**Interviewer:** The origins and development of Han Chinese Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, and Southern Buddhism—could you elaborate on those?
**Dr. Ban Ban Duo Jie:** Chinese Buddhism is an umbrella term for various Buddhist systems that have evolved within China. When we look at its history, we can categorize it in several ways: historically, through different dynasties and periods; geographically, across different regions and ethnic groups; and by doctrinal language systems, which divides it into Han Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, and Southern Buddhism.
Buddhism began its journey to China around the 1st century BCE, originating from ancient India and entering the western regions of China (present-day Xinjiang) and the central plains. During this transmission, Buddhism interacted and fused with established Chinese philosophies such as Confucianism, Daoism, and folk beliefs, leading to the creation of a uniquely Chinese system—the Han Buddhist tradition.
The evolution of Han Buddhism can be divided into three main stages:
1. The Han and Three Kingdoms period through the Northern and Southern Dynasties, where Buddhism transitioned from introduction to increasing prominence.
2. The Sui and Tang dynasties marked the peak of Han Buddhism, characterized by the flourishing of its philosophical and doctrinal systems and the emergence of distinct sects like Tiantai, Huayan, and Chan.
3. The Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties saw a gradual integration of Buddhism with traditional Chinese culture, heavily influencing Song and Ming Neo-Confucian philosophy, ultimately forming a comprehensive tripartite system of canon, treatise, and discipline.
In the 7th century, Buddhism made its way from ancient India into Tibetan society, establishing what we know today as Tibetan Buddhism. This tradition has undergone three historical phases: the Early Spread (around 642-842 CE), the Divided Governance period (842-978 CE), and the Later Spread (978-present), spanning over 1300 years.
Tibetan Buddhism initiated its translation efforts upon arrival, producing significant works such as the “Three Great Catalogs” and compiling the Tibetan canon, which includes texts translated from Indian Buddhism and key Tibetan works.
Southern Buddhism is primarily found in regions inhabited by the Dai and Blang ethnic groups in Yunnan, and has spread to several countries in South and Southeast Asia as well as some Western nations. Southern Buddhism, which follows the Pali canon, respects only the historical Buddha, without venerating bodhisattvas or deities. The geographic proximity of Yunnan to Myanmar has also facilitated the adaptation of Southern Buddhism within Dai culture.
**Interviewer:** What are the unique characteristics of Han, Tibetan, and Southern Buddhism? How have they managed to coexist harmoniously throughout history?
**Dr. Ban Ban Duo Jie:** The development of Buddhism in India can be divided into four stages: early Buddhism, sectarian Buddhism, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. In understanding and interpreting Indian Buddhist texts, the three main Chinese Buddhist traditions have absorbed elements from various Indian sects corresponding to different historical phases. Southern Buddhism preserves the ethical practices of early Buddhism, whereas both Han and Tibetan Buddhism incorporate the doctrines of Mahayana and Vajrayana.
Instead of merely replicating Indian Buddhism, these traditions have contextualized it within China, effectively shifting the center of Buddhist development from India to China.
Han Buddhist scholars integrated Buddhist concepts with traditional Chinese thought, such as Confucianism and Daoism, allowing for the emergence of profound philosophies that enhanced Chinese philosophical discourse. The advent of Chan Buddhism and modern humanistic Buddhism illustrates how these traditions have deeply entwined with local philosophies, affirming that “the Dharma exists in the world, not apart from it,” emphasizing a philosophical engagement with everyday life.
Tibetan Buddhism has cultivated a system that harmonizes the teachings of both the exoteric and esoteric traditions, intertwining with Tibetan religious practices, including Bon, and Chinese traditions like Daoism. Its unique rebirth institution reflects a synthesis of Mahayana Buddha-nature theory, Tibetan temple governance, and historical support from various Chinese administrations, which illustrates a distinctive adaptability.
Southern Buddhism retains the essence of the Pali canon established in the 3rd century BCE. The Dai people in Yunnan have adapted its teachings reflecting their indigenous roots while still holding on to certain pre-existing tribal beliefs, thereby evolving into a distinctive “Dai Buddhism.”
Together, these three strands of Buddhism—while interconnected—possess distinct differences, creating a complex tapestry that forms the essence of Chinese Buddhism. This multifaceted relationship allows for a harmonious coexistence where diverse beliefs, while remaining unique, support and enrich one another across historical epochs.
**Interviewer:** From a philosophical hermeneutics perspective, how do you interpret the Sinicization of Buddhism in China and the emphasis on “adhering to the direction of Sinicizing our religions”?
**Dr. Ban Ban Duo Jie:** On one hand, Chinese exegesis emphasizes an authentic, accurate understanding of foundational texts. Scholars are encouraged to interpret and explain these classics while maintaining fidelity to their original meanings. On the other hand, there’s an encouragement to innovate within the context of interpretation to address contemporary issues relevant to current society.
Modern Western hermeneutics asserts that any classic text possesses characteristics of originality, truth, and openness, leading to a natural process of localization and indigenization as these texts interact with diverse readers and interpreters across different contexts.
The relationship between classic texts and interpretative texts is characterized by a dual nature of continuity and transformation, embodying a dynamic interplay between understanding and application.
As the Buddhist scriptures state, “The Buddha speaks one sound, yet beings understand in different ways according to their nature,” highlighting Buddhism’s potential for timely and appropriate application. This reflects what I call the “hermeneutics of common ontology,” where “ontology” encapsulates the core tenets of Buddhism, while “commonality” addresses individual capacities for understanding shaped by unique contexts and deeper cultural backgrounds. Together, this forms an intrinsic tension between contextual transformation and fundamental doctrines.
