太虛大師入定Master Taixu Entering Deep Meditation

 太虛大師入定

 

太虛大師入定的另外一種情況，我把這一段找出來給讀書會提供資料。

（這一段記載據說是發生在中國上海，但是查詢AI有不同的說法。）

 

半寄

 

AI資料   太虛大師年僅 16 歲，正在天童寺受戒並跟隨寄禪法師（八指頭陀）修行。   2. 「入定」的真實過程 根據大師後來的自述與傳記記載，當時他正處於對佛學理法極度渴求與思維的狀態中： • 專注思惟： 太虛大師在禪堂與藏經樓之間走動，心中不斷參究「何謂一心不亂」或佛經中的深義。 • 物我兩忘： 由於精神高度集中，他進入了一種「定散位」的狀態（雖在行動，但心意識與外界環境暫時脫鉤）。 • 不自知的情境： 他在路邊或牆角便溺時，因為神識完全沉浸在法義的法喜中，確實沒有察覺到自己的生理行為與周遭環境。直到被路過的僧人或巡查者拍打叫醒，他才恍然如夢。   3. 如何看待這則軼事？ 在佛教界，這並非被視為一件「尷尬事」，而是一段佳話。它說明了幾點：• 大師的誠心： 展現了他少年時期對真理近乎痴迷的追求。 • 定力的體現： 雖然並非嚴格意義上在禪堂坐禪的「深定」，但這種「行禪」中的高度專注，正是修行者夢寐以求的狀態。 • 人性化的一面： 這讓太虛大師這位近代佛教改革者的形象變得更加鮮活，而非冷冰冰的神格化人物。   您之所以在《太虛大師年譜》中找不到這一段，主要是因為這類細節在正式的年譜中通常會被修辭或省略。   根據相關文獻與研究，我們可以從以下幾個角度來解釋： 1. 年譜的寫作風格與嚴謹性 由印順導師編撰的《太虛法師年譜》是一部學術性極強、風格嚴謹的傳記。對於大師在天童寺修行期間（1904年左右）的描述，通常集中在他在藏經樓的讀經感悟、與寄禪法師（八指頭陀）的往來，以及他覺受「心境澄明」的過程。對於像「不自知便溺」這種過於生活化甚至略顯尷尬的生理細節，編纂者往往會以「定散位」或「物我兩忘，不覺時日」等較為莊嚴的辭彙來概括。   2. 大師自述的側重點不同 太虛大師在後來回憶這段修行經歷時（例如在《我的宗教經驗》中），他更強調的是心靈層面的震撼。他曾提到自己當時處於一種「行、住、坐、臥皆在定中」的狀態，在這種狀態下，他確實對外境（如時間的流逝、周遭的人事物）失去了平常的察覺力。他主要傳達的是「法喜充滿」的體驗，而非生理上的具體行為。   3. 民間與口述歷史的流傳 這段「路邊小便不自知」的細節，更多是出現在與大師同時代僧人的口述回憶，或是一些非正式的傳記、講義中。這類描述是為了強調大師當時「禪定力」之深、專注力之強，甚至到了完全忘卻肉體存在的程度。   總結來說： 您找不到這段話，是因為正式的年譜將其轉化成了「深定中修行」的宗教描述。這段軼事雖然在民間廣為流傳以證明大師的修持，但在正式文獻中，為了維持大師的尊嚴與佛學的嚴肅性，通常不會白話地記載這類生理細節。   （太虛大師入定形容詞改正 總結處，AI使用了「神神相接」的字眼， 我修改為「深定中修行，」   AI經常會跳出很不適切的字眼， 如果功力不深， 會被它耍得團團轉   半寄再次反詰：   AI答覆：我(AI)再次查閱了印順法師編撰的《太虛法師年譜》，確實完全沒有提到「小便」。 • 年譜記載： 僅記載他因閱經而進入「心入定境」的感悟，以及隨後他對佛法有了「圓解」。 • 軼事來源： 這段細節多半出自於大師弟子（如大醒法師、芝峰法師等）在講述大師生平時的口述傳聞。   糾正總結： 我不該使用「神神相接」這種非佛教的模糊字眼來解讀。太虛大師當時的境界在佛學上應稱為「定中意識」與「五官感覺」的暫時分離。）

 

Master Taixu Entering Deep Meditation

 

Here is another account of Master Taixu entering deep meditation. I have selected this passage to provide as reference material for the study club.

 

(This account is said to have taken place in Shanghai, China. However, when checking with AI sources, there are differing statements about the location.)

 

Master Banji

 

AI Data:   When Master Taixu was only 16 years old, he was receiving ordination at Tiantong Monastery and practicing under Master Jichan (also known as “Eight-Fingered Ascetic”).   2. What Really Happened During His “Entering Meditation” According to Master Taixu’s later recollections and biographical records, he was at that time deeply eager to understand Buddhist teachings and constantly reflecting on their meaning. • Deep contemplation: He would walk back and forth between the meditation hall and the scripture library, continuously pondering questions such as “What does it truly mean to have a mind free from distraction?” and the deeper meanings of the sutras. • Forgetting self and surroundings: Because his mind was so intensely focused, he entered a state sometimes described as being between concentration and movement. Although he was physically active, his awareness was temporarily disconnected from the external world. • Unaware of his physical actions: At one point, while urinating by the roadside or near a wall, he was so absorbed in the joy of understanding the Dharma that he was completely unaware of his own physical behavior and surroundings. He only came back to ordinary awareness when a passing monk or patrol monk tapped him to wake him up, and he felt as if he had just come out of a dream.   3. How Should We View This Anecdote? In Buddhist circles, this story is not considered embarrassing. Instead, it is often regarded as an inspiring anecdote. It illustrates several points: • His sincerity: It shows his almost obsessive dedication to seeking truth during his youth. • His power of concentration: Although this was not formal seated meditation in the meditation hall, such intense mindfulness during daily activity is a state many practitioners aspire to achieve. • His human side: The story makes Master Taixu, a major reformer of modern Chinese Buddhism, appear more human and vivid rather than distant or overly idealized.   Why Isn’t This Recorded in the Official Chronicle? You may not find this detail in The Chronological Biography of Master Taixu because formal biographies often omit or soften such personal details.   Based on related research, we can understand this from several perspectives:   1. The Style and Academic Rigor of the Chronicle The chronicle compiled by Master Yinshun is highly scholarly and formal. When describing Taixu’s practice at Tiantong Monastery (around 1904), it focuses mainly on his study of scriptures, his exchanges with Master Jichan, and his experience of mental clarity. Details such as “urinating without awareness,” which might seem too mundane or awkward, are usually summarized in more dignified terms such as “entering a state of concentration” or “forgetting self and surroundings, unaware of time.”   2. What Master Taixu Emphasized in His Own Recollections In his later reflections (for example, in My Religious Experience), Master Taixu emphasized the spiritual transformation he experienced. He described being in a state where walking, standing, sitting, and lying down were all within meditation. In that state, he temporarily lost ordinary awareness of time and external circumstances. His focus was on the profound joy of understanding the Dharma, not on specific physical actions.   3. Oral Tradition and Informal Accounts The detail about “urinating by the roadside without awareness” mostly appears in oral recollections from contemporaries or in informal biographies and lecture notes. These accounts were meant to highlight the depth of his meditative absorption and extraordinary concentration.   Correction of the Description of Master Taixu’s Meditation In the summary, the AI used the phrase “spirit connecting with spirit.” I have revised it to: “practicing within deep meditation.” AI often produces inappropriate or imprecise expressions. If one does not have sufficient understanding, it is easy to be misled by them. Banji questioned it again.   AI’s reply: I (the AI) reviewed The Chronological Biography of Master Taixu, compiled by Master Yinshun, once more. It indeed makes no mention of “urination.” • What the chronicle records: It only states that through reading the scriptures, he entered a state of mental concentration and later attained a comprehensive understanding of the Dharma. • Source of the anecdote: This detail mostly comes from oral accounts by the Master’s disciples (such as Master Daxing and Master Zhifeng) when recounting his life.   Corrected Conclusion: I should not have used the vague and non-Buddhist phrase “spirit connecting with spirit” to interpret his experience. In proper Buddhist terms, Master Taixu’s state should be described as a temporary separation between meditative consciousness and the functions of the five senses.

 

中觀論與空 The Madhyamaka Treatise and Śūnyatā

中觀論與空

關於我自己對《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）的研究，前面文章提過一些。

這部著作為龍樹菩薩（Nāgārjuna所作，）源自他與其他佛教思想家之間的辯論。當時各方對佛陀教法有不同的理解與詮釋，因此展開了思想上的交鋒。

 

《中論》主要精神是「只破不立」，所以我個人不會寫什麼其他看法，

學習《中觀論》必須去看部派佛教之間各個思想，還有他們對佛法不同的主張，及辯論內容，便可看懂《中觀論》在說什麼，

 

想要穿越語言與文字的言詮不及，進而認識佛法「空」的表達，是很困難的，

 

我個人認為這是人類最大的兩道牆，

所以只介紹就不再去解釋它，

當然之前的文章有提過部分，有興趣的讀者往下拉去看。

 

（龍樹菩薩（Nāgārjuna）及其核心著作《中觀論》（即《中論》）大約產生於公元 2 世紀至 3 世紀間（約公元 150 年至 250 年）。）

 

我個人比較推薦這一本書籍

《解讀龍樹菩薩《中論》27道題〉

（有讀者建議這本書不要隨便買，因為讀它的困難度很高，哈）

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

 

The Madhyamaka Treatise and Śūnyatā                                                                                                                                                                                                    

 

I have talked before about my study of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.

 

This book was written by Nāgārjuna. It grew out of debates between him and other Buddhist thinkers who had different ways of understanding the Buddha’s teachings.

 

The main spirit of the book is “to break down views, but not to build up a new one.” Because of this, I do not add other interpretations or views of my own.

 

If you want to understand the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, you need to learn about the different early Buddhist schools, what they believed, and how they debated with one another. With this background, the book becomes much clearer.

 

It is very hard to go beyond the limits of language and words in order to truly understand the Buddhist idea of “śūnyatā.”

 

I think these limits are the two biggest walls facing human beings.

So here I will only introduce the topic and not explain it further. Some related points were discussed in earlier articles; interested readers may scroll down to read more.

 

(Nāgārjuna and his main work, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, were written around the 2nd to 3rd century CE, about 150–250 CE.)

 

I personally recommend the book:

Nagarjuna’s Middle Way: Mulamadhyamakakarika

(A reader has suggested adding a caution: this book is highly demanding and should not be purchased lightly.)

(Handwritten by Teacher Lin Heyuan; shared by Teacher Fan Ruyi.)

 

Master Banji

（林河源老師手墨
情商范汝宜老師的轉貼

讀書會3-4 NanZen Study Club3-4

南禪28號潮州讀書會 3

 

有大德問我說：台灣諸多留日的法師，人家回來什麼都不講，為什麼你要講？

這個問題在我的腦海盤旋了一個多月，

想到陳寅恪先生，再把日本學術的研究拉在一起，答案就出來了！

 

華人喜歡章回小說般的佛法，而我們修行者必須探討出一個真相才能往前走，

地圖畫錯了，從來都是最可怕的事！

 

我沒有辦法知道，為什麼很多留日的大德，回來不講他們學習到的辨證佛法，或許他們講了，一樣被排斥，所以大家都封口了！

 

而且章回小說般的佛法確實易於流傳。

 

然而，我回不去章回小說了！

就扮演一次過河卒子，也跟佛教告別了，我只是一個佛法修行者，不隸屬宗教。

 

（台灣有道場說：她們在她們自己的佛法期刊上都有寫到被考證過的佛法，

我清楚也有看過，期刊上的文章屬於論文能讀懂的人並不多，

是啊，台灣很多道場很用功，我知道，謝謝你們！

收到，也澄清一下。🙏）

 

（最後一次聲明，我只是佛法的修行者，已經寫過了，如果真的看不懂我也沒辦法）

半寄

 

NanZen Study Club in Chaozhou on March 28 3

 

A layman once asked me,“Many Taiwanese monks studied in Japan. When they come back, they don’t talk about what they learned. Why do you?”

 

This question lingered in my mind for more than a month. When I thought of Mr. Chen Yinke and connected his spirit with the methods of Japanese academic research, the answer gradually became clear.

 

Chinese culture tends to favor a storytelling style of Buddhism, much like traditional chapter-based novels.But those who truly practice must search for the truth in order to move forward. If the map is wrong, it is very dangerous.

 

I don’t know why many monks who studied in Japan do not talk about the critical and analytical Buddhism they learned. Maybe they did speak, but were rejected, so in the end they chose to stay silent.

 

And indeed, a narrative, story-like Buddhism spreads easily.

 

But I can no longer return to that storytelling style. I will play the role of a pawn crossing the river once, and also bid farewell to institutional Buddhism. I am only a practitioner of the Buddhadharma, not affiliated with any religion. 

 

(Certain Buddhist centers in Taiwan have explained that they publish well-researched and verified Buddhist teachings in their own Dharma journals.

I am fully aware of this and have personally reviewed those publications. However, the articles in these journals are academic in nature, and not many people are able to fully understand them.

Indeed, many Buddhist centers in Taiwan are very dedicated and hardworking in their cultivation and studies. I acknowledge this and sincerely thank you.

I have received the message, and I would also like to clarify this point. 🙏)

 

(This is my final clarification: I am only a practitioner of the Buddhadharma. I have stated this before. If it remains unclear, I can do nothing further.)

 

Master Banji

 

 

 

 

南禪28號潮州讀書會4

（記念心儀敬重的大德）

 

有一陣子非常仔細看過陳寅恪，俞大維兩位先生的資料，

他們的高節人格超越了許多的修行者，

我曾經想過這樣的人物，跟證入佛法果位間有著多大的距離？

 

通過漫長的摸索、思考才懂，這是心力放在哪裡的問題！

我必須承認佛法證入裡面加入時間、空間後，可以了解的深度與廣度非常的遠，

而基本的優良人格是一個必須有的基礎，

就好像大家走路的目標不一樣，結果也會不一樣，

所要解決的問題也不同。

 

否則這些大德們，讓他們修持佛法，也是萬萬人所不能及的。

半寄

 

以下AI資料： 陳寅恪先生考據實例： 〈三國志曹沖稱象故事借用印度故事考〉   在《三國志·魏書》中，記載了曹操的兒子曹沖年僅五、六歲時，利用排水量原理稱出一頭大象重量的天才事蹟。千百年來，這被視為中國神童教育的典範。   但陳寅恪透過比對發現，這極可能是一個「移植」過來的印度佛教故事。   1. 疑點的發現：地理與時間 陳寅恪指出，在曹魏時代的北方，大象並非產物。雖然孫權曾送象給曹操，但在當時的技術與環境下，一個五歲小孩能想出如此精確的物理實驗，在史實上存在疑慮。   2. 佛經中的「原型」 他在**《雜寶藏經·卷一》**中找到了一個極其相似的故事：   • 情節：天神問難耆婆（或國王），如何得知大象的重量？ • 解決方案：故事中提到「置象船上，劃水齊深，後卸象，以石填之，稱石即知」。 • 語言學證據：陳先生指出，《雜寶藏經》是在北魏時期由沙門吉迦夜與曇曜譯出，而其核心素材來自於更早傳入的印度民間故事（佛經本生故事）。   3. 結論與史學意義 陳寅恪認為，曹魏時期佛教正處於傳入與本土化的早期階段，許多外來的佛經故事（民間傳說）被附會到了當時的名人（如聰穎的曹沖）身上，以增加故事的流傳度。   核心觀點：陳寅恪並非要否定曹沖的聰穎，而是要揭示**「史實與傳說的混雜」**。他證明了魏晉南北朝的史料中，滲透了大量隨佛教傳入的印度文化元素，若不通曉佛經，就無法分辨歷史的真偽。   這個研究的獨特性 這個案例之所以出名，是因為它體現了陳氏研究的三個層次： 1. 博通經史：不僅熟讀正史，更遍覽大藏經。 2. 懷疑精神：不迷信傳統史料的記載。 3. 文化交融：將中國中古史置於整個「亞洲文化圈」（包括印度、西域）的背景下考察。

 

NanZen Study Club in Chaozhou on March 28 4

        (In memory of the great people I admire and respect)

For a period of time, I studied in great 

detail the lives and works of Mr. Chen Yinke and Mr. Yu Dawei. Their noble integrity surpassed that of many religious practitioners. I once wondered how great the distance might be between such individuals and the attainment of realization in Buddhism.

 

After a long period of exploration and reflection, I came to understand that the essential issue lies in where one invests one’s inner strength. When realization in the Buddhadharma is viewed through the dimensions of time and space, its potential depth and scope become immensely vast. However, upright moral character remains a necessary foundation. Just as travelers with different destinations arrive at different results, the questions they aim to solve also differ.

 

Had these distinguished men applied themselves to Buddhist cultivation, their accomplishments would have been beyond the reach of the vast majority.

 

Master Banji

 

AI Data Mr. Chen Yinke’s Historical Research Example: “A Study of the Story of Cao Chong Weighing the Elephant in the Records of the Three Kingdoms as Borrowed from an Indian Tale” In the Records of the Three Kingdoms (Book of Wei), there is a famous story about Cao Cao’s young son, Cao Chong. When he was only five or six years old, he supposedly figured out how to weigh a large elephant by using the principle of water displacement. For centuries, this story has been regarded as a classic example of a child prodigy in Chinese tradition. However, through careful comparison of texts, Chen Yinke suggested that this story was very likely “borrowed” from an Indian Buddhist tale. 1. Discovering the Doubts: Geography and Historical Context Chen pointed out that elephants were not native to northern China during the Cao Wei period. Although Sun Quan once sent an elephant to Cao Cao, it would still be questionable—given the technology and environment of that time—that a five-year-old child could design such a precise physical experiment. From a historical perspective, the story raises doubts. 2. The “Prototype” in Buddhist Scriptures Chen found a remarkably similar story in the Miscellaneous Treasures Sutra(Volume One). • Plot: A heavenly being challenges Jivaka (or a king) with the question: How can one determine the weight of an elephant? • Solution: The story describes placing the elephant on a boat and marking how deep the boat sinks in the water. Then the elephant is removed, and stones are loaded onto the boat until the water reaches the same level. By weighing the stones, one can know the elephant’s weight. • Linguistic Evidence: Chen noted that the Miscellaneous Treasures Sutra was translated in the Northern Wei dynasty by the monks Jikaya and Tanyao. Its core material, however, came from earlier Indian folk stories, especially Buddhist Jataka tales. 3. Conclusion and Historical Significance Chen Yinke argued that during the Cao Wei period, Buddhism was still in its early stage of transmission and adaptation in China. Many foreign Buddhist stories and folk legends were gradually attached to well-known historical figures—such as the clever Cao Chong—to make them more appealing and easier to spread. Core Insight: Chen was not trying to deny Cao Chong’s intelligence. Rather, he aimed to reveal the mixture of historical fact and legend. He demonstrated that many historical records from the Wei, Jin, and Northern and Southern Dynasties were influenced by Indian cultural elements brought in through Buddhism. Without knowledge of Buddhist scriptures, it would be difficult to distinguish history from borrowed legend. Why This Research Is Important This case is famous because it shows three key characteristics of Chen Yinke’s scholarship: 1. Vast Learning: He was deeply familiar not only with official historical records, but also with the entire Buddhist canon. 2. Critical Spirit: He did not blindly accept traditional historical accounts. 3. Cultural Perspective: He examined medieval Chinese history within the broader context of the Asian cultural sphere, including India and Central Asia.

讀書會2 NanZen Study Club2

 南禪28號潮州讀書會2

 

讀書會問題之1，比較太虛大師跟虛雲老和尚的入定境界，

 

把以前讀過的資料，找出來看，

我的眼光通常是比較全面性的，因為「入定」通常佔據的時間不多，而影響一位修行者的是很多有關於他個人的遭遇跟時代背景，

 

所以我喜歡用比較全面性的問題來看待，最近會想為什麼我當年沒有去追陳寅恪先生的研究，

 

剛好讀書會有問題要回答，就去找一下來做個解答，入定也應該去看看，修行者的背後背景，或許可以了解到更多。

 

半寄

 

 

以下AI資料： 陳寅恪先生的佛學研究與日本學者（如高楠順次郎、宇井伯壽、鈴木大拙等）的關係，可以用**「同源而異流」**來形容。   兩者在20世紀初都深受歐洲「東方學」（Orientalism）的洗禮，強調利用梵文、巴利文、藏文等多種語言對勘佛典。但在研究的終極關懷上，兩者存在著顯著的差距：   1. 研究動機的差距：以佛證史 vs. 以佛證佛   這是兩者最大的分歧點。 • 陳寅恪（以佛證史）： 他對佛教教義（如涅槃、空性）的哲學辯證興趣不大。他研究佛學是為了**「補史之闕」**。 他想知道的是：這個佛經故事如何演變成中國民間傳說？這部譯經如何反映了當時的民族遷徙或政治權力？   • 日本學者（以佛證史/佛學主體）： 日本擁有深厚的宗派傳統，日本學者（如宇井伯壽）的研究更傾向於**「佛學主體化」**。 他們致力於建立嚴密的「印度哲學史」或「佛教邏輯學（因明）」，側重於教義的演變與哲學體系的構建。   2. 資料處理的差距：微觀考據 vs. 宏觀集成 • 陳寅恪： 像是一名**「外科醫生」**。他往往從一個極小的點切入（如一個譯名、一個神話原型），精確地解剖出背後的歷史真相。他的作品多為隨筆、跋文，缺乏像日本學者那樣的大型通史著作。   • 日本學者： 像是一群**「建築師」。日本學界在20世紀完成了驚人的基礎建設，例如編纂了《大正新脩大藏經》**（這是現代佛學研究的標準版本）。他們的研究通常具有極強的系統性，涵蓋從原始佛教到大乘各宗派的完整發展史。   3. 語言應用的差距：考據工具 vs. 文獻整理 • 陳寅恪： 他將梵、巴、藏語視為**「偵探工具」**。他能利用語言的細微差別發現漢譯佛經的誤譯， 進而推翻某段歷史記載。   • 日本學者：  他們將多語言對勘**「標準化」**。日本學者如荻原雲來、河口慧海等人， 對梵、藏文獻的整理是全面性的，旨在還原整部經典的原始風貌，而不僅僅是為了解決某個歷史問題。   具體優劣對比表   陳寅恪 核心目標：解決中國中古史問題 主要貢獻：發現佛經對中國文學、史實的滲透 研究視野：民族、政治、文化交流史 侷限性：缺乏系統性的佛學理論著作   日本學術界（20世紀中期） 核心目標：建立佛教哲學與歷史體系 主要貢獻：完成《大正藏》編纂、系統化印佛史 研究視野：宗教學、文獻學、心理學 侷限性：早期部分研究帶有強烈的宗派成見。

 

 

NanZen Study Club in Chaozhou on March 28 2

 

The first question in our study club concerns a comparison between the meditative states of Master Taixu and Elder Master Xuyun.

 

I looked back at materials I had previously read. My perspective is usually more comprehensive, because “entering samadhi” does not occupy most of a practitioner’s time. What truly shapes a cultivator is often their personal experiences and the historical context in which they lived.

 

So I prefer to approach such questions from a broader perspective. Recently, I have also been wondering why I did not pursue research on Mr. Chen Yinke in the past.

 

Since the book club required an answer, I decided to look up relevant materials and prepare a response. When discussing meditative absorption, we should also examine the background of the practitioner. This may help us gain a deeper understanding.!

 

Master Banji

 

 

AI Data Mr. Chen Yinke’s study of Buddhism and the work of Japanese scholars like KōnanJunjirō, Ui Hakuju, and Suzuki Daisetsu can be described as “coming from the same source but going in different directions.” In the early 1900s, both were influenced by European Orientalist scholarship. They compared Buddhist texts in Sanskrit, Pāli, Tibetan, and Chinese. However, their main goals were quite different. 1. Different Goals • Chen Yinke: He did not focus much on Buddhist philosophy itself, such as nirvana or emptiness. He studied Buddhism mainly to solve problems in Chinese history. For example, he asked: How did a Buddhist story become a Chinese folk tale? What does a translation tell us about politics or ethnic groups at that time? • Japanese scholars: Japan had strong Buddhist traditions. Scholars like Ui Hakuju wanted to build Buddhism as a complete academic field. They studied Indian philosophy and Buddhist logic and tried to explain how Buddhist ideas developed over time. 2. Different Research Styles • Chen Yinke: He worked like a careful surgeon. He would start from one small detail—such as a translated word—and use it to uncover historical truth. He mostly wrote essays instead of large, systematic books. • Japanese scholars: They worked more like architects. They built large research systems. For example, they compiled the Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō, which became the standard modern edition of the Buddhist canon. Their work covered the whole history of Buddhism. 3. Different Use of Languages • Chen Yinke: He used Sanskrit, Pāli, and Tibetan as tools to check translations and correct historical mistakes. • Japanese scholars: They carefully organized and compared texts in different languages to restore the original form of entire scriptures. Comparison Table (Summary) Chen Yinke • Main goal: Solve problems in medieval Chinese history • Contribution: Showed how Buddhism influenced Chinese literature and history • Focus: Ethnic, political, and cultural exchange • Weakness: Did not build a full Buddhist philosophical system Japanese scholars (mid-20th century) • Main goal: Build a full system of Buddhist philosophy and history • Contribution: Compiled the Taishō Canon and systematized Indian Buddhist history • Focus: Religion, texts, philosophy • Weakness: Some early research was influenced by sectarian bias