From Nationalism to Transnationalism: The Compilation and Publication of the Puhui Canon (Puhuizang)

Abstract

The publication of the Puhui Canon began in 1943, was interrupted in 1955, and was ultimately completed in 1998, spanning three significant historical periods: the Chinese War of Resistance Against Japan, the Chinese Civil War (1945–1949), and the early years of the People’s Republic of China. Its production was shaped by nationalism, Asian Buddhist interactions, warfare, and diplomacy. As the first Chinese Buddhist canon to incorporate Pāli texts, it reflects the legacy of Sino-Sri Lankan Buddhist exchanges since the late Qing dynasty. The Puhui Canon exemplifies a Pan-Asian vision, seeking to bridge Northern (Mahāyāna) and Southern (Theravāda) Buddhist traditions across Asia.

The Puhui Tripitaka 普慧大藏經, also known as the Puhui Canon (Puhuizang 普慧藏), is a Buddhist canon compiled during the Republic of China period. Its publication process began in 1943, and the compilation work was largely completed by around 1955. However, the project was not fully realized as originally planned. Since its inception, the Puhui Canon has been printed in limited quantities and remains relatively unknown. Additionally, because it was printed gradually as it was compiled, very few individuals have been able to collect a complete edition. It was not until 1998 that the canon was finally compiled and published in a systematic manner.

As a result, scholarly research on the Puhui Canon remains scarce. According to Hasebe Yūkei 長谷部幽蹊’s investigations, there was virtually no academic research on the Puhui Canon in Japan and Taiwan prior to the 1980s. Hasebe himself has focused only on Chan (Zen) texts contained in the canon, particularly Zudeng Bian’e 祖燈辨訛 (Correcting Errors in the Transmission of the Lamp), which is included in Zudeng Datong 祖燈大統 (The Great Transmission of the Lamp) (Hasebe 1980, pp. 47–76; Hasebe 1985, pp. 41–111).

Based on the author’s own research, dedicated studies on the Puhui Canon remain limited, with most discussions confined to general overviews (Nozawa 1993; Nozawa 2003, pp. 19–34; Wu and Wilkinson 2017, p. xviii; Wu 2001, pp. 19–21; Li and He 2003, pp. 550–57; He 2014, pp. 174–77). In-depth analysis and critical discussions appear to be lacking. Nevertheless, the compilation and publication of the Puhui Canon spanned three distinct historical periods: the Second Sino-Japanese War (1930–1945), the Chinese Civil War (1945–1949), and the People’s Republic of China (1949 to the present) era. Its protracted history, extending for more than half a century, not only reflects the deep enthusiasm of modern Chinese Buddhists for compiling a Buddhist canon but also ensures that its publication history is intertwined with a series of unique narratives. These include influences from modern nationalism, Buddhist interactions across Asia, political dynamics, warfare, and even elements of grassroots diplomacy.

Moreover, compared to previous Buddhist canons, the Puhui Canon possesses a highly distinctive feature, namely it was the first Buddhist canon in Chinese history to translate and incorporate texts from the Theravāda Tipiṭaka. One of its core objectives was to bring together scriptures from both the Southern (Theravāda) and Northern (Mahāyāna) Buddhist traditions, making this its most defining characteristic. Why would a Buddhist canon, compiled from 1943 onward, specifically emphasize the value of the Theravāda Tipiṭaka? Wasn’t Theravāda Buddhism historically dismissed as “Hīnayāna” within the Han Chinese Buddhist narrative? What does this shift—or rather, this new perspective—represent?

It can be said that the Puhui Canon’s effort to integrate texts from both the Theravāda and Mahāyāna traditions was not only the result of increasing engagement and interaction between modern Chinese Buddhists and Theravāda Buddhists but also reflected a new understanding among modern Chinese Buddhists regarding the authentic teachings of the Buddha and the essence of the Dharma body.

1. Nationalism and the Publication of the Puhui Canon

According to the research of Yankang Wu 武延康, a researcher at the Jinling Scriptural Press 金陵刻經處 who was involved in the editing and publication of the Puhui Canon, the origins of the Puhui Canon can be traced back to the establishment of the Huayanjing Shuchao Compilation and Printing Association 華嚴經疏鈔編印會 in Shanghai in 1939. The Huayanjing Shuchao 華嚴經疏鈔 (Commentary and Sub-commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra) is a work by Chengguan 澄觀 (738–839), the fourth patriarch of the Huayan school 華嚴宗 in the Tang dynasty (618–907), in which he provided extensive annotations on the 80-fascicle version of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Huayan Jing 華嚴經) translated by Śikṣānanda during the Tang dynasty. Over the course of its transmission and printing, numerous textual errors and discrepancies had accumulated. In response, modern Buddhist scholars such as Weiru Xu 徐蔚如 (1878–1937) undertook a new critical edition and revision.1 By 1944, the work of the Huayanjing Shuchao Compilation and Printing Association was completed, and they submitted the revised manuscripts of Huayanjing Shuchao and Huayanjing Tanxuan Ji 華嚴經探玄記 (Notes on the Profound Meaning of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra) to the Puhui Canon Publishing Association for inclusion and circulation as part of the Puhui Canon (Wu 2001, pp. 19–20). Therefore, the compilation and publication of the Huayanjing Shuchao can be regarded as a precursor to the publication of the Puhui Canon.

The Puhui Dazangjing (Puhui Canon) Publishing Association was established in July 1943 in Shanghai. The association was initiated by the wealthy Shanghai businessman, You’an Sheng盛幼盦 (also known as Wenyi Sheng 盛文頤, Dharma name Puhui 普慧), who served as its president. He invited a group of renowned Buddhist monks and lay scholars, including Xingci 興慈 (1881–1950), Chisong 持鬆 (1894–1972), Zhifeng 芝峰 (1901–1971), Sihao Li 李思浩 (1882–1968), Xiquan Tao 陶希泉 (date of birth and death unknown), Zhuzhuang Jiang 蔣竹莊 (Weiqiao Jiang 蔣維喬, 1873–1958), Fubao Ding 丁福保 (1874–1952), Yunzai Wu 吳蘊齋 (1886–?), and Binhe Chen 陳彬龢 (1897–1945), to gather at Jing’an Temple 靜安寺, where they collectively discussed and formulated the plan for compiling and printing the Puhui Canon.

According to the association’s charter and personnel records, in addition to President You’an Sheng, the board of directors included eight highly respected monks—Xingci, Yingci 應慈 (1873–1965), Yuanying 圓瑛 (1878–1953), Chisong, and Zhifeng, among others—as well as seventeen distinguished lay Buddhists, such as Gunong Fan 范古農 (1881–1951), Mianzun Xia 夏丏尊 (1886–1946), Yuanjing Li 李圓淨 (1894–1950), Gongchuo Ye 葉恭綽 (1881–1968), Puchu Zhao 趙樸初 (1907–2000), and Weiqiao Jiang 蔣維喬 (1873–1958). (Journalist 2008, p. 322). Initially, the association’s headquarters was located at Jing’an Temple but was later moved to Fazang Temple 法藏寺. The funding for the project came primarily from You’an Sheng’s personal contribution of 500,000 yuan.

Based on the suggestion of Gongchuo Ye (also known as Xia’an Ye 葉遐庵), the Puhui Canon should abandon the traditional method of printing Buddhist canons using woodblock printing, as it was too costly and inefficient. Instead, he advocated for the use of movable type printing and lithography, and the best method would be to publish in batches.2

Ye’s proposal was likely adopted. According to the First Phase Catalog of Standalone Publications of the Puhui Dazangjing Printing Association 普慧大藏經刊行會校印大藏經第一期單行本目錄, the first batch of Puhui Canon publications included a total of 48 titles (though the actual number of published texts was 50), comprising 81 volumes. The printed format was in folio on rough-edged paper, with each page containing 16 lines and 41 characters per line. The main text was set in size 4 Song-style type, while marginal annotations and critical notes were printed in size 5 Song-style type (Wu 2001, p. 19).

At the time, some proposed that the compilation and printing of the Buddhist canon should focus on collecting scriptures from previous editions of the canon and use the Japanese Taishō Tripiṭaka (Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō) as the base text for textual collation. However, Gongchuo Ye firmly rejected this suggestion. In his view, simply reprinting the contents of past editions was an effort-intensive but ultimately unrewarding endeavor. Moreover, the base texts of previous canons, such as the Goryeo Canon (Koryŏ Tripiṭaka), were difficult to obtain, making it impractical to correct the errors of earlier collections. Instead, he proposed a different approach:

For the compilation of a Buddhist canon in the Republic of China era, the most critical task is to collect and preserve texts that were omitted from previous Chinese canons. These omissions generally fall into five categories: (1) texts that were excluded due to the personal political or religious biases of emperors, officials, or monastics; (2) texts that were once included but later removed due to similar biases; (3) texts that existed only as rare standalone editions and were never widely disseminated, thus failing to be incorporated into any canon; (4) later translations from distant regions that had not yet reached China; and (5) Buddhist writings composed in China after the Yongzheng 雍正 era (1723–1735), which were traditionally not included in the canon. Although it is impossible to list all such omitted texts comprehensively, their number is certainly significant, and many of them are of exceptional value. Furthermore, recovering these texts is both necessary and feasible in the present era. With the advancement of cultural exchange, the collection of such works has become more accessible, and past political taboos and restrictions have largely been eliminated. The obstacles that once prevented such efforts no longer exist. If we do not undertake this task now, we will fail to meet the demands of our time. Therefore, the primary goal and central focus of compiling a Buddhist canon today must be the recovery of these lost and omitted texts.

(Ye 2008, p. 320)

From this, it is clear that the Puhui Canon was never intended to be an all-encompassing collection of Buddhist scriptures. Rather, from its inception, it aimed to be a carefully curated selection, dedicated to retrieving and preserving texts that had been omitted from previous Chinese Buddhist canons.

The journal, Foxue Banyuekan 佛學半月刊 (Buddhist Studies Bimonthly), published a public announcement soliciting Buddhist texts from both private and institutional collections for inclusion in the Puhui Canon (Puhui dazangjing kanxinghui zhengqiu fodian qishi 2008, p. 354). It indicates that Ye’s proposal was largely adopted. Given the turbulent wartime conditions and the unstable political climate, this approach was undoubtedly a pragmatic one. Ye also emphasized that while the collection of lost and omitted texts required careful selection, it must not be influenced by sectarian or doctrinal biases (Ye 2008, p. 320). This demonstrates that the Puhui Canon was compiled according to selection criteria informed by a modern scholarly consciousness that emphasized value neutrality. This marked a significant departure from the Huayanjing Shuchao Compilation and Printing Association, reflecting a more academically rigorous and inclusive approach to Buddhist textual preservation.

In addition to collecting and printing the Buddhist texts that had been lost or omitted from previous canons, the most important task of the Puhui Canon Publishing Association was to translate the Southern Buddhist Canon (Theravada Canon) and fully integrate it with the Northern Buddhist scriptures. The association’s charter outlined three main goals:

• To compile the scriptures and treatises of both the Southern and Northern traditions, encompassing the entirety of the Buddha’s teachings throughout his lifetime, ensuring completeness and coherence.
• To correct the omissions and errors in previous editions, and to examine the variations in the terminology of translations across different historical periods, in order to facilitate scholarly study.
• To supplement important works not yet included in the existing canons, thereby expanding the Buddhist library. (Journalist 2008, p. 322)

The association also proclaimed:

The Southern Buddhist Canon, which was introduced to Southern India during the time of King Ashoka, has never been transmitted to China. This marks the first effort to translate it. Once this project is completed, it will bring together the scriptures of both the Southern and Northern traditions, and will truly be a groundbreaking achievement in the history of Buddhist cultural development.

(Journalist 2008, p. 322)

After the victory in the Second Sino-Japanese War, the Puhui Canon Publishing Association ceased operations. The primary reason for this was the arrest of You’an Sheng, which led to the loss of financial support for the association. You’an Sheng’s background was far from illustrious. According to the recollections of his friend, Cunren Chen 陳存仁 (1908–1990), Sheng was the nephew of Xuanhuai Sheng 盛懷宣 (1844–1916), a minister in the Qing Dynasty’s Postal and Telecommunications Department, and was infamously known as the “Opium King” in the occupied territories by Japan. His smuggling operations extended throughout the regions controlled by the “Manchukuo 滿洲國” puppet state, the Beiyang 北洋 government, and the Nanjing regime, with the only exception being Guangdong Province. Due to his vast wealth and influence, he was a person of significant standing, and military, political, party, and police officials from all provinces would often demand money from him (Chen 2001, p. 134). He was an alumnus of the Tongwen Academy 同文館 and spoke Japanese fluently, having strong connections within the Japanese military (Chen 2001, p. 143). He ran the “Huazhong Hongji Shantang 華中宏濟善堂”, which appeared to be a charitable organization on the surface but was actually responsible for the opium trade (Sheng 1992, pp. 484–85). Founded in early 1938, it was covertly supported by the Japanese military and handled the distribution of opium brought by the Japanese army from regions like North China. The headquarters of Hongji Shantang was based in Shanghai, and it also set up local branches in Jiangsu and Zhejiang, forming a tightly controlled narcotics trafficking network managed by the Japanese (Zhuang and Xuan 1999, pp. 13–21).

As an agent of the Japanese military’s opium trade, You’an Sheng was responsible for recruiting local Chinese opium merchants. He collaborated with the famous Japanese ronin, Satomi Hajime 里見甫 (1896–1965), to organize Hongji Shantang. A central office was set up, with ten contributors, and they sourced opium from Manchuria and Inner Mongolia. Local offices were established in Shanghai, Nanjing, Suzhou, Wuxi, Zhenjiang, Yangzhou, Wuhu, Hangzhou, and Songjiang, responsible for the sale and distribution of opium (Yuan 1992, p. 1048).

During the Second Sino-Japanese War, the Japanese army, deeply entrenched in China, faced escalating resource consumption. In order to better support the war effort, the strategy of “waging war to finance war” was reinforced. As opium trafficking had caused controversy in Japan, the trade, initially controlled by the Japanese military, was shifted to an agent structure. This led to the creation of the Huazhong Hongji Shantang, which monopolized the opium trade in Shanghai and the central China region (Jiang 2018, pp. 74–91; Brook 2000, pp. 332–34; Eguchi 1988, pp. 101–2).

According to modern scholars, the Jingwei Wang 汪精衛 government (1940–1945) profited enormously from the opium trade managed by Hongji Shantang. Since March 1940, the puppet government’s Minister of Finance, Fohai Zhou 周佛海 (1897–1948), increased the opium tax from 3.5 yuan per tael to 6 yuan per tael. In that year, Hongji Shantang imported 800 boxes of opium from Iran (equivalent to 1,536,000 taels, with each tael sold at a wholesale price of CNY 12; thus, each box was worth USD 21,120). The Wang government collected USD 9,216,000 in taxes from this batch of opium, while Mitsui & Co. received USD 4,610,000 in handling fees, and the Japanese intelligence agency, Xingya Institute’s Central China Liaison Department (Xingyayuan Huazhong lianluobu 興亞院華中聯絡部), earned a net sum of USD 12,280,000. At the start of the war, the Japanese Shanghai Special Services Department had an annual operational budget of only CNY 200,000 (Li 1988, pp. 191, 210–11). It is estimated that from June 1939 to April 1944, Hongji Shantang made a profit of approximately JPY 1 billion over five years (Cao 2004, p. 135). By controlling the drug trade, the Japanese military and their puppet government in China earned huge revenues, which helped alleviate the issue of insufficient military funds.

After the victory in the Second Sino-Japanese War, You’an Sheng, who had served as an agent for the Japanese military’s opium trade, obviously met a tragic end. It is said that he was spared from a death sentence due to his financial contributions to the compilation of the Buddhist Canon (Wu 2001, p. 21). However, there is insufficient evidence to confirm this claim at present.

Regardless, after 1945, Sheng was arrested, and the funding for the publication of the Puhui Canon was lost. At this time, a group of 43 monks, including Xuyun 虛雲 (1840–1959), Taixu 太虛 (1890–1947), Xingci, Yingci, Yuanying, Janggya hotogtu (Zhangjia 章嘉, 1980–1957), Chisong, Fafang 法舫 (1904–1951), and others, along with 140 lay Buddhists such as Puchu Zhao, jointly initiated the establishment of the “Minguo Zengxiu Dazangjinghui 民國增修大藏經會” (Republic of China Enlarged and Revised Tripitaka Society), to publish the Minguo Zengxiu Dazangjing 民國增修大藏經 (Republic of China Enlarged and Revised Tripitaka) (Xuyun et al. 2006, p. 94). The society had a strong lineup, including not only some of the most famous monks of the time, but also scholars and intellectuals such as Shujia Zhou 周叔迦 (1899–1970) and Zikai Feng 豐子愷 (1898–1975), and even prominent figures from the Kuomintang 國民黨, such as Youren Yu 於右任 (1879–1964), Shijie Wang 王世傑 (1890–1981), Lifu Chen 陳立夫 (1900–2001), and Enbo Tang 湯恩伯 (1899–1954), indicating the society’s recognition by the political forces of the time.

In the Public Notice of the Republic of China Enlarged and Revised Tripitaka Society, Gunong Fan said,

After the Second World War, we open the door to peace and eternal blessings of goodwill… Thus, after the founding of each dynasty, the compilation of the Tripitaka was followed as a norm. Now, with the victory in the war, the establishment of a democratic republic, and the completion of constitutional governance, the monumental task of compiling the Tripitaka should also be undertaken in due course. Having received the support of eminent monks, elders, and laypeople, and the endorsement of the government officials in power, the Republic of China Enlarged and Revised Tripitaka Society has been established.

(Fan 2006, p. 96)

This likely reflects the prevailing sentiment among China’s political and cultural elites at the time: on the one hand, after the victory in the war, compiling a new Tripitaka to pray for world peace was seen as important; on the other hand, after the founding of the Republic, China had not yet compiled a Tripitaka that represented this era, and the publication of such a canon was necessary to demonstrate the nation’s strength. The Tripitaka, as a form of “symbolic capital” (a term from Pierre Bourdieu) (Wu and Wilkinson 2017, p. xiv), had been published by various dynasties since the Song dynasty, and the Republic of China was no exception. The Tripitaka had historically been seen as having a protective function for the nation (Wu and Chia 2016, p. 3), and this national sentiment was undoubtedly heightened with the victory in the war.

The goal of the Republic of China Enlarged and Revised Tripitaka was “to strive for a grand scale unprecedented in previous times and to select excellent works from modern times”. In line with this purpose, “This canon not only indirectly incorporates the revised editions from various canons, but also directly adds many variant versions” (Li 1998b, pp. 1–3).

However, the editing and publishing of the Republic of China Enlarged and Revised Tripitaka was not smooth. As mentioned earlier, the Puhui Canon publishing association printed 50 titles across 81 volumes during its operation. In a 1946 catalog titled First Volume Catalog of the Tripitaka Published by the Republic of China Enlarged and Revised Tripitaka Association, 51 titles and 87 volumes were listed, but only one work, Huayan Yi Cheng Jiao Yi Fen Qi Zhang Ji 華嚴一乘教義分齊章記 (A Record of the One Vehicle Teaching in the Huayan Sutra), was newly printed. The rest were reprints from the Puhui Canon (Li and He 2003, p. 553). From 1945 to 1955, the Republic of China Enlarged and Revised Tripitaka Association published a total of 55 new titles and 18 volumes (with an additional Overview and Catalog volume). The format of the Republic of China Enlarged and Revised Tripitaka was exactly the same as that of the Puhui Canon (Wu 2001, p. 20). Thus, the total number of works included in the Puhui Canon reached 105 titles, across 100 volumes (including the Overview and Catalog volume).

The Republic of China Enlarged and Revised Tripitaka Association, starting in 1945, essentially continued the work of the Puhui Canon according to its original goals, carrying on the unfinished projects of the Puhui Canon. However, its progress was slow, a primary reason for this being the lack of funding. At the time, Yuanjing Li 李圓淨 (1894–1950) wrote an article urging Buddhist figures to generously contribute funds for the printing of scriptures, but it seems that this appeal had little effect. Puchu Zhao, in his article Jinling kejingchu chongyin Puhui Dazangjing yuanqi 金陵刻經處重印《普慧大藏經》緣起 (The Origins of the Reprinting of the Puhui Canon by the Jinling Publishing House), said: “Due to the fluctuating political situation and personnel changes, funding became increasingly strained. The number of staff dwindled, and by the eve of the founding of the republic, only three lay practitioners were left to continue the work” (Zhao 1998, p. 2). This indicates that the continuation of the Republic of China Enlarged and Revised Tripitaka Association was even more challenging to maintain than that of the Puhui Canon Publishing Association (Li and He 2003, p. 553).

In 1959, over 6900 printing blocks of the Puhui Canon, compiled by the Republic of China Enlarged and Revised Tripitaka Association (民國增修大藏經會), were transported from Shanghai to the Jinling Scriptural Press for safekeeping by lay Buddhist scholars, Puchu Zhao and Youwei You 遊有維 (1917–1990). However, during the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), these printing blocks became severely disordered, with some being damaged or lost. Additionally, a large collection of manuscripts originally housed in Shanghai, including edited but unpublished drafts, was completely destroyed during the decade of turmoil. After the Jinling Scriptural Press resumed operations in 1980, following the reprinting of Essentials of the Canon (藏要) and The Complete Works of Master Xuanzang (玄奘法師譯撰全集), plans were made to reprint the Puhui Canon as well (Jinling Printing Institute 1998, p. 1). From 1995 to 1997, efforts were made to reorganize the printing blocks of the Puhui Canon. Finally, on the occasion of the 130th anniversary of the Jinling Scriptural Press, the entire canon was published in its complete form, consisting of 100 volumes across 21 cases.3

In 2007, Zhongguo Shudian 中國書店 (China Bookstore) published a revised edition of the Puhui Canon in a 16mo format. The main text was printed in a font size one point larger than that of the Jinling Scriptural Press edition and was divided into 42 volumes, using modern hardcover binding. In the early 1980s, the Buddhist Publishing House in Taiwan 台灣佛教出版社 published The Buddhist Tripitaka 佛教大藏經, compiled and edited by Venerable Guangding 釋廣定. The content of its first series was essentially the same as that of the Puhui Canon, but it included 16 additional scriptures that were not present in the reprinted edition of the Puhui Canon by the Jinling Scriptural Press (He 2014, p. 176).

Throughout the publication process of the Puhui Canon, nationalist sentiment was a major driving force behind its completion. The compilation and publication of the Commentary and Subcommentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra were primarily motivated by religious devotion to the Huayan School 華嚴宗 (Yingci et al. 2008, p. 447). However, the compilation of the Puhui Canon lacked such sectarian religious backing and was instead closely linked to nationalism. Gongchuo Ye once praised the project, stating:

This is the greatest Buddhist undertaking of the thirtieth year of the Republic of China… I have always said that during the founding periods of the Song, Yuan, Ming, Qing, Liao, and Jin dynasties, there was invariably an effort to compile and print a Buddhist canon, yet in the Republic of China, no one has ever taken up this responsibility. This is truly a disgrace to the nation.

(Ye 2008, p. 320)

Here, the compilation of the Puhui Canon was seen as a cultural symbol of the Republic of China. This nationalist sentiment became even stronger within the Republic of China Enlarged and Revised Tripitaka Association 民國增修大藏經會. One of its core members, Yuanjing Li, argued that:

Since the Tang dynasty, the rise and fall of the nation have always been directly proportional to the flourishing or decline of Buddhism: when Emperor Wuzong 武宗of the Tang persecuted Buddhism, the Tang dynasty soon collapsed; when Emperor Shizong of the Later Zhou 周世宗suppressed Buddhism again, the Five Dynasties period came to an end; Emperor Taizu of the Song 宋太祖 deeply revered the Dharma, and the vitality of the nation was gradually restored; the emperors of the Ming dynasty generally protected Buddhism, and the national strength remained considerable; during the Yuan and early Qing periods, Buddhism was highly esteemed, and the nation was powerful. Similar patterns can be seen in foreign countries: in India, under Emperor Aśoka, both the nation and Buddhism reached their peak; yet in modern times, as Buddhism declined, India itself fell into ruin. Japan has long valued Buddhism, and during its periods of national prosperity, the Dharma flourished. The benefits of the Dharma’s influence are evident. Korea, after suffering invasions from the Khitans and Mongols, managed to preserve itself by relying on the initial and revised editions of the Tripitaka Koreana produced under the vows of Kings Hyŏnjong and Kojong. This is the clearest historical example of using the compilation of the canon to safeguard the nation. In sum, when Buddhism prospers, the world is at peace; when Buddhism declines, the world is in turmoil. This has been true for China since the Tang and Song dynasties, and the same pattern holds abroad.

(Li 1998a, p. 18)

Thus, the compilation of the Puhui Canon was regarded as a grand undertaking intimately connected with the fate of the nation. Yuanjing Li further reiterated this idea in his work, An Overview of the Republic of China Enlarged and Revised Tripitaka 民國增修大藏經概述, writing under the pseudonym, Yuanjin 圓晉, where he cited similar historical examples to argue that: “The merit of compiling and printing the canon ensures the protection of the nation’s destiny—how much more so for the fortunes of individual families?” (Li 1998b, p. 4). In 1998, when the Puhui Canon was reprinted, Puchu Zhao, one of the key figures behind its publication, remarked:

As a shared cultural heritage of humanity, Japan compiled the Taishō Canon (Taishō Tripitaka), and we should rejoice in their merits. However, due to various circumstances, the Taishō Canon also has its limitations. Chinese Buddhist culture is, in fact, the mother of Japanese Buddhist culture. The responsibility for compiling the Buddhist canon and continuing the wisdom of the Dharma rightfully belongs to China. Yet, because of the war of aggression launched by Japanese militarism, which plunged the Chinese people into immense suffering, this responsibility could not be fulfilled. Even so, dedicated individuals within the Chinese Buddhist community who aspired to propagate the Dharma never abandoned their commitment to the canon.

(Zhao 1998, pp. 1–2)

The compilation of the Puhui Canon appears to have been, at least in part, a response to Japan’s Buddhist community—particularly the Taishō Canon. It emphasized that since Chinese Buddhist culture was the origin of Japanese Buddhist culture, China should rightfully assume the responsibility of compiling the Buddhist canon. Yuanjin expressed a similar view in An Overview of the Republican Supplementary Tripitaka, criticizing the Taishō Canon for relying exclusively on the Korean edition of the canon (Goryeo Canon) while merely annotating the textual variations from the Song, Yuan, and Ming editions. He argued:

The Korean edition is indeed refined, but it is not without errors and omissions. Relying exclusively on a single edition while merely listing textual differences—even when errors are evident but left uncorrected—is a time-saving approach in textual collation. However, failing to select the best readings risks misleading readers.

(Li 1998b, p. 2)

Since the Edo period, Japan had actively compiled Buddhist canons, successively producing the Tenkai Canon (天海藏), the Obaku Canon (黄檗藏), the Manji Canon (卍正藏經), the New Manji Canon (卍新纂續藏經), the Shukukatsu Canon (縮刻藏), and the Taishō Canon (大正藏). During this period, the center of the compilation and printing of the Chinese Buddhist canon shifted from China to Japan. In response to this, the late Qing period saw the establishment of several Buddhist scriptural presses in China, such as Wenhui Yang 楊文會 (1837–1911)’s Jinling Scriptural Press and Weiru Xu’s Beijing Scriptural Press. The publication of the Puhui Canon was similarly a reaction to the Buddhist canons compiled in Japan (Hasebe 1980, pp. 48–49).

Even in the latter half of the twentieth century, the publication of various Chinese Buddhist canons in mainland China and Taiwan can be seen as a continuation of this effort to respond to the Japanese Buddhist canons. This demonstrates that the compilation and printing of Buddhist canons in modern China have always been intertwined with nationalism (Wu and Wilkinson 2017, pp. xxiv–xxv). Paradoxically, due to a lack of scholars proficient in Pāli, the Theravāda Buddhist texts included in the Puhui Canon were translated from the Japanese version of the Southern Buddhist Canon (南傳大藏經). The necessity of relying on the research achievements of the Japanese Buddhist community highlights an unavoidable aspect of this nationalist project—one of reluctant dependence.4

What is even more intriguing is that the Puhui Canon’s initial sponsor, Puhui Sheng, was an opium trade agent operating in China under the occupying Japanese army. His funding of the Puhui Canon may have been an attempt to imitate his uncle, Sheng Huaixuan, who had previously sponsored the publication of the Piling Canon 毗陵藏 (Wu and Wilkinson 2017, p. xvii; on the Piling Canon, see Fang 2021a, pp. 293–383).

Of course, it is reasonable to speculate that an opium trader and a collaborator supported by the Japanese military might have funded the publication of the Buddhist canon in an attempt to seek personal merit and to accumulate symbolic capital that could improve his tainted reputation.

Following Puhui Sheng’s involvement, the nationalist discourse surrounding the Republican-era Supplementary Tripitaka was no longer viable after the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. However, when the Puhui Canon was reprinted in the 1990s, Puchu Zhao remarked:

The name Puhui for the canon originated from the initial donor’s virtuous aspiration, signifying the karmic connection of cause and effect in the preservation of the Buddhist canon. It also conveys the wish that all sentient beings take refuge in the Dharma, delve deeply into the scriptures, and attain wisdom as vast as the ocean.

(Zhao 1998, p. 2)

This statement reaffirmed the continued use of Puhui as the name of the canon—not only because it was the Dharma name of its original sponsor but also because, in Chinese, these two characters (Puhui 普慧) directly express the Buddhist aspiration for all beings to attain wisdom. The compilation of the Puhui Canon thus spanned three distinct historical periods: the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945), the Chinese Civil War (1945–1949), and the era of the People’s Republic of China. Nationalism remained a driving force behind its completion, yet while it may appear to have been a continuous thread, its meaning and implications evolved across these different historical contexts.

2. International Exchange and the Effort to Integrate Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism in the Puhui Canon

Compared with previous editions of the Buddhist Canon, the Puhui Canon has its own distinctive features. Firstly, it collects and critically collates a significant number of precious Buddhist texts that had long been lost, as well as rare printed editions of great research value. For example, it compiles four versions of the Platform Sutra (壇經)—the Dunhuang manuscript, the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch from Xing Sheng Temple (also known as the Huixin version), the Caoxi Original Edition of the Platform Sutra, and the widely circulated Zongbao edition—into a single volume. Additionally, it includes texts such as the Zudeng Datong (祖燈大統), Dongshang Zuxian Lu (洞上祖憲錄), Wuzong Jiu (五宗救)，Zhengming Lu (正名錄), Shishi Liutie (釋氏六帖), Huayanjing Shulun Zuanyao (華嚴經疏論纂要), Vimalakīrti Sūtra Zhijie (維摩經直解, Vimalakīrti Sūtra Zhijie Direct Explanation), and Nanchao Sikao (南朝寺考, A Study of Temples in the Southern Dynasties), none of which were included in previous editions of the Buddhist Canon, either in China or abroad. These texts are unique to the Puhui Canon (Li and He 2003, p. 556). Moreover, for the first time, this canon incorporates 36 Vinaya texts compiled and edited by the renowned modern monk, Hongyi 弘一 (1880–1942), as well as Notes on the Mahāyāna Śamatha-Vipaśyanā (大乘止觀述記) (one fascicle) by Master Dixian 諦閑 (1858–1932).

Secondly, the Puhui Canon undertakes the meticulous collation and integration of various editions of Buddhist scriptures. As indicated by the prefatory notes accompanying each text, the canon incorporates numerous collated versions in its printed editions. The collation process of the Puhui Canon goes beyond merely identifying the textual variations among different editions; it also involves making critical judgments on the textual accuracy, providing annotation records, and correcting errors in the base texts. In this regard, its textual criticism surpasses that of the previous editions of the Buddhist Canon. Furthermore, phonetic glosses are appended at the end of texts from the Shorter Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (小品般若波羅蜜經) onward. Unlike those found in other canons, these glosses integrate the achievements of Huilin 慧琳 (736–820), Xuanying 玄應 (dates of birth and death unknown), and Huiyuan 慧苑 (673–?) in phonetic studies, as well as Sanskrit and Pali terminology from the Taishō Tripiṭaka (大正藏) (He 2014, pp. 174–75). As a result, the Puhui Canon represents a comprehensive synthesis of multiple textual variants, making it a new and authoritative edition of significant scholarly value.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the Puhui Canon includes a selection of scriptures from the Southern Buddhist Canon that were retranslated from Japanese translations. These include 23 suttas from the Dīgha Nikāya (which contains a total of 34 suttas), 50 suttas from the Majjhima Nikāya (out of 152 suttas), 150 stories from the Jātaka (out of 547 stories) in the Khuddaka Nikāya, and one volume from the Paṭṭhāna in the Abhidhamma Piṭaka. In this way, it provides a partial representation of the Southern Buddhist Canon (He 2014, p. 174).

The Puhui Canon is essentially a Chinese translation of the Japanese-translated Southern Buddhist Canon (南傳大藏經), but it also introduces certain modifications. In terms of publication arrangement, it consolidates the content of Volume 9 (Majjhima Nikāya I) and the first section of Volume 10 (Majjhima Nikāya II) from the Japanese edition into a single volume, namely Fascicle 1, Volume 4, Majjhima Nikāya I—while omitting the translation of the second section of Volume 10.

In terms of translation, the Puhui Canon adapts certain Japanese sutta titles into more natural and accessible Chinese renderings, following Chinese linguistic conventions. For instance, the Shōgen-kyō (消減經, “Sutta on Reduction”) is retranslated as Sun Sun Jing (損損經, “Sutta on Gradual Diminishment”), as the sutta first expounds the fundamental Dharma for abandoning various views, then elaborates on the fivefold method of eradicating defilements to ultimately attain Nirvāṇa (Zhifeng 1998, p. 4). Similarly, Shinkōya-kyō (心荒野經, “Sutta on the Mind as a Wilderness”) is rendered as Xin Huanghui Jing (心荒穢經, “Sutta on the Defiled Mind”), aligning with the title Xin Hui Jing 心穢經 in the corresponding Chinese Āgama translation. Other examples include Sōkō-kyō (雙考經, “Sutta on Dual Examination”) retranslated as Shuang Si Jing (雙思經, “Sutta on Dual Thinking”), Kōsō Shikishi-kyō (考想息止經, “Sutta on the Cessation of Mental Deliberation”) as Xi Si Jing (息思經, “Sutta on the Cessation of Thought”), and Maka Shaku-kyō (魔呵責經, “Sutta on Māra’s Rebuke”) as He Mo Jing (呵魔經, “Sutta on Rebuking Māra”). In terms of content selection, the Puhui Canon prioritized the translation and publication of certain texts. For example, within the Khuddaka Nikāya, the Jātaka was translated and published first in two volumes, as it provides a more comprehensive collection of past-life narratives than existing Chinese works such as the Liu Du Ji Jing 六度集經, Sheng Jing 聖經, Za Baozang Jing 雜寶藏經, Xianyu Jing 賢愚經, Zhuan Ji Bai Lu Jing 撰集百錄經, and Pusa Bensheng Man Lun 菩薩本生鬘論 (Dazangjing diyiqi kanben mulu 1998, p. 21). Likewise, in the Abhidhamma Piṭaka, Paṭṭhāna I (one fascicle) and Buddhaghosa’s commentary were published first, as they had no prior translations in the Northern Buddhist Canon (Dazangjing diyiqi kanben mulu 1998, p. 21).

The primary translators included Mianzun Xia (Venerable Dongchu 1974, pp. 722–26), Lianbai 江錬百 Jiang (birth and death years unknown), Jidong Fan 范寄東, namely Gunong Fan, and Ven. Zhifeng, who was primarily responsible for textual verification. This was the most distinctive feature of the Puhui Canon and one of its founding principles: to “bring together the scriptures and treatises of both the Southern and Northern Traditions, encompassing the entirety of the Tathāgata’s teachings without omission” (Journalist 2008, p. 322). Although the publication of the Puhui Canon faced many challenges, this fundamental objective never wavered.

The approach of the Puhui Canon in compiling scriptures and treatises from both the Southern and Northern Buddhist traditions was unprecedented in the major Tripiṭaka editions published in modern China and Japan. Since the late Qing period, beginning with Wenhui Yang, Chinese Buddhists had once again become enthusiastic about publishing the Buddhist canon. Yang Wenhui had planned to publish Dazang Jiyao (大藏輯要, The Essentials of the Tripiṭaka), and although this project was never completed, his preface, Dangzang Jiyao Xuli (大藏輯要叙例, Introduction to the Essentials of the Tripiṭaka), reveals his fundamental vision for compiling a Buddhist canon. In Dazang Jiyao, the sūtra section was divided into two main categories: the Bodhisattva Collection and the Śrāvaka Collection. The Bodhisattva Collection included, in sequence, the Huayan (Avataṃsaka) section, the Vaipulya section, the Pure Land section, the Dharmalakṣaṇa (Yogācāra) section, the Prajñā (Perfection of Wisdom) section, the Lotus Sūtra section, and the Nirvāṇa section, while the Śrāvaka Collection comprised Hīnayāna sūtras. Notably, Yang deliberately separated the Pure Land and Dharmalakṣaṇa sections from the Vaipulya section and treated them as independent categories, reflecting both his own Buddhist thought and the historical context of the late Qing period, which saw the widespread dissemination of Pure Land Buddhism and the rise of Yogācāra (Dharmalakṣaṇa) studies (Fang 2021b, pp. 280–84).

Yang’s classification scheme was largely an adaptation of the system found in Yuezang Zhijin (阅藏知津, Guide to the Buddhist Canon) (Yang 2015, pp. 37–38). This earlier work categorized scriptures based on the Tiantai doctrine of the “Five Periods” and employed the traditional classification of the Bodhisattva Collection and Śrāvaka Collection, within which texts were further divided into sūtra, vinaya, and śāstra (Zhixu 2025, p. 771b). The classification method of Guide to the Buddhist Canon had a profound influence on modern Buddhist canon compilation, shaping not only Wenhui Yang’s Essentials of the Tripiṭaka, but also Japan’s Shukuzōkan (縮刻藏) and China’s Pinqie Canon (頻伽藏) (He 2014, p. 157).

Yang’s legacy in Buddhist publishing was carried forward by Jingwu Ouyang 歐陽竟無 (1871–1943), who also undertook the compilation of Zangyao (藏要, The Essential Canon). The first volume of Zangyao, which included “eleven sūtras, three vinayas, and eleven śāstras”, reflected the strong emphasis placed by the China Inner Academy (Zhina Neixueyuan 支那內學院) on Yogācāra texts (Ouyang 1991, pp. 1–4).

Compared with these modern Buddhist canon projects—such as Wenhui Yang’s Dazang Jiyao, the Pinqie Canon, and Ouyang Jingwu’s Zangyao—the Puhui Canon stands out. From its published volumes, it is evident that the Puhui Canon takes the unprecedented approach of presenting both the Southern and Northern Buddhist canons side by side, with the Pāli Āgama texts (Nikāyas) placed at the very beginning in the first six volumes of the first case. This editorial decision is a significant departure from all previous Tripiṭakas, both modern and historical, demonstrating an attitude of equal regard for the Southern and Northern Buddhist traditions and emphasizing the importance of the Pāli Āgamas—representing Original Buddhism.

However, the Puhui Canon did not strictly follow the format of the Japanese translation of the Pāli Canon (Nanden Daizōkyō) in its translation efforts. Unlike the Japanese edition, which began with the Vinaya Piṭaka in its first five volumes, the Puhui Canon prioritized the translation of Āgama texts, a structure more akin to that of the Taishō Tripiṭaka (Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō). For its collection of Vinaya texts, the Puhui Canon did not adopt the Pāli Vinaya but instead included 36 works on monastic discipline compiled and edited by Venerable Hongyi. This editorial decision reflects the Puhui Canon’s Buddhist doctrinal stance: it upholds the legitimacy and orthodoxy of the traditional Chinese Vinaya, rather than replacing it with Southern Buddhist disciplinary rules.5 At the same time, the Puhui Canon expressed great admiration for the Āgama texts contained in the Pāli Canon, considering them the direct teachings of the Buddha during his lifetime, i.e., “Original Buddhism”. A more detailed discussion of this perspective follows below.

Why did Southern Buddhism enter the field of vision of Chinese Buddhists, and why did they seek to incorporate it into the Tripiṭaka, which represents the teachings of the Buddha? It is well known that the mainstream of Chinese Buddhism has historically denigrated Southern Buddhism, as transmitted in regions such as Sri Lanka, referring to it as “Hīnayāna Buddhism”. However, the Puhui Canon embraces a radically different perspective: it regards both Southern and Northern Buddhism as part of the Buddha’s complete teachings throughout his lifetime (如来一代时教, Tathāgata’s teachings across his lifetime). This effort to actively translate and include Southern Buddhist scriptures is extremely rare in the history of Chinese Buddhism, demonstrating that the Puhui Canon has reshaped the traditional Chinese Buddhist understanding of Southern Buddhism.6

This profound shift—almost a 180-degree transformation in perspective—did not happen overnight. Rather, it was closely linked to the long-term exchanges and cooperation between modern Chinese and Sri Lankan Buddhism. In 1893, a seemingly inconspicuous event took place in Chinese Buddhist history, yet it would have far-reaching consequences. That year, Wenhui Yang, known as the “father of the modern Buddhist revival”, met an extraordinary guest—Anagarika Dharmapala, a Buddhist layman from Ceylon (now Sri Lanka).7 According to Silong Li’s research (Li 2010, pp. 36–45), Yang’s meeting with Anagarika Dharmapala led to a significant shift in his approach to Buddhist propagation—from a focus on scriptural printing (kejing 刻經) to monastic education (sengxue 僧學). Specifically, after this meeting, Wenhui Yang pursued two major initiatives:

1. Reviving Buddhist Studies—He founded Qihuan Jingshe 祇洹精舍, an institute dedicated to Buddhist education, with the long-term goal of preparing for a future mission to India to help revive Buddhism there.

(also see Pittman 2001, p. 44)

2. Buddhist Missionary Efforts to the West—Yang actively sought to strengthen ties with Buddhist communities in Japan, India, and Ceylon, aiming to promote Buddhism on a global scale.

After Dharmapala returned to Sri Lanka, he continued to correspond with Wenhui Yang (Su 2000, p. 620). He proposed that Yang and other Chinese Buddhists join the Maha Bodhi Society’s global missionary efforts. As a result, plans for the mutual exchange of Buddhist students between China and Sri Lanka were put on the agenda.

Continuing Yang’s vision of Buddhist propagation, Venerable Taixu took an interest in Dharmapala. In 1928, while en route to Europe and America, Taixu passed through Sri Lanka, though he stayed for only a few hours. He had originally intended to visit Dharmapala but was unable to do so (Taixu 2005d, p. 331). After returning from his travels in the West, Taixu spearheaded a new phase of Buddhist exchange between China and South Asia. In 1929, he established the World Buddhist Institute Research Department 世界佛學苑研究部, with Fafang overseeing its organization. In 1930, in Zhangzhou 漳州, Fujian 福建, Taixu, began planning a study delegation to Sri Lanka (錫蘭留學團). One of the lasting impacts of this initiative was that Taixu’s disciple, Maolin Huang 黃茂林 (dates of birth and death unknown), traveled to study in Sri Lanka. A native of Guangdong, Huang was fluent in English and had previously worked on Buddhist translations in Shanghai. At the invitation of Chuqing Di 狄楚青 (1873–1941), he translated the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch into English—a version that became popular in Sir Lanka. In 1946, three Sri Lankan monks even traveled to China in search of the English edition, as it had sold out in Sri Lanka (Journalist 2006, p. 108). As Richard M. Jaffe has noted, Huang Maolin’s study in Sri Lanka played a catalytic role in increasing Buddhist travel and exchanges within Asia (Jaffe 2019, p. 222). Before his passing, Huang had even encouraged his Pali teacher, Narada Thera, to come to China and establish a Pali language school. He also introduced Narada to Taixu, fostering further Sino-Sri Lankan Buddhist interactions (Taixu 1935, pp. 20–21).

Narada Thera (1898–1984) was one of the most significant Sri Lankan Buddhist monks to visit China after Dharmapala. He was a missionary monk trained under Dharmapala’s guidance (Kemper 2005, pp. 35–36). In 1935, Narada arrived in China and traveled through Suzhou, Hangzhou, Beijing, and other cities to study Buddhism.8

During Narada Thera’s stay in China, he met with Master Taixu at least twice, which facilitated plans for the exchange of monastic students between the two countries (Shen, forthcoming). Recognizing that “China’s current monastic system urgently requires reorganization and improvement, and given that Sri Lanka, as a branch of the three major Buddhist traditions, has preserved the teachings of Early Buddhism”, in 1936, a group of Chinese monks were selected to form a study delegation to Sri Lanka (Jinghu zuzhi xilan fojiao liuxuetuan 2006, p. 499).

Ultimately, Xiulu 岫廬, Huisong 慧鬆, Fazhou 法周, Weizhi惟幻, and Weishi 惟實 departed for Sri Lanka in June 1936, while the Siamese Study Delegation (暹羅留學團) had already been sent in January of the same year. Fafang remarked that the Siamese and Sri Lankan study delegations

sought the Dharma in the only Buddhist nation that preserves the teachings of the Buddha, where the Sangha lives according to the ‘Buddha’s lifestyle’ day and night, practicing a ‘lifestyle of Buddhist living,’ and learning the ‘experimental lifestyle of Buddhist teachings.’ To put it generally, the monks lived a life ‘according to the ways of early Buddhism,’ learning ‘early Buddhism.’ How admirable and pure is this lifestyle, and how supreme is their undertaking.

(Fafang 2006, p. 271)

However, such an idealized understanding of Sri Lankan Buddhism was clearly a form of “imagination” by the Chinese monastic community. In reality, the lives of the study monks were not easy. In their own words, they went from being “International Students (留學生)” to “wandering monks (流落僧)” (Liaocan and Guangzong 1947, pp. 17–19; Ritzinger 2016, pp. 149–73). Nevertheless, this “imagination” eventually led to the practical realization of the exchange of study monks between China and Sri Lanka.

After the full-scale outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937, in order to ensure the smooth operation of the Burma Road for the Allied forces’ support to enter China via British India, Sri Lanka, and Burma, as well as to unite Southeast Asian and South Asian countries in the fight against Japan, the Kuomintang government utilized Buddhism for people-to-people diplomacy. Between 1939 and 1941, Taixu, Fafang, and others led delegations to visit Burma, India, and Sri Lanka, making significant contributions to the victory in the war (Hou 2018, pp. 431–61; Xueyu 2011, pp. 172–86; Shen 2021, pp. 98–105; Chen 2022a, pp. 29–49; Chen 2022b, pp. 39–46). At this point, the Buddhist exchanges between China and South Asia took on a strong political purpose and character, marking the beginning of a new stage in the Buddhist relations between China and Sri Lanka.

The above provides an overview of the basic history of the Buddhist exchanges between China and Sri Lanka prior to 1943. Due to the limitations of space and the focus of this article, further details cannot be discussed. However, it is clear from the preceding that by the time that the compilation of the Puhui Canon began in 1943, there had already been in-depth exchanges between the Chinese Buddhist community and the Theravāda Buddhist community represented by Sri Lanka.

Against this backdrop, the Chinese Buddhist community’s perception and definition of Theravāda Buddhism quietly underwent a significant transformation. On one hand, Chinese Buddhists shifted their understanding of Theravāda Buddhism from the traditional concept of “Hinayana (小乘)” to that of “Original Buddhism (原始佛教)” or similar terms. This shift can be seen in the narrative of Taixu. In his early years, Taixu’s Buddhist stance was entirely centered on Chinese Buddhism. In his 1920 article Fochengzong yaolun (佛乘宗要論, On the Essential Teachings of the Buddha’s Vehicle), he disparaged Sri Lanka as having only Hinayana Buddhism, and while Japanese Buddhism was Mahāyāna, he considered it shallow and merely a tool for national interests (Taixu 2005b, p. 177). During this period, Taixu was dedicated to integrating various schools of Mahāyāna Buddhism, advocating for its true essence. He believed that to guide the modern human mind, it was necessary to promote the genuine meaning of Mahāyāna Buddhism, which for him was primarily based on the Dasabhūmika Sūtra and the Śūraṅgama Sūtra (Yinshun 1973, p. 112). This line of thought still reflected the more traditional, orthodox views of Chinese Buddhism.

In 1928, during his tour of Europe and America, Master Taixu began directly engaging with Sri Lankan Buddhism, and his attitude toward it underwent a noticeable shift. That year, in a lecture at the Musée Guimet in Paris, he stated that there are three centers of Buddhism in the world today. The first is Indian Buddhism, which had long since declined and disappeared;

only the Pali-language Hinayana tradition of the Theravāda school, which was introduced to Sri Lanka during the time of Ashoka, was able to thrive. It has continued to this day and remains a center of Buddhism in places such as Myanmar and Thailand. Scholars of Buddhist studies in India, Britain, and Germany also seek it out in Sri Lanka. Furthermore, Sri Lankan Buddhist scholars have worked hard to restore the Buddhist relics of India and have spread the teachings in Britain and other places.

(Taixu 2005c, p. 334)

The other two centers that he mentioned were Tibetan Buddhism and Han Chinese Buddhism. This marked a shift away from the traditional hierarchical view of “Greater” and “Lesser” Vehicle (Mahayana and Hinayana) in describing the world’s Buddhist traditions. Instead, he listed Pali-speaking Theravāda Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, and Han Chinese Buddhism as equals. This also represented the early form of Taixu’s three-system Buddhist philosophy. His three-system Buddhist thought may have been influenced by European scholars at the time. According to The Huangyouji (寰遊記), in Germany, Taixu “came to know that Mr. Ge 葛, who had served as the director of the Ministry of Justice in Meiningen, had retired to focus solely on Buddhist studies. He authored a major work on Buddhist philosophy, not adhering to any one school, but synthesizing the Buddhism of Sri Lanka, Tibet, and China, and expounding on the doctrine of non-self with great clarity” (Taixu 2005d, p. 353). Grimm was likely Georg Grimm (1868–1945) from Munich. In 1921, he and another Pali scholar, Karl Seidenstücker (1876–1936), founded the Buddhist Society for Germany (Buddhistische Gemeinde für Deutschland) in Utting am Ammersee by Lake Ammer. In 1924, it was renamed the “Three Jewels Buddhist Society” (Buddhistische Loge zu den Drei Juwelen), and in 1935, it became the “Old Buddhist Society” (Altbuddhistische Gemeinde). The version of Grimm that Taixu encountered would have been during the “Three Jewels Buddhist Society” phase (Li 2018, p. 14). Afterward, generally speaking, Taixu’s evaluation of Sri Lankan Buddhism shifted from initially disparaging it as merely “Hinayana” to moderately praising it. For example, he said,

Among the three systems of Asia, it has now evolved into a global Buddhism, widely spread across Europe and America. The first among these is Sri Lanka (historically also called the Lion’s Land). Sri Lanka occupies a strategic location at the crossroads of Eurasian trade routes, and countless Europeans and Americans have passed through it. Thus, Sri Lankan Buddhism has been introduced and recognized by the West. Next is Japan. After the Meiji Restoration, its many advances have truly been admirable, and Buddhism has been one of these advancements. With these two systems long in contact with the West, they have drawn the attention and research of Western scholars. Therefore, the global spread of Buddhism first came from Sri Lanka and then from Japan.

(Taixu 2005e, p. 325)

However, Taixu’s initial exposure to Sri Lankan Buddhism was not deeply informed, and therefore his understanding contained many imaginative elements. For instance, he said, “Indian Buddhism was first transmitted to Sri Lanka, and it has not yet declined to this day” (Taixu 2005a, p. 199). This statement overlooks the more than 400 years of colonial history in Sri Lanka under Portuguese, Dutch, and British rule.

In addition to “Xilanxi Fojiao 錫蘭係佛教 (Sri Lankan Buddhism)”, Taixu and Fafang sometimes referred to Sri Lankan Buddhism as “Original Buddhism” (see Ritzinger 2016, pp. 149–73). In addition to Fafang’s earlier statement, Taixu also said in 1928:

At present, among the more intelligent Buddhists, those who are originally from the southern island of Sri Lanka and follow the so-called original Buddhism in Pali, and Westerners who view it through the lens of comparative scientific evolutionary history, regard Mahayana Buddhism and the cosmological philosophy of the Buddha (Abhidhamma) as later developments, purely resulting from the interaction of Buddhism with the philosophical systems of other lands and the evolution over time.

(Taixu 2006, p. 9)

Fahuang also said in 1935: “We firmly believe in the Mahayana and Hinayana Buddhism passed down in China, and especially in the original Buddhism passed down by Sri Lanka (Fafang 2013, p. 206)”. Why did Taixu and Fafang believe that the original Buddhism existed in Sri Lanka and India? Taixu’s acceptance of terms like “original Buddhism” might have originated from Cheng Lü 吕澂 (1896–1989)’s Yindu fojiao shilue 印度佛教史略 (A Brief History of Indian Buddhism), or even earlier, but the term is likely to have been used with a clearer concept influenced by the work of Kimura Taiken 木村泰賢 (1881–1930). Interestingly, Taixu, Fahuang, and others defined Sri Lankan Buddhism using the term “original Buddhism” introduced from Japanese academic circles, and positioned themselves as followers of “Mahayana Buddhism”. This can be seen as a way to clearly define their relationship with Sri Lanka. However, the term “original Buddhism” in the works of Kimura is fundamentally a historical concept referring to the early Buddhism during the lifetime of Shakyamuni and before the division of the Sangha. By the time that it was used by Taixu and Fafang, it had been transformed into a compound concept, incorporating elements of history (“more than two thousand years unchanged”), geography (Southern Buddhism centered around Sri Lanka), doctrine (Agama Sutras and the Pali Canon), and practice (“living the life of original Buddhism”), all with positive connotations and value judgments. Therefore, the introduction of “original Buddhism” to define Sri Lankan Buddhism should be understood as a mix of Chinese Buddhists’ imaginative interpretation of foreign Buddhist traditions. Taixu had sent Fafang and other disciples to study in Sri Lanka, but their life there was not as idealistic or pleasant as they had imagined. For a detailed discussion of this, refer to Ritzinger (Ritzinger 2016, pp. 149–73).

In modern Chinese Buddhist circles, the term “original Buddhism” was adopted instead of “Hinayana” to define Theravada Buddhism, while Chinese Buddhism referred to itself as “Mahayana Buddhism”. This not only emphasized that Sri Lankan Buddhism represented the original, authentic, and pure teachings and practices of the Buddha, but also upheld the central position and superiority of Mahayana Buddhism. It can be said that this approach skillfully avoided direct conflict with the Sri Lankan Buddhist community, serving as an effective “Buddhist diplomatic strategy” (Shen 2025, pp. 123–36).

As seen above, in the 20th century, the international exchanges of Chinese Buddhists significantly increased. For instance, in the 1920s, Taixu traveled through Europe and the United States, and this trip allowed him to encounter Theravada Buddhism, including that of Sri Lanka, while also recognizing the significant academic interest in Pali Buddhism in the Western scholarly community. In 1940, to unite South and Southeast Asian countries in the fight against Japan, Taixu led a Buddhist delegation to visit India, Sri Lanka, and Burma. The main purpose of this trip was to strengthen China’s strategic relationships with Burma, India, Sri Lanka, and other countries through unifying Theravada Buddhism. These international travel experiences and the broadened global perspective led him to abandon the traditional Chinese Buddhist practice of dividing South and North Asian Buddhism into Hinayana and Mahayana. Instead, he began to view Pali Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism (as well as Tibetan Buddhism) on equal terms. The cognitive shift of Taixu and other Chinese Buddhists should constitute the most important background for the inclusion of Theravada Buddhist scriptures in the Puhui Canon. His disciple, Zhifeng, was a central figure in the translation and proofreading of Theravada Buddhist texts included in the Puhui Canon. He was responsible for most of the proofreading and translation work for the Theravada scriptures in the collection. Zhifeng studied at the Wuchang Buddhist Academy 武昌佛學院 in his early years and later taught at institutions such as the Minnan Buddhist Academy 閩南佛學院. He was proficient in Japanese and had a modern academic background, and in 1924, he traveled with Taixu to Mount Lushan 庐山 to participate in the First World Buddhist Conference, which gave him a broad international perspective (Wang et al. 1999, p. 189). In his article Minguo zengxiu dazangjing bianzuan tixi shuyi (民國增修大藏經編纂體系述意, On the Compilation System of the ‘Republic of China Revised and Expanded Tripitaka’), he stated: “Currently, there are three major, complete Buddhist canons in the world, which are treasures in their own right: the Pali canon of the Theravada tradition, the Tibetan canon of the Tibetan tradition, and the Chinese canon of the Mahayana tradition. Among them, the Pali canon is the oldest” (Zhifeng 2006, p. 94). This clearly reflects the inheritance of Taixu’s “three systems of Buddhism” philosophy. He also stated that the Minguo zengxiu dazangjing “is truly a comprehensive collection of Eastern culture’s great accomplishments, not only adding new vitality to China’s cultural heritage, but also contributing to the civilization of all humanity” (Zhifeng 2006, p. 95). This statement also reveals a pan-Asianist tone.9

Among the key figures involved in promoting the editing and publication of the Puhui Canon, Puchu Zhao was by far the most important, especially after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. The preservation, transmission, and eventual publication of the Puhui Canon would have been unimaginable without his support and efforts. He had also been exposed to Sri Lankan Buddhism early on. In 1935, while working at the Shanghai Buddhist Jingye Society, Zhao accompanied Narada on a lecture tour to Nanjing, Wuhan, and other cities (Guonei zhibu: naruoda fashi lijing shuofa 2006, p. 216). This experience likely had a profound impact on Puchu Zhao, and from then on, he devoted his life to promoting exchanges with Sri Lankan Buddhism. In 1946, when Sri Lankan monks, Soma Mahā, Kheminda, and others, came to China, Zhao provided various forms of assistance (Wuxu 1986, pp. 21–22). After the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, Zhao was also involved in multiple Buddhist exchange activities with Sri Lanka. He once stated:

The compilation of the Jinling Canon (i.e., the Puhui Canon), which involved translating the Pali scriptures of the Theravada canon, was a lifelong wish of mine. In the past, I participated in the compilation of the Puhui Canon, even helping to cultivate the first batch of five bhikkhus for advanced studies abroad. In recent years, I have supported the establishment of the Chinese Buddhist Cultural Research Institute, organized the compilation of the Theravada canon, and facilitated the second batch of five bhikkhus, as well as a group of young scholars, to study abroad. This not only served the purpose of cultivating talent for Chinese Buddhism but also helped develop the canon culture. It was aimed at laying the groundwork for a new Chinese Tripitaka, ensuring it had a solid talent pool and foundational texts, making it a true comprehensive collection of Buddhist scriptures.

(Zhao 1998, p. 3)

In addition to the Puhui Canon, in the 1950s and 1960s, Zhao also engaged in international collaborations with Sri Lankan scholars such as G. P. Malalasekera (1899–1973), as well as with Makoto Nagai 長井真琴 (1881–1970) from Tokyo University of the Arts, to edit the Encyclopedia of Buddhism (Fan 2018, pp. 127–32). It is evident that Zhao’s lifelong passion was to actively engage with the Theravada Buddhist community, gather both South and North Buddhist literature, and integrate the ideas of both traditions.

In addition, between 1935 and 1941, the Japanese Dr. Kōnan Shunjirō 高楠順次郎 Memorial Society compiled, translated, and published the Pali Canon (Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan).10 This translation provided a textual basis for Chinese Buddhists to translate the Japanese version of the Pali Canon into Chinese. As a result, around 1943, it became possible to publish the Chinese Puhui Canon, an effort to compile both the Southern and Northern Tripitakas into a single Chinese version.

It is evident that the international exchange of modern Chinese Buddhism, including the interaction between Sri Lankan Buddhists and China, led to a significant shift in how Chinese Buddhists defined and understood the Southern Buddhism represented by Sri Lanka. The Puhui Canon’s attempt to compile both Southern and Northern Buddhist texts and achieve the integration of Southern and Northern Buddhism reflects this very transformation.

On the other hand, it is worth noting that changes in the international situation, wars, and grassroots diplomacy also influenced Chinese Buddhism’s perception of Southern Buddhism. In the 1920s, figures like Taixu attempted to unite with the Japanese Buddhist community and engage with them closely. However, as Japan’s invasion of China intensified and Sino-Japanese relations grew increasingly strained, it is likely that after 1935, there was a shift in focus, with an effort to reframe and even highly praise Sri Lankan Buddhism, possibly as a means of shifting the “diplomatic” emphasis—shifting from uniting with Japanese Buddhism to uniting with Sri Lankan Buddhism. At least this intention was very evident during the most difficult period of the Second Sino-Japanese War. During this war, Taixu, Fafang, and other Chinese Buddhists traveled to British India, Sri Lanka, and Southeast Asian countries, with the primary goal of uniting the Buddhist communities of South and Southeast Asia to resist Japan, ensuring that Allied aid could enter China through British India and Burma to reach the Chongqing rear base. Therefore, the changes in the international political landscape were also one of the main reasons why “Original Buddhism” was given more attention.

Between October 1939 and May 1940, Taixu organized the Chinese International Buddhist Delegation (中國國際佛教訪問團), which visited countries and regions such as Burma, India, Sri Lanka, the Malay Peninsula, and Siam. Taixu served as the mentor of the Buddhist delegation, with monks such as Cihang 慈航 (1893–1954), Weihang 葦航 (1908–1969), Weihuan 惟幻, and Dengci 等慈 as members, and Dingmo Chen 陳定謨 (1889–1961), Yunshan Tan 譚雲山 (1898–1983), and others providing assistance. Taixu’s visit was far-reaching and carried deep significance.

Based on newly discovered archives and historical materials, scholars have determined that the proposal, preparation, and decision-making process of the “Buddhist Delegation” were not as simple or straightforward as portrayed by Taixu, Weifang, or the media reports. On the contrary, the origins of the “Buddhist Delegation” concept involved multiple threads, and the official preparation phase went through a rather complex administrative process (Lai 2020, pp. 416–47).

The “Buddhist Delegation” was originally an initiative spontaneously organized by Taixu and other monks, but it later attracted the attention of Chiang Kai-shek (1887–1975). The context behind this was that Japan was engaging in subversive activities in Burma, and the diplomatic relations between China and Burma had become tense. At that time, the Sino-Burma relations were critically important for the war effort. In 1938, Japan had occupied the key Chinese cities of Wuhan and Guangzhou, and declared a blockade of China’s coastal areas to prevent other countries from sending supplies to aid China’s resistance. Consequently, the Burma Road became of crucial importance. For example, in December 1938, 6000 tons of weapons and ammunition were sent from the Soviet Union to China via the Burma Road, reaching Kunming, and in January of the following year, five ships carrying munitions arrived in Yangon and were transported through the Burma Road into China (Zhu 1982, pp. 73–81). These war supplies were a lifeline during a critical time, and they also thwarted the Japanese government’s attempts to isolate and blockade China. The Republic of China’s government in Chongqing thereby realized that in order to secure a lifeline through the southwestern border, it needed to take effective measures to maintain good relations with Burma, Vietnam, Thailand, and other countries, seeking their sympathy and support for China’s resistance to Japan.

The involvement of Chiang Kai-shek and the Republic of China’s government led to a transformation in the nature of the Buddhist Delegation, changing it from a “popular movement” into a political affair supported and led by the government. As seen above, Taixu’s Buddhist Delegation was part of the broader international anti-aggression activities during the Republic of China period. During its formation, the Republic of China’s government became deeply involved, with the Chiang Kai-shek administration playing a significant role behind the scenes, pushing for the delegation’s establishment and setting the delegation’s nature, goals, and other parameters. Essentially, Taixu and other members of the delegation acted as executors and spokespersons.

However, during the execution of the mission, Taixu and others employed numerous de-politicizing “disguises”. In general propaganda, they emphasized that the activities of the delegation were religious events, making the visit appear to be purely diplomatic in nature (Weifang 2005, pp. 59–60). Such an emphasis highlighted the fact that the cultural community, sponsorship by Buddhist scholars, and invitations from overseas Buddhists served as the direct motivations behind the formation of the delegation, while also positioning Taixu’s travels through Europe and the United States of America as the source of this visit. In this way, the visit during the wartime period was framed as part of Taixu’s “World Buddhist Movement”. But, in fact, this framing was meant to “disguise” their political aims (Lai 2020, pp. 416–47).

Thus, the sudden interest of Taixu and other Chinese Buddhists in Southern Buddhism, and their enthusiastic praise for Southern Buddhism as “Original Buddhism”, was not only a personal transformation brought about by the exchange of Asian Buddhist cultures, but also a response to political, wartime, and diplomatic needs. During the Second Sino-Japanese War, distancing from Japanese Buddhism and shifting towards engagement with the Southern Buddhism of Southeast Asia and South Asia aligned with the government’s diplomatic policies at the time. Moreover, newly declassified archival materials show that these exchanges were also funded by Chiang Kai-shek’s government, further demonstrating their political nature.

3. Conclusions

As a Tripitaka that began compilation during the Anti-Japanese War, the publication of the Puhui Canon was inherently intertwined with complex nationalist sentiments from the very start. It was viewed as a Tripitaka representing the entire Buddhist culture of the Republic of China. However, it was born under Japanese occupation and rule in Shanghai, and its primary sponsor was Puhui Sheng, a businessman who raised funds for the Japanese military and trafficked opium. After the victory in the Anti-Japanese War, the Tripitaka was renamed Republic of China Enlarged and Revised Tripitaka to deliberately avoid using Puhui Sheng’s name, as he had acted as an agent for the Japanese military. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the compilation work on this Tripitaka ceased in 1955, and it was later destroyed during political movements like the Cultural Revolution. It was only published in the 1990s. While nationalism consistently underpinned the publication of the Puhui Canon, its journey spanned three distinct historical periods—the Second Sino-Japanese War, the Chinese Civil War, and the period after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China—each of which added complexity to its nationalist connotations and required continual adjustments.

Compared to previous Tripitakas, the Puhui Canon’s most significant feature is the inclusion of parts of the Southern Buddhist Canon, marking a milestone in the history of Chinese Buddhism. The inclusion of Buddhist texts in a canon means that they are granted official and authoritative status. The increasing recognition of the Southern Buddhist Canon traces back to the late Qing dynasty (1840–1912), when Wenhui Yang met with Dharmapala. Subsequently, Taixu traveled through Europe and the United States of America, coming into contact with Sri Lankan Buddhism. From 1931 to 1933, Maolin Huang studied in Sri Lanka, and in 1935, Narada visited China. Between 1939 and 1941, Taixu, Fafang, and others traveled to countries like Sri Lanka, India, and Burma to unite Southeast and South Asian nations to resist Japan. These cross-national exchanges broadened the international perspectives of Chinese Buddhists, and to some extent, changed (though did not entirely abandon) the previous tendency to regard Southern Buddhism as inferior. During this period, Southern Buddhism was regarded as the “original Buddhism” and was highly praised. Clearly, cross-national Buddhist exchanges had a significant impact on how Chinese Buddhists defined and understood Southern Buddhism. The unique international situation during the Anti-Japanese War also led to the Chinese government’s antagonism towards Japan while attempting to politically, militarily, and diplomatically unite with India, Burma, Sri Lanka, and other countries. Chinese Buddhism played a role in this diplomacy between the people groups. Therefore, Taixu, Fafang, and others’ visits to Sri Lanka and other countries were not merely religious exchanges but also Buddhist diplomatic activities funded by the Kuomintang government. Even after the victory in the Anti-Japanese War, the Chinese government’s hostile stance towards Japan and its policy of attempting to unite with Southeast and South Asian nations did not significantly change. Even during the early years of the People’s Republic of China, the government’s basic diplomatic strategy was to develop relations with Third World countries based on equality. Therefore, the translation and inclusion of the Southern Buddhist Tripitaka in the Puhui Canon aligned with the military, political, and diplomatic strategies of the Chinese government during this period (1943–1955).

In conclusion, the inclusion of the Southern Buddhist Canon in the Puhui Canon represents a shift from the traditional Tripitaka compilations that followed standards such as Mahayana-based classifications (as seen in the Kaiyuan Shijiao Lu (開元釋教錄), which first included the “Five Great Mahayana Sutras”), sectarian divisions (as in the Yuecang Zhijin, which categorized texts based on the Tiantai school’s Five Periods), or classifications based on the historical development of Buddhism (as in the Taisho Tripitaka, which arranged texts chronologically). It signifies a new understanding by Chinese Buddhists of the true meaning of Buddha’s teachings and the essence of the Dharma body. Although the Puhui Canon was a Tripitaka that was never completed according to its original plan, its editorial process and the effort to gather both Northern and Southern Buddhist texts were influenced by multiple factors, including modern China’s nationalism, cross-national Buddhist interactions, war, politics, and diplomacy between people groups.