劃破佛法黑暗史2 Breaking Through the Dark History of Buddhism 2

 

劃破佛法黑暗史2

 

「坐甕而亡」在中國及日本地區曾經奉為圭臬，

這跟埃及的木乃伊都是類似的思想 ，把死亡的肉體視為另一種神秘的崇高，

雖然是不同的信仰，

但木乃伊至少是在死後製作的，

 

「坐甕而亡」這類的錯誤殘酷認知，

在被冠上佛法的權威以後一樣崇高無比。

攤開《阿含經》原始教典，很難相信佛法發展到最後，會出現如此的殘酷行為。

半寄

 

AI資料   在日本佛教史中，「坐甕而亡」通常指涉一種極端的修行實踐 ——肉身菩薩（即身成佛）。這並非一般的 死亡儀式，而是一種 結合了極度自律、斷食與禪定的入滅過程。   以下是關於這項歷史傳統的詳細解析：   1. 核心信仰：即身成佛 這種修行主要盛行於山岳信仰與真言宗（空 海大師創立）的背景 下。修行者相信，透過特定的肉體磨練與冥想， 可以在現世以肉身之軀直接成就佛果，而不必經過無數次的輪迴。   最著名的精神領袖是空海（弘法大師），傳說他並未真正死去， 而是於高野山奧之院入定，等待彌勒菩薩降生。   2. 嚴酷的「木食修行」 在真正進入甕中之前，僧人必須進行長達數年甚至十年的準備工 作，稱為「木食： • 排除五穀： 停止食用米、麥、豆等主食。 • 攝取樹皮與種子： 僅靠松針、樹皮、堅果維持生命。 • 身體脫脂： 這種飲食的目的是為了消耗掉全身的脂肪與水分， 防止死後屍體腐爛。 • 服用漆樹汁： 在後期，僧人會飲用漆樹汁（用於製作漆器的 漆）。這會引發嚴重的嘔吐與排泄，進一步脫水，且漆的化學成 分具有防腐作用。   3. 坐甕入滅的過程 當僧人感到大限將至，便會進行最後的步驟： 1. 入甕： 僧人盤腿坐入一個特製的石製或木製大甕中。 2. 地下石室： 甕被埋入地下數公尺深的石室內。 3. 通風與聯繫： 石室上方會留有一根細小的竹管通往地面，提 供少量氧氣。 4. 搖鈴止息： 僧人在甕中持續誦經冥想，每天搖動手中的小鈴 鐺。當地面上的弟子聽不到鈴聲時，即代表僧人已經入滅。 5. 封死與掘出： 弟子會移除竹管並完全密封石室。通常在三年 三個月後，才會將甕掘出。   4. 歷史上的分佈與現狀   這項傳統在江戶時代的**山形縣（出羽三山地區）**最為興盛， 因為當地山岳信仰極為強大。 • 現存肉身佛： 日本目前保存完好的「肉身菩薩」約有 17 至 18  尊，多數供奉在山形縣、新潟縣等地的寺院中（例如：圓明院、 南岳寺）。 •  法律禁令： 明治維新後，日本政府為了現代化與防止自殺行 為，於 1872 年頒布了**《墳墓埋葬條例》**，正式禁止了這種極端的入滅方式。   需要釐清的一點： 雖然空海提倡「肉身成就佛果」，但他在世時並未提倡那種將自 己活活製成木乃伊的「即身佛」極端行為。   • 空海的「即身成佛」： 側重於意識與法身的合一，是宗教上的 覺悟與法力的獲得。 • 後世的「木乃伊化修行」： 主要是後來日本東北地區（如出羽 三山）的部分山岳修行者，將空海的理論極端化後的產物，認為 肉身不腐才是成佛的物理證明。

 

Breaking Through the Dark History of Buddhism 2

 

In the past, a practice called “dying while sitting inside a jar” was respected in some areas of China and Japan.

 

This idea is somewhat similar to Egyptian mummification,

which treats the dead body as something sacred and mysterious.

 

Despite the differences in religious belief, ,

mummies are at least made after death.

 

The practice of “dying inside a jar,” however, shows a cruel misunderstanding.

 

Once such practices were given the authority of Buddhism,

people began to treat them as extremely sacred.

 

Yet when we read the early scriptures of the Āgamas,

it is hard to believe that Buddhism could eventually develop into practices that involve such cruelty.

 

Master Banji

 

AI Data In the history of Japanese Buddhism, the phrase “dying while seated inside a jar”usually refers to an extreme form of religious practice known as becoming a living Buddha through self-mummification (attaining Buddhahood in one’s own body). This was not an ordinary death ritual. Instead, it was a process of entering death through severe discipline, long periods of fasting, and deep meditation. Below is a detailed explanation of this historical practice. 1. Core Belief: Attaining Buddhahood in This Very Body This type of practice mainly developed within the context of mountain ascetic traditions and Shingon Buddhism, which was founded by Kūkai. Practitioners believed that through intense physical discipline and meditation, it was possible to attain Buddhahood in this very body during one’s lifetime, without going through countless cycles of rebirth. The most famous spiritual figure associated with this idea is Kūkai (also known as Kōbō Daishi). According to tradition, he did not truly die. Instead, he is believed to have entered eternal meditation at Okunoin Cemetery on Mount Kōya, where he waits for the future appearance of Maitreya. 2. The Harsh “Wood-Eating” Practice Before entering the jar, monks had to undergo years—sometimes even a decade—of preparation known as “mokujiki” (wood-eating practice). • Eliminating grains: They stopped eating staple foods such as rice, wheat, and beans. • Eating bark and seeds: Their diet consisted mainly of pine needles, tree bark, nuts, and wild plants. • Removing body fat: The purpose of this diet was to remove as much body fat and moisture as possible, which would help prevent the body from decaying after death. • Drinking lacquer tree sap: In the final stage, monks sometimes drank the sap of the lacquer tree (the substance used to make lacquerware). This caused severe vomiting and diarrhea, further dehydrating the body. The chemicals in the lacquer also helped preserve the body. 3. The Process of Entering Death in the Jar When the monk felt that the end of life was approaching, the final stage began: 1. Entering the jar: The monk sat cross-legged inside a specially prepared large stone or wooden jar. 2. Underground chamber: The jar was placed inside a stone chamber several meters underground. 3. Air and communication: A thin bamboo tube was left connecting the chamber to the surface, allowing a small amount of air to enter. 4. The bell signal: The monk would continue chanting and meditating inside the jar, ringing a small bell each day. When the disciples on the surface could no longer hear the bell, they knew the monk had died. 5. Sealing and excavation: The bamboo tube was removed and the chamber completely sealed. Usually, after three years and three months, the jar would be opened. 4. Historical Distribution and Current Situation This tradition was especially common during the Edo period in the Yamagata Prefecture area, particularly around the sacred mountains known as Dewa Sanzan, where mountain worship traditions were very strong. • Existing mummified monks: Today, about 17–18 preserved “living Buddhas” remain in Japan. Many are enshrined in temples in Yamagata and Niigata Prefecture, such as Enmyō-in Temple and Nangaku-ji Temple. • Legal prohibition: After the Meiji Restoration, the Japanese government sought to modernize society and prevent acts considered to be suicide. In 1872, it issued the Grave and Burial Regulation of 1872, which officially banned this extreme practice. An Important Clarification Although Kūkai taught the idea of attaining Buddhahood in this very body, he did not promote the extreme practice of turning oneself into a mummy while alive. • Kūkai’s concept of “attaining Buddhahood in this body”: It emphasized spiritual awakening—the union of consciousness with the Dharma body and the realization of enlightenment. • Later self-mummification practices: These were mainly developed by later mountain ascetics in northeastern Japan (especially around Dewa Sanzan). They pushed Kūkai’s ideas to an extreme, believing that an incorruptible physical body was physical proof of Buddhahood.

 

劃破佛法黑暗史1 Breaking Through the Dark History of Buddhism 1

 劃破佛法黑暗史1

 

那時候在讀日本一些佛法書籍時，

看到日蓮宗創教者日蓮的歷史，

 

跟中國的宗派佛教一樣，都是強調自己所提倡的佛法才是真正的正統，其他的佛法都是邪法？

 

面對《阿含經》原始教典，對於曾經有的佛教歷史，感慨萬千。

 

要如何去感謝提倡《原始教典阿含經》的學者呢？！

 

「看過《雜阿含經》才知道那一些爭的你死我活的所謂佛教正統，

可以用一場荒謬來形容嗎？」

 

人類的文明史，從來都是一場血淚的交織開創出來的。

 

半寄

 

 

AI資料   日蓮（Nichiren）是日本佛教日蓮宗的開創始祖。   在鎌倉時代的日本，他是極具個人色彩且戰鬥力極強的僧人。他 與當時其他宗派（如淨土宗、禪宗）最大的不同在於，他主張 《法華經》是唯一的正法，並認為其他的教義都是導致國家災難 的「邪法」。   以下是關於他開創宗派的幾個核心關鍵：   1. 宗派的誕生：立正安國 日蓮並非為了創立而創立，他的出發點是「救國」。 • 建長五年（1253年）： 日蓮在清澄山頂面對朝陽，高唱「南無 妙法蓮華經」（題目），這被視為日蓮宗的「立宗宣言」。 • 核心教義： 他強調只要一心稱念這句「題目」，不論身分高 低，皆能即身成佛。   2. 他與其他僧人的不同之處   當時的日本僧人大多追求個人解脫或為貴族祈福，但日蓮表現出極強的政治參與感： • 直接挑戰幕府： 他撰寫《立正安國論》呈給掌權者，要求政府 禁止其他宗派，這在當時是極其危險且史無前例的行為。 • 強烈的排他性： 他提出著名的「四箇格言」來批判其他宗派 （例如：念佛地獄、禪天魔等），這也導致他一生遭遇無數次的 追殺與流放。   3. 日蓮宗的後世發展   日蓮圓寂後，他的弟子們（如日昭、日朗、日興等）將教義傳播 開來。隨著時間推移，日蓮宗演變出許多不同的流派： • 日蓮宗（身延山久遠寺）： 傳統的宗派門戶。 • 日蓮正宗： 強調日興門流的傳承。 • 新興宗教： 如現代著名的創價學會、立正佼成會等，雖然是現 代組織，但其思想根源全部來自於日蓮。

 

Breaking Through the Dark History of Buddhism 1

 

When I was reading some Japanese books about Buddhism,

I saw the history of Nichiren, the founder of NichirenBuddhism.

 

Like many sects in Chinese Buddhism,

his school insisted that its teaching was the only true Buddhism,

while other Buddhist teachings were considered wrong.

 

When we read the early Buddhist scriptures called the Āgama Sutras,

we cannot help but feel deeply moved when thinking about the history Buddhism has gone through.

 

How can we thank the scholars who worked hard to bring attention back to the original Āgama scriptures?

 

“After reading the Saṃyukta Āgama,

we may wonder whether the fierce struggles over so-called Buddhist orthodoxy were actually quite absurd.”

 

Human civilization has always been built through suffering, struggle, and sacrifice.

Master Banji

 

AI Data Nichiren was the founding figure of Nichiren Buddhism in Japan. During Japan’s Kamakura period, he was a monk with a very strong personality and a highly combative style.  What made him different from other Buddhist schools at the time (such as Pure Land Buddhism and Zen Buddhism) was his belief that the Lotus Sutra was the only true teaching of Buddhism.  He also claimed that other doctrines were “false teachings” that could bring disasters to the nation. Below are several key points about the founding of his school.   1. The Birth of the Sect: “Establishing the True Teaching to Bring Peace to the Nation” Nichiren did not found a sect simply for the sake of creating one. His main concern was to save the country. • 1253 CE (the 5th year of the Kenchō era): On the summit of Mount Kiyosumi, Nichiren faced the rising sun and loudly chanted “Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō.” This chant (called the daimoku) is regarded as the declaration of the founding of Nichiren Buddhism. • Core teaching: Nichiren taught that anyone—regardless of social status—could attain Buddhahood in this very lifetime simply by sincerely chanting this phrase. 2. How Nichiren Was Different from Other Monks Most Japanese monks at that time focused either on personal spiritual liberation or on performing prayers for the aristocracy.  Nichiren, however, showed a strong sense of political  engagement. • Directly challenging the government: He wrote the treatise Risshō Ankoku Ron (“On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Nation”) and presented it to the ruling authorities, urging the government to ban other Buddhist sects. This was an extremely bold and unprecedented action at the time. • Strong exclusivism: Nichiren criticized other Buddhist schools through the famous “Four Dicta.” For example, he claimed that Pure Land teachings would lead people to hell and that Zen teachings were influenced by demonic forces. Because of these views, he faced many persecutions, assassination attempts, and periods of exile throughout his life. 3. Later Development of Nichiren Buddhism After Nichiren passed away, his disciples—such as Nisshō, Nichirō, and Nikkō—continued spreading his teachings. Over time, Nichiren Buddhism developed into several different branches: • Nichiren-shū – the traditional sect centered at Kuon-ji Temple on Mount Minobu. • Nichiren Shōshū – a branch emphasizing the lineage of Nikkō. • Modern new religious movements – such as Soka Gakkai and Risshō KōseiKai. Although these are modern organizations, their ideas ultimately trace back to Nichiren’s teachings.

 

太虛大師與漢學家2 Master Taixu and Sinologists 2

 太虛大師與漢學家2

 

有段時間我一直在想陳寅恪先生的人格，已直追中國儒家典範顏回，

這種佛法也要的基礎修行人格，會不會導致他在讀巴利文佛經的時候，如《阿含經》裡面所描述的，

聽講（讀）就證入了佛法果位，

例如；佛陀弟子舍利弗。

 

佛法的聖人果位，基本上第一個步驟，是修行者對佛法的內容徹底清楚的意思，

 

而這種清楚，慧根高尚的大德，是可以自己理解的，

 

但中國那時代的知識分子一直跟國家天下不劃分，我個人看到的是，他研究學問最終都導向政權的分析，

像巴利文的研究也沒有推導到佛經的傳法問題，反而是佛法在中國的歷史問題，

 

這背景與佛家基礎所提出對「破身見」的徹底理解，是背道而馳的，

 

最後我只看到太虛大師一個人帶著一群他的弟子孤軍奮戰，

那時代的中國知識分子，加入研究佛經的學者不少，但其助力少的可憐，

半寄

AI資料   陳寅恪在哈佛大學與柏林大學留學期間，追隨大師如藍曼 （Charles Rockwell Lanman）學習梵文與巴利文。他主張「史學 與語言學不可分」，認為要研究佛教對中國文化的影響，必須直 接閱讀原始文本。   2. 佛經對勘的研究方法 陳寅恪最著名的研究方法之一是「利用多種語言對勘佛典」。 • 他常將巴利文佛經（南傳佛教文本）與梵文、藏文及漢譯佛經進行比較。 • 這種方法幫助他糾正了許多漢譯佛經中的謬誤，並藉此推敲出原始文本的真實含義，進而解決歷史懸案。   3.陳寅恪的研究確實展現了極強的「政治史」導向，但他並非單 純研究政權更迭，而是開創了「種族與文化」與「政治權力」相 互交織的分析框架。   他最核心的學術貢獻——「隋唐史」研究，本質上就是在解構 「政權的組成基因」。

 

AI資料1 在陳寅恪先生（1890－1969）活躍的時代，日本的佛學研究 正處於從傳統「僧侶學問」轉向「近代批判學術」的黃金 期。   當時的日本學者利用地緣優勢，結合了漢文典籍、梵藏語對 勘以及西方的歷史語言學方法，其成就令陳寅恪也深為推 崇。   以下是與陳寅恪同時代、且對後世影響深遠的日本佛學巨擘 及其代表作品： 1. 高楠順次郎（Takakusu Junjiro, 1866－1945） 他是日本近代佛學的開拓者，曾留學英國師從麥克斯·繆勒。 • 代表作： 主編**《大正新修大藏經》**。 • 影響： 這部作品是現代佛學研究的「標準檢索工具」。他將 雜亂的漢傳佛教文獻進行了科學的分類與校勘。陳寅恪在研 究中頻繁引用《大正藏》，這正是高楠順次郎時代的功績。   2. 宇井伯壽（Ui Hakuju, 1882－1963） 他將印度哲學與佛教邏輯（因明學）帶入了嚴謹的文獻學軌道。 • 代表作： 《印度哲學研究》（共六卷）、《佛教論理學》。 • 影響： 宇井以極其冷靜的「文獻實證主義」聞名。他對勝 論派、唯識宗的分析，與陳寅恪強調「歷史語言學」的精神非常契合。   3. 鈴木大拙（Suzuki Daisetz, 1870－1966） 與陳寅恪同時代，但走的是向西方弘揚禪學的路線。 • 代表作： 《禪學論文集》（Essays in Zen Buddhism）、《楞伽 經研究》。 • 影響： 雖然陳寅恪的研究偏向歷史考據，而鈴木偏向哲學 體驗，但鈴木對《楞伽經》的梵漢對勘研究，在當時的學術 界仍具有高度的工具價值。   4. 木村泰賢（Kimura Taiken, 1881－1930） 他是早期將原始佛教與阿毗達磨（論藏）系統化的重要學者。 • 代表作： 《原始佛教思想論》、《阿毗達磨論之研究》。 • 影響： 木村的作品在 1920-30 年代被大量翻譯引進中國， 直接影響了當時中國學界（如歐陽竟無、呂澂等人）對印度 佛教發展史的認知。   5. 常盤大定（Tokiwa Daijo, 1870－1945） 他與陳寅恪的研究領域最為接近，側重於中國佛教史與金石 考古。 • 代表作： 《支那佛教史蹟》（與關野雄合著）、《支那佛教之研究》。 • 影響： 他多次親自來到中國進行田野調查，拍攝了大量佛 寺、石窟、碑刻。陳寅恪在考證中古史時，對於這類金石與 地理實證非常重視，常盤的研究為當時提供了珍貴的一手資料。 為什麼陳寅恪會關注他們？ 陳寅恪曾在留學期間學習梵文、巴利文，他深知若要研究中 古史，必須掌握佛教如何「中國化」。當時日本學者的優勢在於： 1. 語言工具： 他們普遍精通梵語、藏語，能發現漢譯佛經中 的誤譯。 2. 方法論： 他們將佛教視為「歷史」而非單純的「宗教」。

 

 

AI資料2 : 印順導師與同時期學者研究對比   印順導師（1906－1979）與上述日本學者（如宇井伯壽、木村泰 賢）雖然大致處於同一時代，但他們的學術底色與研究終極目標 有顯著差異。陳寅恪曾感慨中國僧眾疏於文獻考證，而印順導師 則是極少數能以一己之力，在學術嚴謹度上與日本「東大派」抗 衡的中國僧伽學者。   以下是印順導師與日本學界研究的深度對比： 1. 研究方法的對比：文獻考據 vs. 以經證經 日本學者（如宇井、高楠）： 採用的主要是**「歷史語言學」 **。他們強調梵、藏、漢三種文本的對勘，試圖透過語言層面的 差異，還原印度佛教的原貌。這是一種「由外而內」的客觀解剖。   印順導師： 採用的主要是**「以經證經」的史性考證**。印順 雖不通梵文，但他對漢譯三藏（尤其是《阿含經》與各派論典） 的熟稔程度無人能及。他能從浩如煙海的漢文經卷中，梳理出思 想演變的微細脈絡。   核心觀點的對比：印度中心 vs. 中道復興   • 日本學者（木村泰賢）： 側重於進化論式的研究。木村將原始 佛教到大乘佛教視為一個自然的思想演進過程，重點在於解釋「 變化」的歷史原因。 • 印順導師： 提出**「人間佛教」與「性空唯名」。他著名的 「印度之佛教」史觀，是為了從繁雜的演變中剔除「梵化」（印 度教化）的成分，找回佛陀本有的「人間性」。他的研究帶有強 烈的「正本清源」**目的。   3. 代表作品的直接交鋒 在 1940 年代，印順導師的作品與日本學界的成果在學界產生了互補與對應：   日本學者代表作：木村泰賢《原始佛教思想論》 宇井伯壽《中論研究》 高楠順次郎《佛教哲學大綱》 鈴木大拙《禪思想史研究》   印順代表作：《雜阿含經論會編》、《中觀今論》、《印度之佛教》《中國禪宗史》   4. 關鍵差異點：學術生命力的來源 • 日本學者的侷限： 當時日本佛學研究雖然工具先進，但有時會 陷入過度的「碎片化」考證，甚至為了證明某種教理演進而忽略 了信仰的整體性。 • 印順導師的優勢： 他對**「判教」**（教理系統分類）有著大 師級的宏觀視角。他能解釋為什麼某個思想在歷史上會這樣轉 變，而不僅僅是記錄它變了。他的《中國禪宗史》甚至修正了日 本學者在敦煌文獻研究中的某些偏差，並因此獲得日本大正大學的正式博士學位，這在當時是極高的國際學術認可。   總結 如果說日本學者是**「解剖學家」，精確地切割並標註佛教的每 一根骨頭；那麼印順導師則是「生理學家」**，他在承認歷史變 遷的同時，試圖找出佛教流動的「血脈」在哪裡。

 

Master Taixu and Sinologists 2

 

For some time, I have reflected on how Chen Yinkeseemed, in character, close to Yan Hui, the exemplary Confucian disciple.

 

I sometimes wonder whether this kind of moral and spiritual foundation—similar to the basic character required in Buddhist practice—might have allowed him, when reading Pali scriptures such as the Agamas, to directly realize the first stage of Four Stages of Enlightenment, just as the Buddha’s disciple Sariputta did upon hearing the teaching.

 

In Buddhism, the first stage of Buddhism’s Four Stages of Enlightenment basically means that the practitioner fully understands the meaning of the Buddha’s teaching. For people of great wisdom, such understanding can arise through their own insight.

 

Yet Chinese intellectuals of that period tended not to separate scholarship from national and political concerns. In Chen’s case, his research ultimately pointed toward political analysis. Even his study of Pali texts did not focus on questions of Dharma transmission within Buddhism itself, but rather on historical issues concerning how Buddhism developed in China.

 

Such a background stands in direct opposition to the core Buddhist principle of completely dismantling the belief in a fixed and independent self.

 

Ultimately, it seems that only Taixu, together with his disciples, was striving persistently to reform and revitalize Buddhism. Although many Chinese scholars engaged in academic research on Buddhist scriptures, the tangible support they offered was extremely limited.

 

Master Banji

 

AI Data During his studies at Harvard University and Humboldt University of Berlin,  Chen Yinke studied Sanskrit and Pali under leading scholars such as Charles Rockwell Lanman. He strongly believed that “history and linguistics are inseparable. ” In his view, anyone who wanted to understand the influence of Buddhism on Chinese culture had to read the original texts directly rather than rely only on later translations. 2. Comparative Study of Buddhist Scriptures One of Chen Yinke’s most famous research methods was comparing Buddhist scriptures across multiple languages. • He frequently compared Pali texts (from the Theravāda tradition) with Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese translations of Buddhist scriptures. • This comparative method allowed him to identify errors in some Chinese translations. By correcting these mistakes, he could reconstruct the more authentic meaning of the original texts and, in some cases, solve long-standing historical puzzles. 3. A Political-Historical Perspective Chen Yinke’s scholarship clearly shows a strong focus on political history. However, he did not simply study the rise and fall of dynasties. Instead, he developed an analytical framework that examined how ethnicity, culture, and political power interacted with one another. His most important academic contribution—his research on the Sui and Tang periods—was essentially an attempt to analyze the “genetic composition” of political regimes: how different ethnic groups, cultural traditions, and intellectual forces combined to shape the structure and character of imperial power.

 

AI Data 1 During the lifetime of Chen Yinke (1890–1969), Japanese Buddhist studies was in a golden age, transitioning from traditional monastic scholarship to modern critical academic research. At that time, Japanese scholars took advantage of their geographic position and combined Chinese Buddhist texts, Sanskrit–Tibetan philological comparison, and Western historical-linguistic methods. Their achievements deeply impressed Chen Yinke. Below are major Japanese Buddhist scholars of Chen’s era whose work had lasting influence: 1. Takakusu Junjiro (1866–1945) A pioneer of modern Buddhist studies in Japan, he studied in Britain under Max Muller. • Major work: Chief editor of the Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō (Taishō Revised Tripiṭaka). • Influence: This edition became the standard reference tool for modern Buddhist research. Takakusu scientifically classified and collated the vast corpus of Chinese Buddhist texts. Chen Yinke frequently cited the Taishō canon in his research—an academic foundation made possible by Takakusu’s work. 2. Ui Hakuju (1882–1963) He brought Indian philosophy and Buddhist logic (hetuvidyā) into a rigorous philological framework. • Major works: Studies in Indian Philosophy (6 vols.), Buddhist Logic. • Influence: Ui was known for his calm and exacting textual positivism. His studies of the Vaiśeṣika school and Yogācāra philosophy closely aligned with Chen Yinke’s emphasis on historical linguistics and textual criticism. 3. Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki (1870–1966) A contemporary of Chen Yinke, though he focused on introducing Zen Buddhism to the West. • Major works: Essays in Zen Buddhism, Studies in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. • Influence: While Chen’s work centered on historical textual research and Suzuki emphasized philosophical and experiential interpretation, Suzuki’s Sanskrit–Chinese comparative study of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra remained an important scholarly tool at the time. 4. Kimura Taiken (1881–1930) One of the early scholars to systematize studies of Early Buddhism and Abhidharmathought. • Major works: Studies on Early Buddhist Thought, Research on Abhidharma. • Influence: In the 1920s and 1930s, Kimura’s works were widely translated into Chinese and significantly influenced Chinese intellectuals such as Ouyang Jingwu and Lu Cheng in their understanding of Indian Buddhist intellectual history. 5. Tokiwa Daijo (1870–1945) His research field was closest to Chen Yinke’s, focusing on Chinese Buddhist history, epigraphy, and archaeology. • Major works: Historical Sites of Chinese Buddhism (co-authored with SekinoTadashi), Studies in Chinese Buddhism. • Influence: Tokiwa conducted extensive fieldwork in China, documenting temples, caves, and inscriptions through photography and on-site investigation. Chen Yinke, who valued epigraphic and geographical evidence in his studies of medieval Chinese history, benefited from the primary materials Tokiwa helped preserve. Why Did Chen Yinke Pay Attention to Them? Chen Yinke studied Sanskrit and Pali during his years abroad. He understood that any serious study of medieval Chinese history required understanding how Buddhism became “Sinicized.” Japanese scholars at the time held two major advantages: 1. Linguistic tools: Many were proficient in Sanskrit and Tibetan, enabling them to identify mistranslations in Chinese Buddhist scriptures. 2. Methodology: They treated Buddhism as a subject of historical inquiry rather than purely as a religious tradition, applying modern philology and critical historical methods. It was precisely this combination of linguistic mastery and rigorous methodology that made their scholarship indispensable to Chen Yinke’s own intellectual project.

 

AI Data 2: Master Yinshun and His Comparison with Contemporary Japanese Scholars Yin Shun (1906–1979) lived in roughly the same period as Japanese Buddhist scholars such as Ui Hakuju and Kimura Taiken. However, their academic foundations and ultimate goals were quite different. Chen Yinke once lamented that many Chinese monks neglected serious textual research. Yinshun was one of the very few Chinese monastic scholars who, on his own, was able to match the academic rigor of Japan’s “Tokyo University school” of Buddhist studies. Below is a clear comparison between Yinshun and the Japanese academic approach. 1. Difference in Research Methods: Philology vs. “Using Sutras to Interpret Sutras” Japanese Scholars (such as Ui and Takakusu) Japanese scholars like Takakusu Junjiro mainly relied on historical linguistics. They compared Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese texts to reconstruct the original form of Indian Buddhism. Their method was analytical and objective—moving from external linguistic evidence toward internal doctrinal understanding. Master Yinshun Yinshun mainly used a method that could be described as “interpreting sutras through other sutras.” Although he did not read Sanskrit, his mastery of the Chinese Buddhist canon—especially the Agamas and various scholastic treatises—was extraordinary. From the vast ocean of Chinese texts, he traced subtle lines of doctrinal development with remarkable precision. 2. Core Perspectives: Evolutionary History vs. Recovery of the Middle Way Japanese Scholars (e.g., Kimura Taiken) Kimura viewed the development from Early Buddhism to Mahāyāna Buddhism as a natural intellectual evolution. His focus was on explaining how and why doctrinal changes occurred over time. Master Yinshun Yinshun proposed the ideas of “Humanistic Buddhism” and the doctrine of “Emptiness as dependent designation.” His historical view, especially in Indian Buddhism, aimed to remove later “Brahmanized” (Hindu-influenced) elements from Buddhism and recover what he believed to be the Buddha’s original human-centered teaching. His scholarship had a strong purpose: to return to the roots and clarify the authentic source of Buddhism. 3. Major Works in Direct Dialogue In the 1940s, Yinshun’s works formed an intellectual dialogue—sometimes complementary, sometimes corrective—with Japanese scholarship. Representative Japanese Works: • Kimura Taiken, Studies on Early Buddhist Thought • Ui Hakuju, Studies on the Madhyamaka • Takakusu Junjiro, Outline of Buddhist Philosophy • Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, Studies in the History of Zen Thought Representative Works of Yinshun: • Collected Explanations of the Saṃyukta Āgama • Modern Interpretation of Madhyamaka • Indian Buddhism • History of Chinese Chan Buddhism 4. The Key Difference: Source of Scholarly Vitality Limitations of Japanese Scholarship Although Japanese Buddhist studies had advanced tools and strong philological methods, it sometimes became overly fragmented. In some cases, scholars focused so much on proving doctrinal evolution that they overlooked the religious and spiritual unity of Buddhism as a whole. Strength of Master Yinshun Yinshun had a master-level grasp of doctrinal classification (panjiao). He could explain not only that a doctrine changed, but why it changed and what role it played in the larger structure of Buddhist thought. In his History of Chinese Chan Buddhism, he even corrected certain interpretations of Dunhuang manuscripts made by Japanese scholars. Because of the significance of his scholarship, he was awarded a doctoral degree by Taisho University—a very high form of international academic recognition at that time. Conclusion If Japanese scholars were like anatomists, carefully dissecting and labeling every bone of Buddhism with precision, then Master Yinshun was more like a physiologist—acknowledging historical change while searching for the living bloodstream that keeps Buddhism alive.