Encountering Science: The Transformation of the Buddhist Knowledge System in Modern China

Abstract

In modern China, the introduction of Science from the West posed a significant challenge to Chinese Buddhism, which was already in a state of decline. The intellectual currents of the New Culture Movement (1915–1923) and the subsequent anti-religious movement, which initially targeted Christianity but expanded to include all religions, subjected Buddhism to severe criticism and pressure for reform. In response, Buddhist intellectuals developed the idea of “Buddhism being scientific” as a defensive strategy. On the one hand, they direct parallels between Buddhist concepts, such as the microscopic world described in scriptures, and modern scientific discoveries like microbiology and the theory of relativity, aiming to demonstrate Buddhism’s empirical validity and superiority. On the other hand, they argued that Buddhism could supplement the shortcomings of science, particularly in addressing spiritual and moral needs, thus positioning it as a necessary complement to a purely materialistic worldview. Under the dominant influence of the scientific paradigm, Buddhism underwent a profound academic transformation. Its teachings were systematically integrated into modern disciplinary frameworks, such as Buddhist history, philosophy, and psychology, shifting from a primarily faith-based practice to an object of scholarly study. This scientization process stripped many traditional elements of their sacred character, reinterpreting them through a rational lens and ultimately redirecting the course of modern Chinese Buddhism.

1. Introduction

Among the many conceptual tools introduced to China from the West during the late Qing and Republican periods, the concept of science emerged as one of the most paramount and far-reaching in its influence. As Hu Shi 胡適 (1891–1962) noted, “Over the past thirty years, there is one term that has achieved an almost supremely dignified position in this country; whether people understand it or not, whether they are conservative or reformist, no one dares to openly show disdain or mockery toward it. This term is ‘science’.”1

The rise in scientific thought first manifested during the late Qing period when enlightened Chinese scholars began studying and introducing Western technology. As time progressed, their focus on science gradually shifted from the instrumental level of techniques and tools to the principal level of methodology and values. The understanding of science continuously expanded and enriched, eventually evolving into a defining spirit of the new era. “Scientific” became synonymous with “true” and a symbol of progress, bringing transformative changes to Chinese intellectual circles. As a traditional element within Chinese culture, how Buddhism confronted science ultimately determined the survival of Chinese Buddhism, which was already in a precarious state at that time.2 Amid internal challenges and external threats, visionary figures among monastic and lay communities explored the relationship between Buddhism and science, thereby promoting the transformation of Buddhist studies. This intellectual engagement influenced the broader monastic community and ultimately shaped the developmental trajectory of Chinese Buddhism.

In this paper, I will examine how the introduction of Western science profoundly impacted Chinese Buddhism during the late Qing and early Republican period. Facing anti-religious movements and internal crises, Chinese Buddhist intellectuals strategically responded by asserting that “Buddhism being scientific.” They argued for compatibility through detailed comparisons with modern scientific fields like physics and psychology, while simultaneously emphasizing Buddhism’s role in complementing science’s limitations in addressing spiritual and moral needs. This crucial dialogue ultimately prompted Buddhism’s academic transformation, integrating the knowledge related to Buddhism into modern disciplinary frameworks such as history and philosophy, thereby fundamentally reshaping its development through scientific reinterpretation and scholarly systematization.

2. Confrontation: From the Introduction of Science to the Anti-Religion Movement

In ancient Chinese, the term kexue 科學 originally meant “the study of separate subjects” (分科之學) or “the learning for imperial examinations” (科舉之學) (Feng 2004, p. 373), which is quite different from the modern Western concept of “science”. However, China also had specific vocabulary to express the study of investigating the principles of things, the most prominent being gezhi 格致, derived from the Chapter of Great Learning in Book of Rites and further elaborated in Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism. During the late Ming Dynasty, Western scientific and technological achievements were introduced to China by Christian missionaries, sparking interest among visionary Chinese intellectual elites. They used the concept of gewu qiongli 格物窮理 (investigating things and exhausting their principles) to comprehend natural sciences aimed at exploring objective laws. In this period, with the rise in the ethos of practical statecraft, intellectuals developed richer interpretations of gewu zhizhi 格物致知 (investigating things and extending knowledge).3 For instance, Fang Yizhi proposed that physical inquiry encapsulates metaphysical principles (質測即藏通幾), where zhice 質測 referred to the method of studying the objective laws of all things in the world.

During the late Qing and Republican eras, a sense of national crisis prompted intellectuals to look more intently at the world. Concepts such as science, democracy, knowledge, and economics were subsequently introduced to China, exerting a profound influence on modern Chinese thought. Around 1870, the Japanese scholar Nishi Amane (西周, 1829–1897) borrowed the ancient Chinese term “科學” to translate the Western concept of “Science,” intending to indicate that the characteristic of modern Western knowledge was “Yike yixue 一科一學 (one discipline, one learning)”. He believed the scientific method unified induction and deduction, distinguishing it from the chaotic knowledge of the past ages. Around 1880, a fixed translation pairing between “科學” and “science” gradually formed in Japanese academia, along with a consensus on its meaning: it referred to a systematic body of knowledge about the objective laws of nature, society, consciousness, etc., encompassing disciplines like astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, medicine, economics, and philosophy (Feng 2004, pp. 374–75). Subsequently, Japanese authors published many articles and books bearing kexue 科學 in their titles, some of which made their way to China. The earliest known record in China currently is Kang Youwei 康有為 (1858–1927)’s Riben shumuzhi 日本書目志 (Catalog of Japanese Books) compiled in 1897, which included Kagaku Nyūmon 科学入門 (Introduction to Science) published by Fukyūsha 普及舍 and Kagaku no Genri 科学の原理 (Principles of Science) translated by Kimura Shunkichi 木村駿吉 (1857–1923).4 In 1898, Kang Youwei, in a memorial to Emperor Guangxu 光緒 (1871–1908), advocates to “internally study Chinese literature, externally seek common Science” (內講中國文學，外求共同科學) and “extensively establish schools, teaching Science” (宏開校舍，教以科學). In 1899, Liang Qichao 梁啟超 (1873–1929) used the concepts of Science and Kexuejia 科學家 (Scientist) in his Ziyoushu 自由書 (Writings on Freedom), with meanings roughly similar to today’s usage. Subsequently, in 1904, Calvin Wilson Mateer (1836–1908)’s dictionary Technical Terms, English and Chinese published in China, already included the translation for “Science”. With the large-scale introduction of Japanese books and the spread of Western thought, the term Kexue gradually replaced Gezhi, and ideas and methods related to Science became increasingly popular.

The acceptance of Science in China went through different stages. During the Yangwu Yundong 洋務運動 (Westernization Movement) (c. 1861–1895), the Chinese generally understood Science as various types of knowledge related to Technology. Westernizers like Zuo Zongtang 左宗棠 (1812–1885), Li Hongzhang 李鴻章 (1823–1901), Zeng Guofan 曾國藩 (1811–1872), Zhang Zhidong 張之洞 (1837–1909), Feng Guifen 馮桂芬 (1809–1874), and Zheng Guanying 鄭觀應 (1842–1922) advocated “Chinese learning for essence, Western learning for utility” (Zhongxue wei ti, Xixue wei yong 中學為體，西學為用”, studying Western technology for the purpose of revitalizing national strength. After the 1898 Weixin Yundong 維新運動 (Hundred Days’ Reform), Science gradually moved towards the level of “principle.” Reformist thinkers realized that behind technology lay the Gongli 公理 (Universal Principles) of Science, and that the meaning of Science was far broader and richer than mere technology. Science was seen as the Tongli gongli 通理公例 (Universal Principle and General Example) for the development of modern scholarship and culture. Reformers further used the universal principles of Science as the basis for theories of social change. By the New Culture Movement period (c. 1915–1921), Chen Duxiu 陳獨秀 (1879–1942) and other pioneers further elevated Science as a banner of enlightenment, believing that learning Science was equivalent to pursuing truth. Science was regarded as the method of truth and the spirit of the era. In this atmosphere focusing on the intrinsic value of science, several Chinese students who had studied at Cornell University in the United States established the Science Society of China (中國科學社) in 1915 and founded the monthly journal Kexue 科學 (Science), which for the first time used horizontal typesetting, Western punctuation, and a table of contents/index for knowledge expression.

After its establishment, the content of Kexue magazine mainly covered three broad areas: First, introducing basic knowledge and recent research developments in various natural science fields such as astronomy, chemistry, physics, mathematics, geography, meteorology, medicine, and public health. Second, introducing the methods, spirit, and norms of science. Third, discussing the value, ideas, and attitudes of science, and contemplating the relationship between science and society, human life, etc. (Xue 2015, pp. 51–56). Beyond its rapid spread in the natural sciences, the concept of science also extended its influence into the humanities and social sciences, sparking the great debate between science and “metaphysics” (xuanxue 玄學) around 1923. The term “metaphysics” here refers to the intellectual system rooted in traditional religion, ethics, and aesthetics, which recognizes the value of traditional Chinese culture. This debate had its early undercurrents in the defense of traditional culture by Liang Qichao and Liang Shuming (梁漱溟, 1893–1988). The immediate trigger was Zhang Junmai (張君勱, 1887–1969)’s lecture at Tsinghua University on 14 February 1923, where he urged young people not to adopt a worldview based on science, and the subsequent rebuttal from the scientific advocate Ding Wenjiang (丁文江, 1887–1936). The debate has attracted quite some famous scholars and eventually culminated in the anthology Kexue yu renshengguan 科學與人生觀 (Science and the Philosophy of Life) (Kwok 1965, pp. 133–60). However, while the defense of traditional Chinese culture played a role in preserving cultural heritage, the influence of science at that time was overwhelming, and gradually, being scientific or not became the criterion by which people evaluated traditional scholarship. Whether something was scientific became a value standard for assessing traditional scholarship; “the scientific method became the methodological principle guiding academic research, and the scientific spirit became the basis for judging the rationality of humanistic values.” (Xue 2015, p. 57)

The most prominent academic phenomenon resulting from the influence of science on the humanities was the “Sorting Out National Heritage” (Zhengli Guogu 整理國故) movement during the New Culture Movement. Liang Qichao, a supporter of “metaphysics” in above debate, also participated in this movement. These scholars, including Wang Guowei 王國維 (1877–1927), Fu Sinian 傅斯年 (1896–1950), Cai Yuanpei 蔡元培 (1868–1940), and Zhu Xizu 朱希祖 (1879–1944), all advocated re-examining history and re-evaluating and reforming traditional Chinese cultural systems with a scientific attitude: “In our pursuit of learning today, we treat ancient and modern books equally, neither condemning the present because of the past, nor esteeming the present and disparaging the past. We use the methods of biology and sociology to pursue learning. In other words, we use scientific methods to pursue learning.”5 This movement, originating in the field of history studies, ultimately became a comprehensive academic transformation primarily driven by the scientific spirit, profoundly impacting the entire field of humanities and social sciences, and particularly the religious domain. It meant that figures, texts, ideas, and events in religious history became the object of general knowledge that needed to pass the test of Science and reason. The sanctity of religious figures and classics was no longer taken for granted but became objects of scrutiny and examination. Led by elite intellectuals, this scrutiny and reflection gradually coalesced into a social consensus, forming an anti-religious trend in the 1920s. Anti-religion advocates viewed religion as superstition that fettered human thought and restricted human freedom, a product of humanity’s intellectually immature period, and an obstacle to civilizational progress. They advocated discarding it and abolishing religion altogether (Lin 1911, p. 1).

The intellectual trends concerning religion during the New Culture Movement can be broadly divided into two stages. The first stage, beginning around 1917, was characterized by a series of rational discussions targeting religion. Cai Yuanpei, Chen Duxiu, and Hu Shi published articles in Xin Qingnian 新青年 (New Youth), exploring the value and significance of religion. Their overall attitude toward religion was critical, negative, yet rational.

For instance, in January 1917, Chen Duxiu published Zai Lun Kongjiao Wenti 再論孔教問題 (Again on the Question of Confucianism as a Religion) in New Youth, declaring that the true beliefs, understandings, practices, and proofs of humanity in the future must follow the path of science, and that all religions should be abolished. He advocated establishing science as the “true faith” and “replace religion with science”: “I advocate replacing religion with science to develop our genuine faith. Though progress may be slow, it will ultimately be achieved. If one superstitiously relies on religion for liberation, it is truly a case of ‘more haste, but less speed’.”6

In 1918, Chen Duxiu used explanations from astronomy, geology, biology, and other sciences to refute religious claims about ghosts and deities. He argued that the persistence of religion stemmed from the mistaken belief that supernatural beings govern natural phenomena, whereas such entities do not actually exist:

Idols made of clay or wood are inherently useless objects. It is only because people respect them, worship them, burn incense and kowtow to them, claiming they are efficacious… This is merely superstitious people deceiving themselves; the idols themselves possess no real power… If the existence of ghosts and deities in the universe cannot be conclusively proven, then all religions are deceptive idols: Amitabha Buddha is deceptive; Jehovah God is deceptive; the Jade Emperor is deceptive; all the deities, Buddhas, immortals, and ghosts revered and worshipped by religious figures are useless, deceptive idols, and all should be destroyed!

泥塑木雕的偶像，本來是件無用的東西，只因有人尊重他，崇拜他對他燒香磕頭，說他靈驗… 不過是迷信的人自己騙自己，非是偶像自身真有什麼能力… 天地間鬼神的存在，倘不能確實證明，一切宗教,都是一種騙人的偶像：阿彌陀佛是騙人的；耶和華上帝也是騙人的；玉皇大帝也是騙人的；一切宗教家所尊重的崇拜的神佛仙鬼，都是無用的騙人的偶像, 都應該破壞!7

In a speech delivered in April 1917, Cai Yuanpei proposed the idea of “replacing religion with aesthetic education.” He argued that religion affects the human spirit in three aspects: knowledge, will, and emotion. By knowledge, he referred to the explanatory system religion provides for the world; by will, the altruistic social cognition it offers to counter selfish survival instincts; by emotion, the beauty found in dance, music, sculpture, painting, architecture, etc. He believed that sciences like physics, chemistry, biology, ethnology, and evolutionary theory provided sufficient explanations of the world, thus liberating the function of knowledge from religion. Humanities and social sciences, through principles from psychology, physiology, and sociology, standardized social ethics, thus liberating the function of will from religion. This left religion with only the emotional function—the aesthetic appeal of religious art such as temples, poetry, statues, murals, and music. Furthermore, millennia of religious development had caused numerous negative social impacts. Setting aside conflicts between Western religions, even Buddhism, which he noted was “unsurpassed by other religions,” was not immune to flaws: “Those who study Buddhism, constrained by doctrinal prejudices, may engage in practices like worshipping relics and performing religious rituals for the deceased, even among the well-educated. Even more, to protect the Dharma, some, in this republican era, would not hesitate to support monarchical restoration.”8 Therefore, Cai Yuanpei advocated “replacing religion with aesthetic education,” proposing to abandon religion in favor of pure education in the arts.

Subsequently, the Young China Association (少年中國學會), initiated by Li Dazhao 李大釗 (1888–1927) and Wang Guangqi 王光祈 (1892–1936), organized public lectures in Nanjing and Beijing, inviting Chinese and Western scholars to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of religion. From the discussions in New Youth to the lectures by the Young China Association, views on religion remained exploratory, rational, and relatively non-destructive.

In its second phase, the discourse on religion gradually broadened its social impact, coalescing into an organized anti-religious movement. On 9 March 1922, the Shanghai fei Jidujiao xuesheng tongmeng xuanyan ji tongdian 上海非基督教學生同盟宣言及通電 (Shanghai Declaration and Telegram of the Non-Christian Student Alliance) was published in Shanghai, opposing the upcoming conference of the World Christian Student Federation scheduled for April 4 at Tsinghua University. On March 21, the Anti-Religion Alliance (非宗教大同盟) was established in Beijing, issuing the Fei Zongjiao da tongmeng xuanyan 非宗教大同盟宣言 (Manifesto of the Non-Religion Alliance). Student groups across the country responded enthusiastically, and various anti-religion organizations emerged. Public opinion surged, emotions ran high, and anti-religious sentiment intensified, persisting for almost five years (Y. Tang 1997, pp. 97–101). The historical conflict between science and religion in the West, which created a powerful impression of incompatibility.9 This perception, introduced to China alongside scientific thought, significantly shaped contemporary Chinese intellectual views on the relationship between science and faith. The book Fei Zongjiao Lun 非宗教論 (On Anti-Religion), compiled by the Anti-Religion Alliance, began with a section on “Modern Prominent Non-Religion Figures,” introducing Western anti-religious intellectuals such as Francis Bacon (1561–1626), René Descartes (1596–1650), and Voltaire (1694–1778), stating that most great scholars of the modern world are anti-religious (Fei Zongjiao Da Tongmeng 1922, pp. 3–38). Although the anti-religious movement at this time originated from resistance to Christianity, it gradually expanded to oppose all religions, including Buddhism: “Our goal in opposing religion is not, as some imagine, solely to oppose Christianity, but to oppose all religions that hinder human progress.”10

As early as around the 1911 Revolution, some reformist intellectuals like Tan Sitong 譚嗣同 (1865–1898), Chen Huang 陳恍 (dates unknown), Zhang Jingjiang 張靜江 (1877–1950), and Zhang Jian 張謇 (1853–1926) criticized contemporary Buddhism for being entangled with various folk sacrifices and superstitious activities involving ghosts and deities, deviating from the Buddha’s original intent, contradicting modern scientific spirit, and negatively impacting Chinese society (He 1998, pp. 175–76). By the New Culture Movement period, Chen Duxiu, Hu Shi, Lu Xun 魯迅 (1881–1936), and others launched a thorough critique of various religions and superstitious activities, including Buddhism. Hu Shi regarded Buddhism as a superstition imported from India, stating, 97%, or even 99%, of Chan Buddhism is a mass of nonsense, forgery, fraud, pretense, and affectation (Hu 1992, pp. 280–81).

In fact, after the Ming and Qing dynasties, Buddhism had entered a period of decline. This era was characterized by the proliferation of superstitious elements—such as deity worship and shamanistic practices—which had become incorporated into the religion through its syncretic adaptation to local folk societies. By the late Qing period, the monastic community, seeking survival, resorted to integrating with folk beliefs in ghosts and deities to gain support, thereby becoming associated with various beliefs in magic and the superstitious, which greatly damaged Buddhism’s public image. Even those who could distinguish Buddhism from “superstition” believed that the dissemination and popularization of science would help eradicate superstition and salvage Buddhism’s image:

The true value of Buddhism is mistaken due to the attachment of superstition, which is already lamentable… While hoping for the extinction of superstition requires introspection from religious figures, its fundamental eradication must await the popularization of scientific knowledge… The rise of science is actually a reinforcement for Buddhism. Henceforth, within the Buddhist community, we should plan for the popularization of scientific knowledge to achieve the extinction of superstition.

佛教之真價，因迷信之附著而被誤認，已可悲歎… 期迷信之絕滅，須俟宗教家之反省固已；然根本之廢絕，必俟科學知識普及而後… 科學之勃興，實為佛教之後援。今而後，佛教界中，當計科學知識之普及，以期迷信之絕滅焉。

(Pengxian 1911, pp. 11–12)

During the anti-religion movement, the alliance demanded the abolition of temples, the prohibition of rites for the deceased, the banning of gatherings for chanting scriptures, and opposed all “superstitious” activities (Yiwei 1922, pp. 46–53). On 12 November 1928, an Association for the Abolition of Superstition (破除迷信會) was established in Beijing, forcing monks and nuns to return to lay life and strictly prohibiting Buddhist and Daoist clergy from conducting rites for the deceased and chanting scriptures. In 1931, Associations for the Promotion of the Abolition of Superstition (破除迷信促進會) were established in many parts of Zhejiang, prohibiting Buddhist rituals such as repentance ceremonies and Water-Land Dharma assemblies.

The criticism of “superstitious” phenomena stemmed from the “renewed” understanding of the world provided by the scientific knowledge system. Furthermore, Buddhism’s role in purifying the mind and stabilizing society seemed incompatible with the active revolution progress advocated by science, appearing particularly unsuitable in an era of national crisis. As representative figures of the New Culture Movement, Hu Shi and Chen Duxiu both advocated a proactive outlook on life, opposing the cultural trend of withdrawal, leisure, and tranquility, which they considered one of the reasons for the weakness of Eastern countries. Hu Shi even believed that the eastward transmission of Buddhism produced a “lazy” and “anti-progressive” Eastern civilization and a national character marked by laziness, a fear of trouble, and a lack of initiative, which in turn led to China’s bleak and passive posture when confronting Western culture in modern times. Regarding Taixu’s plans to travel the world promoting Buddhism in Europe and America, Hu Shi strongly ridiculed him, advocating being open-minded students rather than having delusions of promoting Eastern culture (Ji 2003b, pp. 461–62). Hu Shi’s extreme views were quite representative of some scientists at the time. After witnessing the advancement of Western science and technology, they reflected on the root causes of China’s poverty and weak state, attributing it to the shortcomings of traditional Chinese culture. Within traditional culture, they particularly criticized religion, because religious worldviews often elevate Buddhas and deities, promoting supernatural forces, which are far removed from the worldview emphasized by science, which stresses seeking truth from facts and reasoning through experiment and logic (X. Wang 2019, pp. 142–50). The introduction of science in modern China had the intention of promoting practical, statecraft learning. Buddhism, traditionally weak in practical achievements, did not align well with the needs of national revitalization at the time. Xiong Shili 熊十力 (1885–1968), from the perspective of a Buddhist scholar, believed that Buddhism “was good at mystical comprehension rather than based on actual verification” (尚玄悟而不基實測). Although Buddhism concerns the material world, its attitude towards it is fundamentally negative, pursuing spiritual achievement rather than exploration of the physical (Xiong 1996, p. 124). Although Buddhism includes disciplines corresponding to technology and medicine (e.g., Śilpakarmasthāna-vidyā and Cikitsā-vidyā), within the Buddhist knowledge system, these are subsidiary skills, merely auxiliary methods for cultivation and propagation of the Dharma, at best classified as conventional truth, not the ultimate Way (X. Liang 2004, p. 155).

The challenges posed by science pushed the Buddhist community to seek reforms, which in turn contributed to its revival in the modern era. Of course, the difficulties and chances faced by Buddhism in that era cannot be attributed entirely to science. Although this paper seeks to examine the transformations that occurred in modern Chinese Buddhism following its encounter with Western science, it should be clarified that the introduction of Western science was not the sole context of modern Chinese Buddhism, and perhaps cannot even be regarded as the primary one. The revival of modern Chinese Buddhism was a complex and multifaceted phenomenon. The sense of crisis arising from both internal decay and external pressures, the historical opportunity created by the encounter between Eastern and Western cultures, and the mirror-like influence of the Japanese Buddhist world all, to varying degrees, prompted Chinese Buddhists to embark on a journey of self-reflection and self-awakening.

In The Buddhist Revival in China, Holmes Welch depicts the initial vision of a modern Chinese Buddhist revival. This includes Yang Wenhui’s 楊文會 (1837–1911) interest in Buddhism during his troubled life and his subsequent undertaking of publishing Buddhist scriptures; the founding of various similar monastic schools since 1900s; as well as the attention and promotion given to Buddhism by new-style intellectuals like Liang Qichao and Zhang Taiyan 章太炎 (1869–1936). These activities—“came in reaction to a series of external events, each of which affected different categories of Buddhists in different ways and for different reasons”—were imbued with a sense of unknowing and unconsciousness of Buddhist revival, encompassing numerous events that appeared superficially unrelated. The agents within these events merely responded to the exigencies of their times by doing something to benefit Buddhism, not necessarily harboring the grand aspiration to “revive Buddhism.” Yet, it was the aggregation of these many events that constituted the resurgence of Buddhism in that era, subsequently causing the revival of Buddhism to “become voluntary and deliberate modernization.” (Welch 1968, pp. 21–22).

As for the revival of Buddhist studies among intellectuals, Liang Qichao believed that it was due, on the one hand, to the circulation of classic texts, which made learning Buddhism more accessible; and on the other hand, to the introduction of Western philosophy, which sparked a concomitant interest in Indian philosophy, since Chinese people have a deep historical connection with this philosophical tradition. Among the researchers, there were those who felt a calling to bridge Eastern and Western cultures, taking upon themselves the mission of fostering communication between the two, such as Liang Qichao himself, Zhang Taiyan, Cai Yuanpei and Lü Cheng (呂澂, 1896–1989).11 However, such individuals were extremely rare, and their achievements were not yet worthy of much discussion. The majority, on the other hand, were those who, amidst social upheaval, developed a pessimistic worldview and sought refuge in Buddhism (C.-C. Liang 1970, p. 116).12

In summary, the introduction of science had a tremendous impact on Chinese intellectual circles, triggering a nationwide anti-religious movement that involved all religions. Intellectuals proposed various substitutes for religion. Labeled as superstition and beset by other challenges, Buddhism faced an existential crisis. Amid internal troubles and external threats, discerning Buddhists began seeking strategies to respond, such as reconciling Buddhist studies with science.

3. Reconciliation: The Comparison and Integration of Buddhism and Science

During the anti-religious movements prompted by the rise in science, many long-standing maladies within traditional religions such as Buddhism were exposed. Lay Buddhist defenders of the Dharma and members of the monastic community came to recognize more deeply the numerous problems existing within Buddhism itself and, in many respects, actively embraced science. The introduction of science not only brought challenges and blows to religion, but also introduced a modern perspective, opportunities for transformation, and techniques for self-improvement.

The import of science has reshaped the modes of propagation and the daily life of the monastic community. During the Republican period, the Chinese Buddhist publishing industry experienced a remarkable revival. The adoption of new printing technologies and electronic media, together with the emergence of new publishing institutions and modern commercial presses, endowed the dissemination of Buddhism in modern China with a distinctly contemporary character. Beginning in 1918, Ding Fubao 丁福保 (1874–1952) published Foxue congshu 佛學叢書 (Buddhist Collectanea) through the Shanghai Medical Press.13 At this time, single-volume editions of Buddhist scriptures as well as writings by learned monks, such as Taixu and Yinguang 印光 (1861–1940), circulated widely, sometimes even by non-Buddhist presses (Tarocco 2007, p. 59). The rise in Buddhist periodicals fundamentally transformed the traditional one-directional mode of Buddhist transmission, creating a communicative space characterized by numerous participants, frequent interactions, and dense intellectual exchange. Within this space, the encounter and debate among diverse viewpoints generated new social currents and forms of Buddhist practice, powerfully promoting the overall development of modern Chinese Buddhism. The emergence of radio technology further provided a new medium for dharma propagation. These new modes of dissemination were not only products of the modernization of Buddhism but also important forces driving its development.

In addition, the introduction of Western medicine and modern hygienic concepts supplemented the long-standing Buddhist tradition of medical charity. During the Republican period, Buddhist medical philanthropy primarily took four forms: the establishment of Buddhist hospitals and free clinics; the founding of pharmaceutical factories to improve traditional medicines, develop new prescriptions, and employ modern technology to enhance the quality and efficacy of drugs; the creation of media platforms—such as medical newspapers, journals, and books—to disseminate medical and hygienic knowledge, answer medical inquiries, and provide public health guidance; and the organization of monastic rescue teams that participated in wartime relief during the wars (T. Li 2013, pp. 14–17).

Therefore, the introduction of modern science and technology brought about numerous transformations within Buddhism—far more than can be fully addressed in a single article. Since this paper focuses on the development of knowledge systems, the following discussion will concentrate primarily on the impact of scientific knowledge on Buddhist theoretical part.

In fact, Chinese thinkers recognized at a very early stage the points of communicability between Buddhist teachings and scientific concepts. As early as 1896, Sun Baoxuan 孫寶瑄 (1874–1924) observed that much of the learning of natural sciences secretly corresponds with Buddhist principles (Yi 2019, p. 62). He analogized the “paramāṇu” (smallest particles) in the Ālambana-parīkşā (Examination of the Object of Consciousness) to the particle theory of Western “scientists” (格致家) (Sun 2015, p. 162). He connected the concept of worlds within worlds in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra with the theories of stars orbiting the sun and fixed stars (ibid., p. 200). Beyond Sun Baoxuan, many intellectuals attentive to western learning also elaborated on the correspondences between Buddhism and science in various writings. For instance, Wu Rulun 吳汝綸 (1840–1903) compared the Buddhist theory of practice and cultivation with Western theories of evolution (Wu 2002, p. 607). Song Shu 宋恕 (1862–1910) believed the Buddhist concept of the trichiliocosm (三千大千世界) aligned with Western geographical and astronomical theories (Song 1993, p. 85). Tan Sitong 譚嗣同 (1865–1898) argued that the Eight Consciousnesses in Yogācāra doctrine had a one-to-one correspondence with the structure and function of the human cerebrum and cerebellum.14

The view that Buddhist studies could communicate with science gradually evolved into the assertion that “Buddhism being scientific,” which was used during the New Culture Movement and the subsequent anti-religion movement to counter the social criticism that “Buddhism is superstition.” Subsequently, “Buddhism being scientific”, a mainstream voice within the Buddhist community in the late 1920s, become an important banner for protecting and rescuing the Dharma. Elite monks and intellectuals published articles demonstrating the scientific nature of Buddhist studies. For example, Haichaoyin 海潮音 published Tang Dayuan’s 唐大圓 (1885–1941) “Weishi de kexue fangfa” 唯識的科學方法 (The Scientific Method of Consciousness-Only Theory) and “Weishi de rensheng guan” 唯識的人生觀 (The Consciousness-Only View of Life), and Wang Jitong’s 王季同 (1875–1948) “Fofa zhi kexue de shuoming” 佛法之科學的說明 (On Explaining the Scientific Nature of the Dharma). Wang Jitong’s professional work was in natural sciences, his research covering modern mathematics, engineering, and electricity. Taixu once wrote praising Wang Jitong, stating that he was a senior master of science who could also proficiently read Buddhist epistemology and Consciousness-Only treatises, with perfect penetration and without obscurity, and who explained things clearly and intelligibly.” (Taixu 1929, p. 1). In June 1930, Wang Jitong compiled these articles into a book, Fofa yu kexue 佛法與科學 (Buddha-Dharma and Science), requesting prefaces from prominent figures like Hu Shi and Cai Yuanpei. Unable to refuse, Hu Shi wrote a refutation of Wang’s views. He stated that both the Buddha-Dharma and science were merely ideas and beliefs advocated by certain parts of humanity in specific eras, each having its own place in human history, and there was no need to bring them together to compare apples and oranges. He then vehemently declared that the standpoint of Buddhist followers was superstitious, that “all Consciousness-Only psychology and Buddhist epistemology are just the sleight of hand of the most inferior dhāraṇī,” criticizing Wang Jitong for merely picking out one or two occasionally coinciding points between Buddhist doctrine and science for comparative interpretation, aiming to provide Buddhist followers with means to propagate and defend the Dharma.15 Hu Shi’s views and phrasing caused an uproar within the Buddhist community, with followers like Hui Guan 慧觀 (dates unknown), Zhi Feng 芝峰 (1901–1971), and Hui Yun 慧雲 (dates unknown) publishing refutations, leading to a contemporary dispute.

The groups that embraced science and actively sought to adapt Buddhist studies to it consisted primarily of lay intellectual elites outside the monastic community and reform-minded monks within the saṃgha—“new monks.” Since the 1920s, a new generation of young monastics emerged who regarded themselves as a distinct community within the Chinese saṃgha. Influenced by a socio-political discourse shaped by democracy, liberty, equality, republicanism, and science, they attempted to redefine themselves as “new monks” capable of serving the evolving needs of the nation.16

Lay intellectual elites were mainly concerned with achieving a theoretical synthesis between Buddhist thought and science, usually aiming to seek intellectual resources for cultural transformation, social change, and the protection and salvation of the nation and its people. It was these “new monks,” however, who more fully introduced modern science and technology into Buddhist practice, creating phenomena such as Buddhist publishing, Buddhist periodicals, and radio broadcasting for the propagation of the dharma. At the same time, some conservative monks remained cautious toward the tendency among lay intellectuals to validate Buddhist dharma through science or philosophy. For instance, Yinguang, being Tang Dayuan’s teacher, criticized his discussions on Buddhist studies and science for failing to grasp the essence of the Dharma.

The Buddha-Dharma is originally meant to teach people to transcend life and death, not just to be discussed as a kind of lofty and mysterious discourse. When those with inferior understanding who study the Buddha-Dharma as philosophy come, one must first explain to them the reason why the Buddha preached the Dharma: it was to enable people to counteract their habits, cleanse their minds and thoughts, honor ethical relationships and fulfill their duties, be compassionate, benevolent, and yielding, refrain from all evil, practice all good, sever delusion and realize truth, understand life and transcend death, benefit oneself and others, jointly realize the eternal truth, gradually cultivate, until attaining Buddhahood.

佛法原是教人了生死的，非只當一種高超玄妙話說說。彼下劣知見之當哲學研究佛法者來，必須先對彼說佛說法之所以然，是要人對治習氣，洗心滌慮，敦倫盡分，慈悲仁讓，諸惡莫作，眾善奉行，斷惑證真，了生脫死，自利利他，共證真常，漸次修習，至成佛道耳。

(Yinguang 2012, p. 129)

Yinguang criticized the comparison of Buddhist studies with science as actually deviating from the fundamental spirit of the Dharma, which teaches people to seek the ultimate truth and transcend life and death. Although a minority within and outside the community had reservations about this comparison, the integration of science and Buddhism was indeed a significant intellectual trend at that time. Specifically, those advocating the compatibility of the two generally proceeded along the following two lines of thought.

First, the most common approach at the time was to compare content within Buddhist dharma with modern science, using science to prove the superiority and truth of Buddhist dharma. For example, Tang Dayuan used scientific graphical representation methods to present Consciousness-Only thought:

Buddhism has the Consciousness-Only school, whose analysis and verification both reach the highest point. However, charts, diagrams, experiments, etc., were not emphasized in the past. Now, I further extend this, touching upon categories and expanding them. Although these are inherent to Buddhism, they can also follow the track of contemporary scientific thought.

佛家有唯識學，其分析實證，俱到究竟。唯圖表試驗等，昔所未尚，今更為引而伸之，觸類而長。雖是佛家所固有，亦能隨順今世科學思想之軌道。

(D. Tang 1929, p. 6)

Tang Dayuan wanted to express that the Consciousness-Only school in Buddhist studies conformed to the spirit of scientific analysis and verification, and that its knowledge system could be represented through scientific charts and experimental methods. The inherent ideas and theories of Buddhism could “follow the track of contemporary scientific thought,” thereby proving the scientific nature of Buddhist doctrine. Similarly, Wang Jitong asserted that the Buddha-Dharma was “applied science” (應用科學) and considered it genuine science, derived from the scientific method, possessing the function of training reason. He also used Buddhist pramāṇa (valid cognition) theory to argue for the similarity between the epistemological principles of the Dharma and the characteristics of scientific knowledge, thus advocating that the Dharma was scientific and true (M. Wang 2010, p. 18). You Zhibiao 尤智表 serially published “Yige kexuezhe yanjiu Fojing de baogao” 一個科學者研究佛經的報告 (A Scientist’s Report on Studying Buddhist Scriptures) in the magazine Jue Youqing 覺有情 (Awaken Sentient Beings), later compiling the series into a book for which Wang Jitong wrote the preface. You Zhibiao believed the Śūraṅgama Sūtra had the characteristics of an “experimental guidebook,” serving as a guide for Buddhists to attain Buddhahood through experimentation. Furthermore, Buddhism differed from other religions since it emphasized understanding over belief, advocated the equality of all sentient beings, and called to breaking all attachments. He claimed that after reading the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, he proceeded to read the Heart Sūtra, Diamond Sūtra, Lotus Sūtra, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, etc., stating, “The more sūtras and treatises I read, the more points of convergence with science I found. The scientific knowledge I had learned almost entirely served as footnotes to the Buddhist scriptures, becoming a defender of the Dharma, while the Buddhist scriptures, conversely, had areas where they could guide and correct science.”17 He cited examples like the transformation of material atoms into atomic energy in physics, corresponding to Buddhist principles such as “the form is empty” (色即是空), to illustrate the convergence of science and the Buddha-Dharma. He also used Buddhist refutations of the Brahmanical concept of ātman, its advocacy for sublimating emotions and desires, and its emphasis on the reliability of perception and inference in Buddhist epistemology to argue that Buddhism is a rational religion (M. Wang 2010, pp. 30–31).

This discourse on integration first appeared among some pioneering intellectuals sympathetic to the Buddha Dharma and later became widespread18, with monastics within the Buddhist community also conducting much research on it. For instance, Taixu’s speeches, writings, and correspondence contain extensive discussions on science. As a leading figure of the reformist monks, he deeply understood the scientific trend of the era, studied scientific knowledge with a serious and prudent attitude, and reflected on and analyzed this trend and specific scientific knowledge based on his foundation in Buddhist studies. In his “Xin wulixue yu weishilun” 新物理學與唯識論 (The New Physics and Consciousness-Only Theory), Taixu integrated modern physics and Consciousness-Only doctrine based on the views of the British physicist Sir James Hopwood Jeans (1877–1946). Jeans believed that our process of perceiving things is actually receiving certain signals; we often misunderstand that these signals have a material basis as their source, but in fact, the existence of such matter is merely a hypothesis. “The general thesis of the new physics is that the nature we study is not composed of things perceived by us but is composed of our perceptions themselves. It is not the object in the subject-object relationship but is this relationship itself.”19 Taixu believed this view closely approximated the Consciousness-Only doctrine’s position of “consciousness-only without external objects” (唯識無境), and its critique of old physics actually constituted an academic endorsement of the Consciousness-Only standpoint. In articles like “Foxue yu xin sixiang” 佛學與新思想 (Buddhist Theory and New Thought) and “Aiyinsitan xiangduilun yu weishilun” 愛因斯坦相對論與唯識論 (Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Consciousness-Only Theory), he also argued that the Theory of Relativity’s claim—that the spatio-temporal properties of physical events change according to the observer’s viewpoint—resembled the Buddhist concept of dependent arising (paratantra-svabhāva) (M. Wang 2010, p. 45). He also used cases like the correspondence between Buddhist statements such as “the Buddha sees one drop of water containing eighty-four thousand creatures” (佛觀一滴水，八萬四千蟲) and “viewing the body as an aggregation of creatures” (觀身如蟲聚) with scientific theories of micro-organisms and cells to illustrate that scientific knowledge could be used to prove the truth of the Buddha Dharma. He further suggested that modern science’s falsification of the soul idea and its analysis of matter into components and structure also corroborated the fundamental Buddhist stance of eliminating attachment to self and dharmas.

Taixu further provided integrative explanations linking the Buddhist Consciousness-Only theory and the Five Traditional Sciences (Pañca-vidyā-sthānāni) with modern scientific disciplines, interpreting science through Buddhist terms. For instance, in his “Zhengli sengqie zhidu lun” 整理僧伽制度論 (On Reorganizing the Sangha System), he advocated establishing an “Academy of Various Arts” (Zhongyi Jingshe 眾藝精舍), which was divided into five departments: the Department of Aesthetics (Mei ke 美科), the Department of Practical Arts (Ye ke 業科), the Department of Manifest Phenomena (Zhu ke 著科), the Department of Subtle Principles (Wei ke 微科), and the Department of Metaphysics (Xuan ke 玄科).

The Department of Aesthetics included literature and arts, encompassing general cultural arts such as poetry, fiction, music, dance, painting, and sculpture. The Department of Practical Arts included engineering and sociology; “ye” (業) refers to various human actions and creations. This department covered practical applications in human relations, including engineering fields like mining, agriculture, commerce, mechanics, and navigation, as well as social scientific fields like sociology, which encompassed education, religion, politics, and economics. The Department of Manifest Phenomena included physics and biology; “zhu” (著) means conspicuous or manifest. This department covered astronomy, geology, botany, and zoology. The Department of Subtle Principles included psychology and chemistry, focusing on the study of mind, sense faculties, and sense objects. The Department of Metaphysics included Buddhist logic (hetuvidyā) and modern mathematics; “xuan” (玄) refers to abstract, hypothetical principles.20

The arguments put forth by monastics like Taixu regarding the possibility of integrating Buddhist doctrine and science were more systematic and profound compared to intellectuals outside the Buddhist community. However, their fundamental approach was consistent: both sought to prove that the Buddhist dharma contained various elements conforming to science, and that scientific progress could further reveal the truth of Buddhist dharma. This approach reveals the lofty status of science, for which other disciplines were eager to tailor themselves. Nevertheless, monastics did not stop at this simple comparison; they had another line of argument regarding the value of Buddhism: they in fact believed Buddha dharma could remedy the shortcomings of science.

This was the second main approach when discussing the relationship between Buddhism and science at the time. Supporters of this approach advocated using Buddhism to supplement where science fell short, using the spiritual resources of Eastern civilization to remedy the drawbacks of Western materialism. As early as 1911, The Eastern Miscellany (東方雜誌) published an article stating that although “the laurel crown of modern civilization is rightly worn by science (現代文明之月桂冠，戴於科學之上，誠不為過)”, scientific civilization was not perfect. Religion possessed a solemn authority that science could not match. Arising from the profundities of the human heart’s stirrings and governing the subtleties of human affairs, its potential to benefit civilization was certainly not small. Therefore, the article encouraged “the mutual integration of religion and science: on one hand, promoting scientific knowledge to break religious superstition; on the other hand, encouraging religious faith to supplement the defects of science.”21 In 1926, Yuanying 圓瑛 (1878–1953), in a letter to Taixu, argued that many people in the world suffered from the harms of science, and “only Buddhism could save societal morals and the human heart (將來欲救世道人心，自必公認佛教)” (Yuanying 1926, p. 1).

In a 1931 speech, Taixu elaborated in detail on the drawbacks of science, believing that scientific progress, while bringing humanity many conveniences, also expanded people’s desires, producing negative effects on society and human life:

Today’s scientific knowledge, known as material civilization, disregards body and mind, specializing in the investigation of external things, obtaining their causal relations and principles of change. Then they transform this knowledge and utilize it to satisfy human desires. Human desires themselves are bottomless, and the evolution of science is endless. However, this type of knowledge is biased towards materialism and completely neglects the improvement of body and mind. Plunder and seizure are pursued solely for profit… The general mindset mostly assumes that seeking knowledge must be for science, and that beyond science, there is nothing else. They fail to realize that science is but one kind of knowledge. Used well, it can utilize resources and enrich life; used poorly, it conversely aids in creating evil karma. The current global turmoil, competition, greed, and confusion stem partly from the misapplication of science, not from a disinterest in improving body and mind.

今日科學知識，號稱物質文明，不顧身心，專研外物，得其因果定律，變化原則。改造利用，以滿足人類之欲望為目的者也。自身之欲望無底止，科學之演進無已時。第此類知識，偏於唯物，而於身心改善，全不計及，攘取掠奪，唯利是圖…一般心理，幾謂欲求知識必於科學，科學而外，靡複有他。殊不知科學乃知識之一種，善用之足以利用厚生，不善用之反以助成惡業。方今舉世擾擾，競爭貪惑，未始非不願改善身心，誤用科學，階之厲也。22

This passage first shows Taixu’s positioning of scientific knowledge. He viewed science as material civilization, specializing in studying the external material world, primarily concerned with causal relationships between worldly phenomena, while neglecting attention to the human body and mind. The various laws discovered through scientific research, after being understood and transformed by humans, have all been used to satisfy human desires. He also criticized the blind faith in science prevalent at the time, believing there was no knowledge outside of science, arguing that science was only one type of knowledge with its own advantages and disadvantages. Furthermore, he believed that the worldly disturbances, various competitions, greed, and ignorance of the time were precisely due to people overemphasizing outward craving and the misuse of science.

Taixu appreciated the scientific emphasis on experimentation, the rigorous pursuit of knowledge, and the perpetual openness of conclusions to falsification, considering its eagerness to discover truth for aiding the world as particularly admirable. However, he simultaneously believed that science was overly attached to this experimental, truth-seeking method and failed to recognize that the actual nature of the dharma-realm could not be reached by such methods.23

A trend of “Buddhism spreading westward” also emerged at that time, with the Western world showing increasing interest in Eastern Buddhism, which also became important material for intellectuals arguing for the compatibility of Buddhism and science:

Buddhism is a psychological, philosophical religion. It is related to chemistry, physics, and various fields like astronomy. Recently, the number of Germans converting to Buddhism has reached several thousand. This is also a natural trend. Why? Because Germans inherently possess a spirit of scientific thinking towards all things. The Germans should considered to be the best followers of Buddhism.

佛教者乃心理學的哲學之宗教也，其與化學、物理以及天文諸科，罔不相關。最近德國人之皈依佛教者達數千人。此亦自然之勢，何則？德國人對於萬有事物，本富有科學的思考之精神也。吾徒中最良學者，當推德國人。

(Fojiao shiliao: Fojiao liuxing xifang zhi tuice 1928, p. 4)

This article speculated on the reasons for Buddhism’s popularity in the West, positioning Buddhism as a “psychological, philosophical religion,” emphasizing its connection to natural sciences like chemistry, physics, and astronomy. This interpretation responded both to the trend of Western psychology in the early 20th century and addressed the social context of the prevailing science in China’s post-New Culture Movement, attempting to construct a compatibility of Buddhism with modern science. The article specifically mentioned the phenomenon of thousands of German converts; the number might need verification, but it indeed expressed the self-reflection within Western society and search for Eastern wisdom in Germany after the First World War. The author attributed this to the German “spirit of scientific thinking,” implying the rational character of Buddhist dharma.

In 1935, in the 15th-anniversary commemorative issue of Haichaoyin, an article titled “Shiwu nianlai fojiao sixiang zhi qushi” 十五年來佛教思想之趨勢 (Trends in Buddhist Thought over the Past Fifteen Years) was published, proposing the idea of “using the Buddha-Dharma to purify science”:

Science… fully develops matter, and because of matter, it stirs up greed and hatred. Recently, it has mostly been applied to creating lethal weapons; what benefits people has instead become harmful. If baptized by Buddhism, it would become completely innocuous… Using the Buddha-Dharma to purify science involves two aspects: First, counteracting the negative dimensions of science, such as using compassion to counteract its cruelty, and using generosity to counteract its animalistic desires. Second, adapting Buddhist doctrine itself to science, as in ‘manifesting whatever form is suitable to liberate those beings’… Completely transforming Buddhist studies into science, such as Buddhist Astronomy, Buddhist Geography, Buddhist Logic, Buddhist Psychology, Buddhist Physiology, etc.

科學… 完全發展物質，因物質而啟發貪嗔，近來多應用到殺人的利器方面去了，利人者反成了害人。假若受了佛學的洗禮，就會變成完全無危險的東西… 用佛法來淨化科學有兩點：一是對治科學的惡處，如用慈悲來對治他的殘忍，由佈施來對治他的獸欲。二從佛學自身來適應科學，所謂應何身得度者即現何身而為說法… 把佛學完全變成科學，如佛化天文學、佛化地理學、佛化理論學、佛化心理學、佛化生理學等。

(Huasheng and Chenkong 1935, p. 45)

By the time this article was published, the world had already experienced the devastation of the First World War, international disputes continued, and the Second World War was brewing. The destructive power brought by science in warfare was already evident. This article’s proposal to purify science with the Buddha-Dharma and establish disciplines like Buddhist Astronomy and Buddhist Geography essentially advocated using the Dharma to reform science.

In summary, during the dialogue between Buddhism and science, the main concept was that Buddhist principles possessed a scientific character and conformed to the modern scientific spirit, the primary method being the comparing and aligning of the Buddha-Dharma with scientific thought. In fact, the attitude of Chinese Buddhism toward science in many aspects corresponds closely to what Justin R. Ritzinger describes as the “pull model,” in which elements of modernity are embraced because of their perceived value and attraction, distinct from the traditional understanding of “push model,” which views modernity as a force that compels religious transformation in certain respects. As he observes, it would be mistaken to assume that the power of Western modernity lies solely in the military force of Western nations; rather, there has also been much that people have found appealing and worthy of adoption. In this light, Eastern cultural traditions were not always coerced or driven into modernization; on many occasions they actively sought their own modern transformations (Ritzinger 2017, pp. 7–9). Beyond this, there was another strand of opinion which held that although science had many strengths, it also had disadvantages like overemphasizing material things and promoting human greed. This view advocated that Buddhism could supplement the shortcomings of science. This trend of thought comparing Buddhism to science demonstrates the efforts of Buddhists to adapt themselves and seek survival under the era’s belief in the supremacy of science.

4. Reinterpretation: Buddhist Study Within the Framework of Modern Science and Knowledge

Although the claim that “Buddhism being scientific” has largely been eclipsed by history, the endeavors of Buddhist scholars to identify points of convergence between Buddhist dharma and western science, philosophy, and psychology have remained constant. Though the aforementioned fields such as Buddhist Astronomy, Buddhist Geography, Buddhist Logic, and Buddhist Physiology never fully realized, Buddhist Psychology did indeed develop into an academic current whose influence endures to this day. Liang Qichao and Taixu were among the early pioneers of Buddhist psychology, with Taixu even attempting to construct a systematic Buddhist psychology. Subsequently, the development of Buddhist psychology gradually converged with Western psychology, engaging with the broader question of how Buddhist philosophical resources could contribute to modern science. In the following decades, an increasing number of scholars from both Eastern and western philosophical traditions devoted themselves to the study of Buddhist psychology—among them D.T. Suzuki, Erich Fromm, Richard De Martino, Rune E.A. Johansson, Edwina Pio, as well as Chinese Buddhist scholars Weihai and Chen Bing.24

Beyond the establishment of these specific research areas, the most fundamental impact of introducing science into Buddhism lies in its systematic change in the Buddhist study itself—enabling it to complete its modern transformation and evolve from a traditional religious practice into a modern academic discipline, which can be seen as a form of scientism-driven secularization of religion. When Nishi Amane translated “Science” as Kexue, he meant that the characteristic of learning under the dominance of Western Science was the construction of a classified knowledge system. The most profound influence of the concept of “Science” on Buddhist studies was also the establishment of classifications within it: incorporating content related to Buddhism, such as its doctrines, history, literature, and art, into a modern, scientific knowledge system.

The traditional Buddhist knowledge system viewed the world from a Buddhist perspective, observing and explaining all phenomena based on Buddhist doctrines. Buddhist doctrine itself was the standard and measure; the framework seldom extended beyond the Three Tripiṭaka of Sūtras, Vinaya, and Śāstras, and the observers and interpreters were predominantly the monastic assembly. In contrast, the Buddhist knowledge system that emerged during the Republican period examined Buddhism and traditional doctrinal studies from the perspective of modern science. Both Buddhism and its doctrines became objects of observation; the standard and measure became science in the modern sense; and the observers and interpreters were primarily intellectual elites outside the Buddhist community. Under the old framework, the Buddha-Dharma inherently possessed the aura of truth; under the new standard, the results of Buddhist research were merely one form of knowledge, possessing the finitude and limitations inherent to all knowledge. This shift is seen as influenced by both European and Japanese Buddhist studies and as a result of modern Chinese scholars’ adoption of the “scientific” concept, both within and outside the Buddhist community.

Disciplinary construction changed the content and structure of Buddhist studies, specifically manifested in the following aspects: 1. Introducing Western natural and social sciences knowledge into Buddhist education, updating content of Buddhist external studies (外學); 2. Changes in internal Buddhist subjects, forming new disciplinary structures, giving rise to new disciplinary systems such as Buddhist Philosophy, Buddhist Literature, Buddhist Philology, and Buddhist History. 3. In the new written books, the organization of Buddhist knowledge changes, breaking the traditional tripartite structure of Sūtra-Vinaya-Śāstra.

Meanwhile, the scientific transformation of Buddhist studies also faced fundamental challenges: How to deal with non-scientific concepts like rebirth and hell? How to position experiences based on religious faith, such as spiritual cultivation and realization? In response, modern academia developed three main approaches: either comparing Buddhist studies to science, emphasizing its rational characteristics; or categorizing it within philosophy, viewing it as “the practical part of philosophy”; or insisting on considering it as a traditional religion. This divergence reflects the complexity of Buddhist knowledge. Meanwhile, in the new Buddhist narrative, intellectual elites within the Buddhist community, from an academic standpoint and a commitment to preserving the integrity of Buddhist thought, offered rationalized interpretations of non-”scientific” elements in Buddhism. This included: studying religious practices as historical and cultural phenomena, tracing their origins and cultural significance; downplaying or omitting accounts of supernatural feats in Buddhist history; reinterpreting doctrines such as rebirth and meditation through the lens of science and logic; and establishing a “Buddhism for Human Life (人生佛教),” redirecting its teachings toward human existence and society. In other words, their invocation of science to explain Buddhism aimed not to dissolve Buddhist faith but to attempt to verify faith through rational means. The different standpoints of the religious community and academia have formed the distinction in contemporary Buddhist studies between “intra-community cultivation and verification” (教內修證) and “extra-community academic research” (教外學術) (Yi 2019, pp. 60–75).

At the first meeting of the Research Department of the Wuchang Buddhist Academy (武昌佛學院), the presiding chair Tang Dayuan, discussing the aim of Buddhist research, stated: “Scientists today all speak of seeking knowledge, and those who study Buddhism also value knowledge, sometimes called ‘understanding,’ also known as ‘views.’ Although understanding and views were perhaps criticized by the Chan school in the past, one must know that was a kind of skillful means, not to be taken as the standard. Studying Buddhism in the present age, we should wash away the old habit of ignoring text study in a biased way, seek understanding and views in the correct way, in order to finally attain knowledge, in this way avoiding superstition.”25 In this process, the Buddhist doctrines were gradually stripped of their religious sanctity, becoming “ideas” or “philosophy” in the sense of modern scholarship, while Buddhism itself, as an organization or cultural phenomenon, became an observed object, a subject of research.

The writing on Chinese Buddhism during this period can be divided into three streams: First, Buddhist historical research represented by figures of the New History school like Hu Shi, Tang Yongtong 湯用彤 (1893–1964), Chen Yinke 陳寅恪 (1890–1969), and Chen Yuan 陳垣 (1880–1971), characterized by a tendency to historicize the scriptures (以史化經), constructing and discussing Buddhist sūtras, śāstras, and history using the paradigm of historiography established since the Western Enlightenment. Second was the research on interpreting Buddhist philosophy represented by Zhang Taiyan 章太炎 (1869–1936), characterized by efforts to fit the metaphysical discussions from traditional scriptural exegesis into the framework of modern Western philosophy, using philosophy instead of religious doctrine to expound the supreme meaning of Buddhist doctrine. Behind this methodology, the term “philosophy” was endowed with connotations of modernity, superiority, etc., in contrast to the “superstition” and “backwardness” associated with the idea of “religion.” Third was the scriptural study (經學) paradigm represented by The Chinese Inner Studies Institute (支那內學院) and the Wuchang Buddhist Academy, defined by a reverence for traditional scriptural study and the integration of Buddhist scholarship with religious faith. However, these differed from traditional Buddhist exegetes in that their scriptural study also incorporated many elements of new knowledge. For instance, Ouyang Jingwu 歐陽竟無 (1871–1943) advocated utilizing Sanskrit and Tibetan texts as well as studying variant texts to collate and interpret scriptural meaning (Gong and Chen 2019, pp.49–76).

From a historical perspective, Yang Wenhui’s contacts with Nanjō Bunyū 南條文雄 (1849–1927) led to a reversal in the direction of Sino-Japanese Buddhist exchange. The traditional pattern of Chinese Buddhism exporting to Japan ceased, and Japanese Buddhist studies started to comprehensively influence Chinese Buddhist studies in terms of concepts, methods, and materials. From the 1920s and 1930s onwards, a large number of Japanese works on the history of Buddhist studies were translated and introduced to China. For example, Shi Yiru 史一如 (1876–1925) translated Funahashi Suisai’s 舟橋水哉 Shōjō Bukkyōgaku gairon 小乗仏教學概論 (Introduction to Hīnayāna Buddhist Studies) (Vols. 1 & 2), works like Sakaino Kōi’s 境野哲 (1871–1933) Shina Bukkyōshi kō 支那仏教史綱 (History of Chinese Buddhism), and Indo Bukkyōshi kō 印度仏教史綱 (History of Indian Buddhism). Ouyang Hancun 歐陽瀚存 translated Kimura Taiken’s 木村泰賢 (1881–1930) Genshi Bukkyō Shisōron 原始仏教思想論 (On Early Buddhist Thought), and Gao Guanlu 高觀廬 translated Takakusu Junjirō’s 高楠順次郎 (1866–1945) and Kimura Taiken’s Indo Tetsugaku Shūkyōshi 印度哲學宗教史 (History of Indian Philosophy and Religion). Early works on Buddhist history by domestic scholars were mostly written based on, or even copied directly from, Japanese writings. For instance, Lü Cheng’s 呂澂 (1896–1989) Fojiao Yanjiu Fa 佛教研究法 (Methods for Buddhist Research) was compiled based on the works of Fukaura Shōbun 深浦正文; Jiang Weiqiao’s 蔣維喬 (1873–1958) Zhongguo Fojiao Shi 中國佛教史 (History of Chinese Buddhism) drew materials from Sakaino Kōi’s Shina Bukkyōshi kō; Huang Chanhua’s 黃懺華 (1899–1977) Zhongguo Fojiao Shi 中國佛教史 (History of Chinese Buddhism) imitated Ui Hakuju’s 宇井伯壽 (1882–1963) Shina Bukkyōshi 支那仏教史, adopting the Japanese theory of the Eight Schools of Buddhism (Gong 2020, pp. 44–55).

Around 1920, Buddhism entered universities. For example, Peking University in 1918 had Zhang Kecheng 張克誠 teaching “Foxue yanjiu” 佛學研究 (Buddhist Studies) and Liang Shuming teaching “Fojiao zhexue” 佛教哲學 (Buddhist Philosophy) (Beijing daxue rikan 1918a, p. 2; 1918b, p. 5). In 1924, National Southeastern University (國立東南大學) had Jiang Weiqiao teaching a course on Buddhist Philosophy; in 1925, Jiang also teached “Foxue rumen” 佛學入門 (Introduction to Buddhist Studies) and “Baifa mingmen lun” 百法明門論 (Mahāyāna-śatadharma-prakāśamukha-śāstra, Treatise on the One Hundred Dharmas). By 1928, National Central University (國立中央大學) had Tang Yongtong’s “Zhongguo Fojiao shi” 中國佛教史 (History of Chinese Buddhism) and “Yindu Fojiao shi” 印度佛教史 (History of Indian Buddhism), and Xiong Shili’s “Weishilun” 唯識論 (Consciousness-Only Theory), “Sanlun zong” 三論宗 (Three Treatises School), and “Yinmingxue” 因明學 (Buddhist logic). During this period, related courses offered at National Central University also included “Xiaocheng Foxue” 小乘佛學 (Hīnayāna Buddhist Studies), “Baliwen Fojing” 巴利文佛經 (Pāli Buddhist Scriptures), “Fojiao Zhexue” 佛教哲學 (Buddhist Philosophy), “Han wei liuchao Fojiao shi” 漢魏六朝佛教史 (History of Buddhism in the Han, Wei, and Six Dynasties), “Lü zong” 律宗 (Vinaya School), and “Chan zong” 禪宗 (Chan School), focusing primarily on history and thought, reflecting the perspective of modern academic research, with the history of Buddhism and its doctrines becoming objects of study (Shao 2019, p. 167). The introduction of Buddhist courses in university further promoted the flourishing of Buddhist research outside the Buddhist community during the Republican period, and the research approaches outside the community were mostly the aforementioned New History or Buddhist Philosophy approaches. The establishment of the history of modern Chinese Buddhist knowledge basically unfolded within the tension between scriptural studies representing the traditional stance and the new historiography possessing modern consciousness (Gong 2020, p. 47). Even the Nanjing Chinese Inner Studies Institute and the Wuchang Buddhist Academy, which advocated scriptural studies, were inevitably influenced by this trend of new historiography, often displaying an inclination between scripture and history in their specific studies.

Under this trend, the writing of Buddhism during this period changed. Buddhist sūtras and śāstras, originally “sacred texts,” became “knowledge texts,” no longer direct signifiers of truth, but partial expressions bound to specific historical and spatial contexts, available for investigation and analysis. Buddhist introductions, general histories of Buddhism, and Buddhist dictionaries were the main works of Buddhist studies during this period. Introductory works on Buddhism included Xie Wuliang’s 謝無量 (1884–1964) Foxue dagang 佛學大綱 (Outline of Buddhist Theory) (1916), Wang Enyang’s 王恩洋 (1897–1964) Foxue gailun 佛學概論 (Introduction to Buddhist Theory) (1925), Jiang Weiqiao’s Fojiao gailun 佛教概論 (Introduction to Buddhism) (1930) and Foxue gangyao 佛學綱要 (Essentials of Buddhist Theory) (1935), Taixu’s Foxue gailun 佛學概論 (Introduction to Buddhist Theory) (1930), Li Yuanjing’s 李圓淨(1894–1950) Fofa daolun 佛法導論 (A Guidde to the Buddha-Dharma) (1930), Huang Shifu’s 黃士復 Fojiao gailun 佛教概論 (Introduction to Buddhism) (1931), Huang Chanhua’s Foxue gailun 佛學概論 (Introduction to Buddhist Theories) (1935), and Yinshun’s 印順 (1906–2005) Fofa gailun 佛法概論 (Introduction to the Buddha-Dharma) (1944–1949). Although the internal layouts of these books varied, they already showed a tendency of incorporating new knowledge. For instance, Xie Wuliang’s work subsumed Buddhist doctrines under logic, psychology, and ethics. What is particularly noteworthy about Taixu’s Foxue gailun is that, as an academic work by a monastic, it introduces Buddhist history prior to discussing its doctrines. In the article “How to Study Buddhism” at the end of the book, he divided Buddhist research into four types: Teaching (教), Principle (理), Practice (行), and Fruit (果). Under “Teaching,” Taixu included cultural artifacts from Sanskrit, Pāli, Chinese, and Tibetan sources, specifically involving the collection of Dharma objects, the compilation and examination of historical materials, the collation of scriptures, and the compilation and translation of books. Under “Principle,” he included Indian Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna schools, Chinese Buddhist schools, as well as the new research areas of Europe and America. This demonstrates that leading monastics had already embraced a relatively open approach to Buddhist research, incorporating European and American thought on an equal footing. Among Taixu’s later followers, Yinshun’s research went further down the historical path. He advocated that correct understanding (勝解) is the prerequisite for faith, and faith after correct understanding is sincere faith, rational faith, attempting to conduct Buddhist studies while maintaining the premise of faith, thus advocating exploring the meaning of the Dharma through historical investigation and discussion.26

The emphasis on history spurred the prosperity of studies on the history of Buddhism as a whole. Differing from traditional sectarian histories filled with partisan bias, the historical works of this period presented Buddhist history more systematically, comprehensively, and objectively. Such works included Jiang Weiqiao’s Zhongguo Fojiao shi (translated and supplemented, 1929), Huang Chanhua’s Zhongguo Fojiao shi (written 1937, published 1940), Zhou Shujia’s 周叔迦 (1899–1970) Zhongguo Foxue shi 中國佛學史 (History of Chinese Buddhist Theory) (manuscript 1930) and Zhongguo Fojiao shi 中國佛教史 (History of Chinese Buddhism) (1930). The significance of exploring Buddhist history was twofold. First, it allowed for a re-examination of Buddhism’s evolution from a historical perspective, offering an objective narrative of its establishment, development, spread, prosperity, and decline. Second, spurred by the trend of tracing ancient history, interest in Indian Buddhist studies grew significantly within academic Buddhist circles. Writings on the general history of Buddhism typically traced their origins to India. Meanwhile, in the realm of thought, a trend emerged that insisted on seeking correct understanding by way of early Indian Buddhism. The Buddhist historical works of Shen Zengzhi 沈曾植 (1850–1922), Liang Qichao and Tang Yongtong clearly exhibited this tendency. Within the monastic community, while maintaining a stand point of Chinese Buddhism, Taixu also gave attention to Indian Buddhism in his historical inquiries, while Yinshun’s Buddhist studies placed even greater emphasis on Indian Buddhism. Yinshun believed that the gradual loss of the Dharma’s original truth had a long history, so he made Indian Buddhism the focal point of his research, with finding the original meaning of the Indian sūtras and śāstras as his goal, in order to explore the evolution of Buddhist thought (Yinshun 2009, p. 9).

Influenced by Japan and the West, Buddhist dictionaries were compiled during this period. In 1919, Shi Mingxing 時明行, following Taixu’s instruction, translated Oda Tokunō’s 織田得能 (1860–1911) Bukkyō Daijiten 佛教大辭典 (Great Dictionary of Buddhism) (Shiyi: Fojiao da cidian 1919, pp. 80–81). By this time, Ding Fubao had already spent years compiling his Foxue da cidian 佛學大辭典 (Great Dictionary of Buddhist Doctrine), which was then nearing publication. In 1921, the dictionary was finally published by his Shanghai Medical Books Publishing House (上海醫學書局). Spanning 16 volumes, it contained more than 30,000 entries and over 3.6 million Chinese characters. Organized by a stroke-based indexing system, the dictionary covered a wide range of subjects—including Buddhist terminology, allusions, scriptures, notable figures, and historical sites—making it nothing short of a monumental achievement in the field. Published in 1921, this dictionary was China’s first modern-style Buddhist compendium, a landmark project that was compiled with substantial reference to Japanese scholarship like Oda Tokunō’s and Mochizuki Shinkō’s 望月信亨 (1869–1948) Bukkyō Daijiten, the Bukkyō Dai Jiten 佛教大辭彙 from Bukkyō University, and Fujii Sōsen’s 藤井草宣 Bukkyō Jirin 佛教辭林, correcting errors during translation. Besides Chinese compositions, it also frequently adopts Japanese works for the śāstras and commentaries used, and for some important specialized terms, it included Western language, Sanskrit, or Pāli equivalents for reference (Ding 1921, pp. 5–10).

In 1933, a journalist who had studied in Japan report in Haichaoyin about Takakusu Junjirō’s compilation of a Chūgoku Bukkyō Jinmei Jiten 中國佛教人名辭典 (Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Names) and called for domestic Buddhists to assist with historical materials of the Ming and Qing periods (Riben bianzuan zhongguo Fojiao renming cidian 1933, p. 126). A Japanese monk from the Nishi Hongan-ji temple, Unno 海野, translated Mochizuki Shinkō’s Bukkyō Daijiten at the Yuansheng Temple (原生寺) in Yangzhou (Yangzhou: Riseng haiye fanyi Fojiao da cidian 1943, p. 15). Starting in 1933, Zhenhua 震華 (1908–1947) began compiling the Zhongguo Fojiao renming da cidian 中國佛教人名大辭典 (Great Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Names), working on it for over ten years until his death, leaving behind hundreds of pages of manuscripts, which were later reorganized and published by his disciples. In 1943, parts of this dictionary were serialized in Miaofalun under the title “Zhongguo Fojiao renming da cidian suoying” 中國佛教人名大辭典縮影 (Abridged Version of the Great Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Names), which published selected entries. In the preface, the author stated the reason for compilation: “In the modern age, where specialized dictionaries systematically organize the terminology of various doctrines for easy consultation, Buddhism has produced only three or four such works. Within the immense forest of arts and letters, these are a mere drop in the ocean.”27 This shows that the compilation of Buddhist dictionaries was also influenced by the general academic climate of the time.

In short, the academic trend in Buddhist studies during this period, following the introduction of new knowledge from abroad, shifted from a focus on traditional scriptural studies and sectarian studies to a focus on history. The religious and sacred nature of Buddhist texts weakened, while their intellectual nature strengthened. Buddhist doctrines, the historical development of Buddhism, and Buddhist scriptures all became objects and knowledge. Furthermore, as Buddhist studies evolved and defined itself within the modern academic system, the discourse on Buddhism came to be led not chiefly by the monastic community, but rather by secular intellectual elites.

5. Conclusions

The incoming of science profoundly reshaped intellectual discourse in China, sparking a nationwide anti-religious movement that placed Buddhism, among other faiths, in a precarious position. Branded as superstition, Buddhism faced existential challenges, prompting reform-minded Buddhists to explore strategies for adaptation—most notably by seeking common ground between Buddhist doctrine and scientific thought. Throughout the dialogue between Buddhism and science, a dominant theme emerged: the assertion that Buddhist doctrine not only possessed scientific validity but also aligned with the modern scientific spirit. This was primarily achieved through comparative analyses linking the Buddha Dharma with scientific concepts. Alongside this, another perspective gained traction—that while science had undeniable strengths, it also suffered from limitations like materialistic reductionism and the fueling of human desire. Proponents of this view argued that Buddhism could complement science by addressing its shortcomings. These efforts reflect a broader attempt by Buddhists to reposition their tradition in an age dominated by the authority of science. Concurrently, the academic study of Buddhism underwent a significant shift. Influenced by western knowledge, the focus moved away from exegetical and doctrinal studies toward historical research. Buddhist scriptures gradually shed their sacred aura and were increasingly treated as intellectual artifacts. Buddhist doctrines, historical events, and scriptures all became objects of academic inquiry. Furthermore, as Buddhist studies evolved and secured its place within modern academia, the primary narrators of Buddhism transitioned from monastic circles to secular intellectual elites.

This transformation represented, at its core, a strategic self-realignment of traditional Buddhism in a science-dominated era. By reconstructing its knowledge system, refining disciplinary frameworks, and rationalizing elements deemed unscientific, Buddhism preserved its spiritual essence while securing a voice within modern academia. This adaptation not only redirected the trajectory of Buddhist scholarship but also offers a significant case study in how traditional cultural systems can engage with modern science. The scientization of Buddhist studies was both a response to contemporary challenges and an essential pathway for its integration into the modern knowledge ecosystem.

The self-adjustment of Buddhism in modern society can also be examined from more historically nuanced and grander perspectives. On the one hand, from the perspective of Buddhist history, after its introduction to China from India, it continuously adapted to various conditions, including the geographical features of China, the Confucian and Taoist cultural context, and the agricultural economic model, as well as the turmoil wrought by political changes. It was precisely through reasonable self-adjustment when facing these different conditions that Buddhism was able to endure over time and become an integral part of Chinese culture. Its self-adjustment in response to science in the early 20th century was but a modest chapter in the larger story of Buddhist adaptation in China. On the other hand, from the perspective of Chinese culture as a whole, the scientification of Buddhism is merely a facet of the modern transformation of China. Since the later period of the Qing dynasty, Chinese civilization began to face a massive impact from Western culture. Through a process of pain, confrontation, compromise, and integration, it gradually achieved harmonious coexistence with foreign cultures and found new impetus and direction for its own development. In this process, the revival of modern Chinese Buddhism constituted but a small chapter within the larger historical narrative of the country’s gradual movement toward modernity.

In an age marked by heightened civilizational exchanges and the enduring tension between religion and modernity, Buddhism’s example offers valuable insight. Its ability to preserve its core identity while adapting to diverse cultural contexts provides a relevant model for intercivilizational dialogue and the ongoing project of religious modernization.