Beiyin Deng (Deng 2023) demonstrates, Chinese Buddhist monastics in Yangon engaged in activities well beyond pilgrimage or temporary residence. Her research documents how Chinese monastics facilitated the procurement and circulation of marble Buddhist images between Burma and China, creating vibrant cultural exchanges and transnational networks. These practices enriched the religious landscape and fostered deeper forms of integration that extended beyond monastic or doctrinal boundaries (Deng 2023, pp. 32–34). This historical context provides crucial insights into the challenges faced by Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism in establishing itself within Myanmar’s predominantly Theravāda Buddhist society, highlighting issues of cultural misunderstanding and limited integration.

Historical sources indicate that the relationship between Longhua Temple’s monks and their local Theravāda counterparts was characterized by significant tension. According to Leguan Shih ([1959] 2012, p. 100), Ven. Xingyuan, Longhua Temple’s founder, was reportedly a disciple of a local Burmese master and leased land from Burmese monks for a forty-year term, initially constructing a small shack. With support from overseas Chinese Buddhists, this structure was later developed into Longhua Temple. While relations between Burmese and resident Chinese monks remained amicable under Ven. Xingyuan’s leadership, his successor’s apparent disdain for the Theravāda tradition led to growing antagonism. Consequently, Burmese monks began viewing Longhua Temple merely as their rightful property, awaiting the lease’s expiration. They eventually obtained a court order to seize and close the monastery, forcing all Chinese resident monks to vacate (Leguan Shih [1959] 2012, pp. 100–1). A 1947 fundraising prospectus for Shifang Guanyin Temple (十方觀音寺) suggests that dietary differences between Chinese and Burmese monks led to their incompatibility, despite shared Buddhist beliefs (Wu 2006, p. 20). Ven. Leguan Shih (1977, pp. 154–55) noted that early overseas Chinese monks in Burma, considering themselves Mahāyāna bodhisattvas, avoided contact with local ‘Hīnayāna’ practitioners. Conversely, some Burmese monks refused to recognize Chinese monastics as true disciples of Buddha, sometimes even labelling them as heretics. In an earlier period, Ven. Cihang (C. Shih 1931, p. 17) observed Burmese monks in Yangon mocking Chinese monastics for their appearance and attire, dismissing them as mere vegetarians (zhaigong 齋公) rather than true monks.

These accounts suggest that longstanding prejudices and misunderstandings have both caused and resulted from a lack of cross-traditional dialogue, a problem that can be traced back to early Buddhist history. The Second Council, occurring approximately a century after the Buddha’s death, is considered to have caused the first schism in the Buddhist saṃgha between the Mahāsāṃghikas and the Sthaviras, who held divergent viewpoints and practices (Geiger 1912, p. ix; Skilton 2001, p. 47; Prebish 1974, pp. 239–54). This historical context highlights the deep-rooted challenges in fostering understanding between different Buddhist traditions in Myanmar, which have persisted into modern times. The perpetuation of these prejudices and misperceptions underscores the need for increased cross-traditional dialogue and understanding in contemporary Buddhist communities.

The early 20th century Burmese political landscape significantly influenced Chinese monastics’ religious practices and spiritual cultivation. The majority of Chinese monks who arrived in Yangon during this period were primarily engaged in pagoda pilgrimages, indicating a focus on practical Buddhism rather than scholarly dharma propagation. Faced with limited local Burmese support, these monks sustained themselves by offering chanting and repentance services, a practice reminiscent of the “monks on call” (yingfu seng 應赴僧) phenomenon prevalent during the Qing dynasty and early republican period (Welch 1967, pp. 179–205; 1968, pp. 264, 235, 347). Ven. Leguan Shih (1977, pp. 144–45, 158) critiqued several Chinese Buddhist monasteries established after Longhua Temple’s closure for their reliance on performing funerary rites in Yangon as a means of livelihood. This shift in religious practice was further intensified following Burma’s independence, when the government implemented foreign-exchange controls that significantly impacted overseas remittances to China. Consequently, the ethnic Chinese community increasingly sought the services of overseas Chinese monks for Buddhist ceremonies to liberate their deceased parents, a practice deeply rooted in Confucian traditions of ancestral veneration. The revenue generated from these funerary services facilitated the construction and expansion of new Chinese Buddhist monasteries in Yangon. Myanmar’s economic policies marked a defining moment in the evolution of certain Chinese Buddhist institutions (e.g., Shifang Guanyin Si 十方觀音寺), driving their transformation into systems primarily focused on performing liturgy and rites, particularly funerals. This transformation exposed Chinese Buddhist monasteries to severe criticism, not only from Chinese Mahāyāna practitioners like Ven. Leguan but also from the country’s Theravāda majority, who lacked a tradition of releasing the deceased.13 Theravāda criticism often arises from doctrinal differences and misunderstandings. One elderly Theravāda monk dismissed a Chinese monastery in Yangon that performs funeral ceremonies as simply ‘a place dealing with ghosts’. In addition, some prominent Theravāda monks have also publicly criticized the large-scale merit-making ceremonies and funeral rites typical in Burmese–Chinese communities. The Chinese diaspora sees these rituals as essential acts of filial piety, but Theravāda practitioners consider them unorthodox or impure. These clashes reveal the religious tensions facing Chinese Mahāyāna institutions in Myanmar’s Theravāda-dominated contexts. Ven. Leguan argued that this shift led to a gradual erosion of the authentic value and spirit of Buddhism within the Chinese Mahāyāna tradition in Burma (later Myanmar). He posited that the tradition had become entangled with superstitious practices to accommodate the funerary needs of the overseas Chinese laity. These perceived superstitious practices further exacerbated existing barriers between overseas Chinese monks and the local population, who had limited understanding of the monks’ religious ideals or interests (Wu 2006, p. 114).14 This historical context provides crucial insights into the complex interplay between economic policies, cultural practices, and religious adaptation among Chinese Buddhist communities in Southeast Asia.

3. Religious Minorities in a Theravāda State: Structures of Exclusion and Stigma

While the previous section traced the historical evolution of Chinese Buddhism in Myanmar, this section examines how historical patterns of marginalization persist in contemporary forms, creating structural challenges that Chinese Mahāyāna monastics must navigate daily. The relations between Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhists have improved in recent years; however, Burmese monks’ historical hostility continues to impact the development of Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism in Myanmar. A key factor is the intense veneration that Burmese monks receive from the local laity. Melford Spiro (Spiro 1970, p. 396) observed that there is probably no other clergy in the world that receives as much honour and respect as the Buddhist monks of Burma. Burmese monks exert profound influence over the lay population, maintaining close and interdependent relationships with them.

This influence exemplifies what Antonio Gramsci (1971) termed cultural hegemony, a form of social control operating not through force or coercion, but through the consent of the dominated. In Myanmar, Theravāda Buddhism maintains its dominance through what Gramsci described as intellectual and moral leadership. This creates a worldview that appears natural and inevitable to both dominant and subordinate groups. The laity’s veneration of Theravāda monks is not merely religious devotion, but also a hegemonic apparatus legitimizing one form of Buddhism while marginalizing others.

This hegemonic control extends beyond formal religious institutions into the fabric of everyday life. It shapes what is considered authentic Buddhism in Myanmar society. Several informants provided insight into how Theravāda monks shape public perceptions of Mahāyāna Buddhism. One elderly Burmese–Chinese layperson recounted that, during visits to Theravāda monasteries in Yangon, preachers often criticized Mahāyāna rituals, especially funeral practices such as burning paper houses, as impure. However, such criticisms have lessened in recent years, likely due to increased religious exchanges. Similarly, a young ethnic Chinese man noted that he was raised to see Theravāda Buddhism as the true Buddhism due to its rationality, contrasting it with the more devotional and irrational Mahāyāna tradition. Another well-educated Burmese man, a lay disciple of a Chinese master, expressed respect for Chinese Buddhism, although his parents held negative views due to differences in fasting rules, attire, and the bodhisattva ideal. These examples reflect the enduring influence of anti-Mahāyāna sentiments expressed by influential Burmese monks, which shape local perceptions of Chinese Buddhism.

At a 1990s offering event witnessed by a research informant Feng-Yng Wu (Wu 2006, p. 117), Theravāda monks were seated above ethnic-Chinese monks. The latter were not allowed to eat until the Burmese monks had finished. This reflected the unequal religious status of Burmese–Chinese monastics in Theravāda-majority Myanmar. In other words, the event organizer clearly declined to recognize Chinese monks and nuns as legitimate monastics by arranging inferior seating and dining privileges.

A similar incident occurred during a 2018 religious exchange. The Chinese delegation, led by the president of the Shanghai Buddhist Association, was seated along the sides of the room, while Burmese monks occupied the prestigious central seats. This spatial arrangement underscores the power imbalance between Theravāda and Mahāyāna communities. It aligns with Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of the relationship between physical and social space, where power is manifested through spatial distribution (Bourdieu 1996, p. 12; 1985, p. 724).

Regarding doctrinal disputes and local hostility, Feng-Yng Wu (Wu 2006, pp. 115–16) found that Burmese monastic modernists who studied Mahāyāna sūtras were often disapproved of and ostracized by traditionalists in Yangon. This is largely due to the belief among local Theravāda practitioners that Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha (dasheng feifo shuo 大乘非佛說). For example, the late Ven. Mahāsī Sayādaw (1904–1982) dismissed Mahāyāna teachings, particularly the bodhisattva path, as illogical and incompatible with Theravāda doctrine (Sayādaw 2011, pp. 34–35). Several informants shared difficulties faced by Mahāyāna Buddhist monastics in Myanmar. One senior Burmese–Chinese nun noted that approximately 30% of conservative Theravāda monks do not recognize Chinese bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs as legitimate monastics. Another monk in Mandalay explained that doctrinal differences, especially regarding nirvana and the bodhisattva path, make inter-religious dialogue challenging. Most importantly, a Burmese–Chinese monk in Yangon revealed persistent tensions between Theravāda and Mahāyāna traditions:

One old Theravāda monk directly commented that my dharma brother is from a monastery dealing with ghosts, when both were invited to a Chinese family’s Buddhist chanting. This shows a superficial understanding of Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism. The claim that Mahāyāna Buddhism was not taught by the Buddha is common in Myanmar, and the controversy between Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism dates back to early Buddhism. We consider ourselves self-liberating monks, original Buddhism. We have the Avatamsaka sūtra and the prajna paramita sūtras, which they do not. That is why they make their claim. It is a mutual controversy.

This labelling as a monastery that deals with ghosts reflects Erving Goffman’s (1963) concept of stigma, a deeply discrediting attribute that reduces the bearer from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one. In this framework, stigma operates through relational language rather than attributes themselves. The Theravāda monk’s comment transforms Chinese Buddhist funeral practices into a mark of deviance, creating a spoiled identity. This stigmatization involves three elements: first, identifying a difference (funeral rituals); second, linking this difference to negative stereotypes (dealing with ghosts rather than proper Buddhism); and third, separating us (legitimate Theravāda practitioners) from them (questionable Mahāyāna practitioners).

Through this discourse, Chinese Buddhism is placed outside the boundaries of normal Buddhist practice in Myanmar, regardless of its doctrinal legitimacy or historical authenticity. This incident occurred within a common practice among ethnic-Chinese families in Myanmar, who invite monks from both Theravāda and Mahāyāna traditions to funeral rites. It highlights enduring doctrinal disputes rooted in divergent scriptural canons and the challenges of inter-Buddhist dialogue in Myanmar’s religious landscape.

These findings reveal that recognition of religious identity extends beyond doctrine to include social capital distribution. Burmese–Chinese monastics experience subtle othering in daily religious practices, from seating to dining, demonstrating how ethnic and sectarian boundaries shape unequal power relations within a shared Buddhist tradition. Yet marginalization shapes but does not determine these communities’ religious lives. The following sections examine how Chinese monastics navigate these constraints—sometimes through deliberate strategy, often through the improvisations of daily survival. Whether learning to greet Theravāda visitors in Burmese, organizing earthquake relief, or maintaining ties with monasteries in Taiwan, these practices reveal how religious minorities create possibilities within constraint.

4. Contemporary Chinese Buddhist Monastic Experiences in Myanmar

Following an examination of the structural inequalities that Chinese Mahāyāna monastics face in Myanmar, the subsequent section will focus on their lived experiences and adaptive practices. The ethnographic data reveal more than a mere story of marginalization; rather, it provides a more nuanced account of negotiation, accommodation, and creative response. This analysis explores how religious minorities navigate and overcome institutional constraints to preserve their traditions and establish new relationships across sectarian boundaries. It does so by examining three interrelated dimensions: the contemporary landscape of Chinese Buddhism in Myanmar; the evolving dynamics of Theravāda-Mahāyāna interactions; and the transformative role of charitable activities.

4.1. Chinese Buddhism in Contemporary Myanmar: Contextual Landscape

This subsection examines the challenges faced by Chinese Buddhism in contemporary Myanmar, drawing on existing literature and recent ethnographic fieldwork. It begins by acknowledging the complex political and socio-cultural landscape of Myanmar. Ethnographic research conducted in Yangon and Mandalay indicates an improvement in the treatment of Burmese–Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhists, particularly regarding their monastic status, since the early to mid-20th century. Spiro (1970, p. 398) noted that Burmese monks and their families enjoyed tax-exemption privileges, a benefit that was not extended to Chinese monastics at that time (Leguan Shih 1977, p. 173). Recent fieldwork suggests that Chinese Mahāyāna clerics are now exempt from taxation, indicating a degree of progress. However, disparities persist in the religious status accorded to Burmese–Chinese monastics compared to local Burmese monks, both by the Myanmar government and the public. A salient example of this disparity is the issue of monastic identity cards. Kawanami (2013, p. 117) explains that the Supreme Sangha Council issues detailed identification certificates (hmatpontin) as official proof of monastic status. These certificates contain comprehensive information, including national registration numbers, personal details, and monastic education levels. However, Wu (2006, p. 116) notes that these cards are only available to Theravāda Burmese monks, not to their Burmese–Chinese Mahāyāna counterparts. Informants suggest that the root of this issue lies in the de-recognition of Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism by Myanmar’s Department of Religious Affairs, despite similarities in practices such as head-shaving, wearing monastic robes, and observing vinaya rules.15 This lack of official recognition denies Chinese clergy certain privileges and benefits granted to Burmese monastics. Fieldwork conducted in 2018–2019 uncovered diverse and sometimes contradictory views within the Chinese monastic community regarding official documentation.

Table 2. Typology of Chinese Mahāyāna monastics’ perspectives on monastic identity cards in Myanmar.

Perspective Type	Core Position	Perceived Benefits	Perceived Costs	Strategic Rationale
Ambivalent	Mixed: Desires recognition but fears constraints	Official legitimacy; Facilitated administrative processes	Government surveillance; Financial audits; Mobility restrictions	Weighs practical needs against autonomy concerns
Autonomist	Opposed: Values freedom over recognition	Self-governance; Exemption from state oversight; Operational flexibility	Lack of official status; No institutional support	Prioritizes religious independence over social legitimacy
Accommodationist	Supportive: Seeks integration despite barriers	State recognition; Equal status with Theravāda clergy	Doctrinal examination requirements; Potential identity dilution	Willing to adapt to gain mainstream acceptance

Source: Interview data collected in Yangon and Mandalay, 2018–2019.

categorizes these perspectives, illustrating how monastics strategically evaluate the trade-offs between state recognition and religious autonomy.

The typology presented above corresponds with broader patterns of state-sangha relations in Myanmar. As Kawanami (2013, pp. 117–18) demonstrates, the mandatory registration system for Theravāda monastics functions as a mechanism of both mobility control and political surveillance. The absence of Chinese Mahāyāna monastics from this regulatory framework, however, produces an unintended consequence: while excluded from official recognition, they simultaneously escape the intensive state oversight that characterizes Theravāda monastic life. This finding suggests that religious marginalization in Myanmar operates through administrative exclusion rather than direct suppression, constituting a form of governance through ‘benign neglect’ that constrains legitimacy while preserving operational autonomy.

This administrative marginalization generates a structural paradox for Chinese Mahāyāna communities. As a minority immigrant religion, Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism receives insufficient state support, necessitating self-reliance.16 Roberts (2016, p. 139) aptly notes that ‘existing formulations of national culture explicitly exclude immigrant populations, making it difficult […] for Chinese practices to be included in the official conception of the nation-state.’ Yet fieldwork data reveals that within monastery walls, Chinese clerics exercise considerable autonomy in appointing leadership and conducting rituals, freedoms that their surveilled Theravāda counterparts may not enjoy. Roberts’ (2016, pp. 135–39) research on ritual ceremonies in Chinese temples further demonstrates how this marginalization operates through spatial restrictions rather than outright prohibition.17

The political dimensions of this exclusion reflect calculated governance strategies. Myanmar’s elevated support for Theravāda Buddhism serves as a ‘protective umbrella’ with invisible political purposes, rooted in the regime’s apprehension regarding Burmese monastics’ documented capacity for political mobilization (Smith 1965; Spiro 1970, pp. 378–95; Gravers 2012, pp. 1–33; Walton 2015, pp. 507–30; Kawanami 2016, pp. 31–55). In contrast, Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism’s political invisibility renders it essentially irrelevant to state security concerns. Fieldwork data reveals neither political support for nor paranoia about Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism, echoing its lack of religious recognition from local Burmese monks and laity. This irrelevance paradoxically becomes a form of protection: ignored rather than suppressed, permitted to exist precisely because it poses no perceived threat to political order.

4.2. Interfaith Dynamics: Theravāda and Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhist Identities and Interactions

The opening of Myanmar to global networks has dramatically reshaped interactions between Chinese Mahāyāna and Burmese Theravāda Buddhist communities. Religious ceremonies and cultural exchanges now occur with a frequency unimaginable during the decades of isolation, marking a profound shift in inter-traditional relations. Yet these contemporary developments cannot be understood without grappling with the philosophical tensions that have long divided these traditions. Theravāda Buddhism claims the mantle of orthodoxy, positioning itself as the authentic preservation of the Buddha’s original teachings (Swearer 2006). This stance contrasts sharply with Mahāyāna’s embrace of the bodhisattva ideal and its promise of universal liberation. While Theravāda practitioners pursue individual enlightenment through careful study and practice of the Buddha’s direct instructions, Mahāyāna adherents aspire to save all beings—a divergence that reflects fundamentally different conceptions of Buddhist soteriology (Williams 1989, pp. 1–33). These competing visions have fueled centuries of doctrinal debate and mutual criticism. Mahāyāna scriptures themselves participate in this polemic: texts like the Medicine Buddha Sūtra and the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra champion the bodhisattva path while dismissing what they characterize as the narrow aspirations of śrāvakas and pratyeka-buddhas (Thanh et al. 2001, p. 20; Muller 2012, p. 337).18 Through such scriptural authority, Mahāyāna Buddhism has long perpetuated its characterization of rival paths as “Hīnayāna”—the inferior vehicle (Keown 2003, p. 107; Wang 2005, p. 172 n2). Against this backdrop of historical antagonism, the lived experiences of Chinese Mahāyāna monastics navigating Myanmar’s Theravāda-dominated landscape demand careful attention. How do contemporary relationships between these monastic communities compare to the fraught encounters Ven. Leguan documented in the mid-twentieth century? What new forms of Buddhist dialogue and cooperation might be emerging despite or perhaps because of these longstanding divisions? The mutual prejudices and misperceptions between Theravāda and Mahāyāna practitioners can be seen as both causes and consequences of the longstanding lack of cross-traditional understanding and dialogue. However, recent advances in information networks and Myanmar’s growing global engagement have facilitated an increasing number of interactions between these two Buddhist traditions. These interactions take place through diverse channels, including religious ceremonies and cultural exchanges.

Religious activities in Myanmar include significant events such as the veneration of the Buddha’s Tooth Relic, which took place in 1955, 1994, and 1996 (Wu 2006, pp. 65–68). While these events hold considerable religious and cultural significance, scholars caution against interpreting such nationwide relic veneration solely as positive or productive phenomena. Schober (1997) provides a comprehensive analysis of the political and cultural dynamics surrounding the state-sponsored tours of the Chinese Tooth Relic in Myanmar, highlighting how these rituals function as instruments for legitimizing political authority and constructing national identity under the military regime. For example, the 1994 procession was a complex ritual performance that intertwined traditional cosmological Buddhist symbolism with contemporary state interests, thereby creating a ritual community reflecting competing conceptions of Burmese history, culture, and political power (Schober 1997, pp. 218–43). Moreover, the relic tours cited by Wu occurred over three decades ago; more recent tours, initiated by both Myanmar and China, may offer additional insights into the evolving meanings and contested significance of these events within the current sociopolitical context.

Beyond relic veneration, saṃgha offering ceremonies have played a significant role in fostering engagement between different Buddhist traditions. A notable example is the 6th Southeast Asia Sangha Offering Puja held in Yangon in 2018, organized by Ciguang Si, a Taiwanese monastery. This event featured collaboration between the monastery’s abbot, Ven. Hui Kong, and a local Burmese–Chinese Buddhist nunnery, resulting in substantial donations and offerings to over one thousand monastic students at the Insein Ruama Pariyatti Institute. The ceremony concluded with a joint assembly involving the Pāli College’s dean, Sayadaw U Tiloka Bhivamsa, 1187 local Theravāda monks, and Burmese–Chinese Buddhists for communal chanting and dialogue.19

Monastic delegations have also been instrumental in promoting cultural exchange and dialogue between Theravāda and Mahāyāna communities. In February 2017, the United Association of Humanistic Buddhism of Chunghua organized a three-day conference in Myanmar focused on advancing harmony and dialogue between these traditions. Furthermore, in January 2018, a delegation led by Ven. Huiming, president of the Shanghai Buddhist Association, visited Myanmar’s National Saṃgha Committee Chairman, Venerable Bamaw Sayadaw Dr. Bhadanta Kumarabhivamsa. This meeting led to preliminary plans for establishing the Myanmar-China Buddhist Foundation aimed at fostering international religious cooperation.20 While these official exchanges represent one dimension of inter-traditional contact, the perspectives of eleven Burmese–Chinese monastics interviewed during fieldwork reveal what factors they perceive as most significant in improving Theravāda-Mahāyāna relations. Religious minorities’ perspectives on majoritarian attitudes often reveal dynamics invisible to dominant groups. The following analysis leverages Burmese–Chinese Mahāyāna monastics’ unique positionality to map shifting patterns of sectarian engagement in contemporary Myanmar. As a transition is made from the institutional initiatives previously discussed to the grassroots perspectives that follow,

Table 3. Burmese–Chinese monastics’ perspectives on evolving Theravāda–Mahāyāna relations in Myanmar.

Key Factor	Nature of Change	Evidence of Progress	Persistent Barriers	Overall Assessment
Taiwanese Buddhist Visits	More Buddhists from Taiwan coming to Myanmar (Nun A)	Some Burmese gradually accepting Chinese monastics as legitimate	Acceptance process still gradual	Catalyzing gradual acceptance
Theravāda Monks’ Travel	Theravāda monks studying/visiting to Taiwan, Mainland China, UK (Nuns B, E; Monks B, C)	UK-educated monk: “there is no difference between Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna. All worship Sakyamuni Buddha” (Nun D); some monks defend Burmese–Chinese monastics to lay disciples	Older masters who never travelled remain opposed	Most significant factor
Language Breakthrough	Second-generation bilingualism (Nun C)	Theravāda monks visiting temples show respect; Direct communication now possible	First-generation could not communicate	Foundation for dialogue
Misconception Corrections	Direct dialogue about practices (Monk C)	Theravāda monks surprised Chinese observe 250 vs. 227 precepts; Yiguan Dao marriage/business stereotypes dispelled	Some still see Theravāda as “main ideology” (Monk B); Limited interactions persist (Nun D)	Personal contact essential
Official Exchanges	PRC annual invitations (Nun E, Monk C)	High-ranking Theravāda monks officially visiting China	Impact on grassroots unclear	Government-level recognition
Technology Impact	Information opening through tech (Nun E)	Burmese monks starting to accept Mahāyāna through digital exposure	Not mentioned by others	Emerging influence

Source: Interview data collected in Yangon and Mandalay, 2018–2019.

synthesizes observations from eleven monastic interviews into a framework of six key factors. These factors emerged inductively from the fieldwork, revealing how peripheral communities experience and interpret religious rapprochement through various dimensions of contact.

The patterns emerging from Table 3 suggest that personal encounters abroad have proven far more effective than institutional initiatives in transforming Theravāda attitudes toward Mahāyāna Buddhism. When monks return from studying in the UK or travelling to Taiwan and mainland China, they bring back more than knowledge; they carry embodied experiences that help change negative perceptions of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Direct dialogue has similarly enabled Burmese–Chinese monastics to address persistent misconceptions, particularly the false assumption that they, like Yiguan Dao (一貫道) members, are permitted to marry and conduct business. Yet these transformative mechanisms depend on something more fundamental: the ability to communicate.

The significance of this linguistic dimension becomes clear through everyday monastic interactions I observed during fieldwork. At Zhonghua Si (中華寺), near the Shwedagon Pagoda, I regularly witnessed a middle-aged Burmese monk entering the main hall to offer flowers, an act that might seem unremarkable until one considers the historical context. What enables this transformation? Among other factors, the Burmese–Chinese abbess’s ability to greet him in Burmese, to exchange pleasantries, creates a social space where religious recognition becomes possible. I also observed similar dynamics when Theravāda monks instructed young Burmese–Chinese śrāmaṇerīs in Pāli at Zhonghua Si. These teaching sessions revealed not only unprecedented cooperation between the two Buddhist traditions but also highlighted the crucial role of language. These pedagogical relationships, unthinkable for the previous generation, exist because second and third generation Burmese–Chinese śrāmaṇerīs, born locally and raised as bilinguals, possess the linguistic foundation in Burmese necessary to learn Pāli from Theravāda instructors.

What my informants explicitly stated, these observations confirmed through concrete examples: language serves as the invisible infrastructure enabling all other forms of religious exchange. First-generation Chinese monastics who immigrated from China, trapped in linguistic isolation, could neither defend their practices nor build relationships with Theravāda counterparts. Their successors, raised bilingually, navigate fluidly between traditions. This shift from communicative isolation to dialogical engagement represents more than practical adaptation. It embodies what Eisen and Laderman (2015) identify as the essential knowledge required for cultural border-crossing. Through language, Burmese–Chinese monastics transition from being objects of suspicion to becoming more recognizable or acceptable participants in Myanmar’s Buddhist landscape in comparison to the past history.

Eisen and Laderman’s concepts of acculturation and assimilation help explain what I observed in the field. Recent-generation Burmese–Chinese monastics, having been raised within Burmese society and possessing bilingual proficiency, exhibit varying degrees of acculturation while maintaining their Mahāyāna identity. Unlike their predecessors who dismissed Hīnayāna as inferior, these bilingual monastics see less contradiction between the traditions. This shift has opened doors for dialogue that were previously closed, allowing Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism to slowly find its place in Myanmar.

Travel has been equally transformative for Theravāda monks. Myanmar’s long isolation under military rule created an insular religious environment where unfamiliar practices were easily dismissed. But when these monks visit Taiwan or China and see Mahāyāna Buddhism thriving, something shifts. Direct experience breaks down prejudices that arguments cannot touch. As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. Of course, not everyone changes their mind. Entrenched stereotypes persist, particularly among older monks who never travelled. Still, between the bilingual younger generation and the worldly experiences of travelling monks, Burmese–Chinese monastics enjoy far better standing in Myanmar’s Buddhist community than they did even a generation ago. This is not just a local story; it suggests how Buddhist communities worldwide might bridge their historical divisions through personal encounters rather than theological debates. This evolution in inter-Buddhist relations not only reflects the changing dynamics within Myanmar’s religious landscape but also underscores the potential for increased dialogue and cooperation between diverse Buddhist traditions in an increasingly interconnected global context.

While language breakthrough and personal encounters have proven effective in improving inter-traditional relations, the 2025 earthquake revealed an even more powerful catalyst for Buddhist unity: compassionate action in times of crisis. The following section examines how charitable cooperation has emerged as a transformative force in Theravāda-Mahāyāna relations.

4.3. Compassion Beyond Boundaries: Charitable Activities as Bridge Between Buddhist Traditions

The transformation of Theravāda-Mahāyāna relations through charitable engagement represents a striking departure from the antagonistic encounters documented in earlier periods. Unlike their predecessors who faced ostracism and misunderstanding in the 1950s, contemporary Burmese–Chinese monastics have strategically employed philanthropic activities to negotiate their minority status and forge meaningful connections across sectarian divides.

The nuns who provided information revealed diverse approaches to charitable engagement, reflecting different resources and aspirations. One nun articulated a strategic vision, stating that Chinese Buddhism possesses the economic capacity and some resources to assist Myanmar in addressing its needs in sectors such as education, healthcare, and disaster relief. The undertaking of charitable work can be considered a form of outreach. Local people become aware of the existence of Chinese Buddhism here, which gradually increases familiarity and acceptance. The act of offering a donation leaves an impression on the recipient. Another nun described another approach: “I don’t actually lead charitable initiatives. However, when such donations are received from Hong Kong, we assist in ensuring their delivery to those who are genuinely in need. We lack the time, energy, and local networks to organize these activities ourselves.” Therefore, she channels funds through Theravāda senior monks: “They have the experience and connections. We trust them to deliver aid where it’s needed.” These different approaches significantly reveal how charitable activities serve multiple functions for Chinese monastics: a hoped-for path to recognition, a practical means of contributing despite limitations, and a way to build collaborative relationships that sidestep doctrinal disputes. Whether strategically planned or emerging from necessity, such activities create what both nuns recognized as crucial ‘contact zones’ where sectarian identities temporarily recede.”

This strategic deployment of charity finds empirical support in multiple contexts. The educational engagement between Amarapura Guanyin Temple’s abbot and Burmese monks exemplifies this pattern. Through the Free Monastic Middle School of Maha Gandhayon Monastery, they jointly provide education for impoverished local children. A partnership characterized by remarkable harmony that culminated in reciprocal visits to Foguangshan in 2017.21 Pin Chen’s (2015, pp. 25, 33, 41) ethnographic work in Tachileik provides additional evidence of charity’s transformative potential. Her research documents how Guanyin Si’s philanthropic activities for the poor and needy led Burmese people to develop a good impression of Chinese Buddhism, effectively shortening the distance between ethnic Chinese and other ethnicities. Such findings resonate with my own observations that charitable giving functions as a culturally legible form of Buddhist practice that transcends doctrinal differences, enabling rapid establishment of goodwill across communal boundaries.

As demonstrated by the examples provided, routine charitable activities can result in the gradual establishment of inter-traditional cooperation. However, it is important to note that crisis moments have the capacity to significantly accelerate these processes, thereby transforming tentative connections into concrete forms of solidarity.

The March 2025 earthquake near Naypyidaw catalyzed an unprecedented demonstration of inter-traditional Buddhist cooperation through humanitarian response. The Chinese Buddhist Sangha Association of Myanmar, established in 2014, orchestrated relief operations spanning multiple provinces—Naypyidaw, Pyinmana, Mandalay, Sagaing, and Inle Lake—that fundamentally challenged existing sectarian boundaries. Their systematic approach encompassed immediate disaster assessment, resource mobilization, and long-term reconstruction commitments that revealed sophisticated organizational capacities often overlooked in Chinese Buddhist institutions.

The scale and inclusivity of their response merit detailed examination. Among the monasteries receiving reconstruction funds, the majority were Theravāda institutions—a remarkable departure from historically segregated religious philanthropy. The Association allocated substantial funds for the severely damaged Maha Muni Pagoda, alongside comparable support for numerous Theravāda sites. Their comprehensive aid package addressed multiple dimensions of disaster recovery: emergency supplies meticulously selected for monsoon conditions (tarpaulins, mosquito nets, flashlights, preserved foods); differentiated household assistance calibrated to need (200,000 kyats for structural collapse, 300,000 kyats for bereaved families); educational continuity measures including 20 million kyats for the Confucian school and targeted support for examination candidates; and sustained medical services reaching hundreds through mobile clinics.

Whilst the relief effort under discussion was unidirectional as opposed to collaborative in the conventional sense, the grassroots responses documented on the Chinese Buddhist Sangha Association of Myanmar’s Facebook page reveal significant forms of social recognition. The Association’s medical teams provided assistance across sectarian lines, reaching Buddhist, Christian, Islamic, and Hui communities across religious boundaries. Despite the fact that they had lost their homes and possessions, disaster victims expressed their gratitude for the assistance and care they received. For example, one patient said: ‘Usually when buying medicine outside, we buy the cheapest ones, thinking as long as it can cure the illness. But the Buddhist Association’s medical team provides the best quality medicine, ensuring everyone’s health. We are truly grateful from the bottom of our hearts.’ It is noteworthy that a number of survivors proffer peanuts and beans to Chinese Buddhist relief workers and assisting monks, thereby expressing profound respect and gratitude. These spontaneous acts of reciprocity suggest that while the material aid flowed in one direction, symbolic recognition moved in the other, transforming charitable giving into a form of mutual exchange that transcended sectarian boundaries.

The financial magnitude of 719 million kyats distributed between March and June 2025 reflects more than material generosity. This sustained engagement generated continuous interaction between previously isolated religious communities, creating what informants identified as crucial ‘personal contact.’ The Association’s non-discriminatory approach, supporting both Chinese temples and Theravāda institutions, enacted a practical ecumenism that decades of interfaith dialogue had failed to achieve. Through humanitarian aid, shared Buddhist values of compassion (karuṇā) and skillful means (upāya) found concrete expression, generating mutual recognition and respect across sectarian lines.22

This evolution from doctrinal competition to unilateral compassion that generated reciprocal recognition illuminates broader theoretical implications for understanding religious boundary negotiation. Following Bourdieu’s (1985, 1996) field theory, charitable activities can be understood not merely as material aid but as a distinct field of practice wherein religious capital accumulates through service rather than doctrinal orthodoxy. Within this field, Chinese Buddhist minorities can demonstrate legitimacy through culturally valued forms of merit-making that resonate across traditions. Through these philanthropic engagements, the Chinese Buddhist Sangha Association of Myanmar has effectively constructed cross-sectarian cooperation and recognition within Myanmar’s multi-religious, multi-ethnic society, facilitating a redistribution of power and legitimacy. The 2025 earthquake response thus represents more than humanitarian aid—it exemplifies an emerging paradigm for Buddhist ecumenism predicated on charitable action rather than theological reconciliation. This shift from debate to action, from competition to compassion, suggests new possibilities for addressing historical religious divisions not only within Myanmar but across the global Buddhist community. The field of charitable practice becomes a space where religious minorities accumulate both religious capital and symbolic power, transcending doctrinal differences through shared values of compassion and service.

5. Conclusions

This research joins the growing effort to understand Buddhism in Southeast Asia beyond the well-documented Theravada tradition. Ethnographic studies of Myanmar’s Buddhism have largely focused on Theravāda practices (Spiro 1970; Schober 2010; Kawanami 2013), leaving Chinese Mahāyāna communities relatively unexplored. Following McDaniel (2010), Hansen (2014), and Jack Chia’s (2020) call for broader perspectives, I examine how Chinese Buddhist practices unfold in contemporary Myanmar, contributing to our understanding of Mahāyāna Buddhism at its margins. The ancient tensions between Mahāyāna and Theravāda traditions persist, yet recent decades have brought unexpected openings. Religious exchanges and joint activities hint at possibilities for genuine cross-traditional understanding, though progress remains tentative. What makes this analysis distinctive is its use of sociological theory to unpack religious minority dynamics. Bourdieu’s field theory reveals how charitable work becomes a space where Chinese Buddhists accumulate religious capital without engaging in doctrinal debates. Through Gramsci’s lens, we see Theravāda dominance maintained not through force but through everyday consent and cultural assumptions. Goffman helps us understand the small, daily negotiations through which Chinese monastics manage their stigmatized identity. The 2025 earthquake proved particularly revealing; crisis moments, it seems, can spark cooperation that years of dialogue could not achieve. Shared compassion succeeded where theological discussions had failed. My fieldwork reveals a complex picture. Yes, Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism faces real challenges in Myanmar, from lack of official recognition to everyday microaggressions, yet these communities show remarkable creativity in navigating their position. Charitable activities have emerged as particularly effective, creating spaces for positive encounters between traditions. Meanwhile, the rise in bilingual Burmese–Chinese monastics and the eye-opening effects of travel on Theravāda monks suggest that linguistic bridges and personal experiences matter more than formal interfaith initiatives. These findings remind us that Southeast Asian Buddhism is far more diverse than often acknowledged. Chinese Buddhist communities in Myanmar are not simply adapting or resisting; they are actively reshaping both their own tradition and the broader religious landscape through daily interactions, charitable work, and quiet persistence. Their strategies offer lessons for understanding religious minorities everywhere—survival often depends less on confrontation or assimilation than on finding creative ways to build relationships across differences.