A Comparative Perspective of “Engaged Buddhism” and “Renjian Fojiao” (“Humanistic Buddhism”) in Chinese Speaking Discourse: Exclusivism, Inclusivism, or Pragmatism?

Abstract

The two modern concepts, “Engaged Buddhism” and renjian fojiao 人間佛教, with the variety of its English translations (such as “Humanistic Buddhism”), were developed and discussed with and without reference to each other over several decades. This article raises the question of how “Engaged Buddhism” has been portrayed in the Chinese-speaking world. It therefore reflects on a hybrid conceptual history and distinguishes between “concept-unaffected” and “concept-affected” (“concept-affirming”, “concept-negating”, and “concept-corresponding”) positionings in the Buddhist world, as well as a “concept-distancing” and “concept-processing” scholarship of Buddhist studies. The concept of “Engaged Buddhism” has been rendered with various Chinese terms in mainland China and Taiwan, e.g., “rushi fojiao” 入世佛教 (Buddhism that Enters the World), “canyu fojiao” 參與佛教 (Participatory Buddhism), and “zuoyi fojiao” 左翼佛教 (Left-Wing Buddhism). As can be seen from a rich body of sources, its discussion among Chinese-speaking Buddhists and scholars increased over the past twenty years and has been strongly characterized by comparisons with “renjian fojiao”, which can lead to different currents, such as exclusivism, inclusivism, and pragmatism.

1. Introduction

In this article, I will talk about not one, but two conceptual histories.1 Eventually, I come to a discussion of a hybrid conceptual history, consisting of these concepts’ mutual demarcation, inspiration, and integration from a Chinese-speaking perspective.

The first problem we stumble across is a language dilemma. This article is written in English, but the two concepts I choose to discuss here did not exist in the English language when they were created.2 In Chinese, one was called: “renjian fojiao 人間佛教”,3 popularized by the reform-oriented Chinese monk Ven. Taixu 太虛 (1890–1947); so I will continue to call it “renjian fojiao” (unless I talk about one of its English “equivalents”). The other was originally given the French name “le Bouddhisme engagé”, based on a preceding Vietnamese wording,4 and invented by the socially engaged Vietnamese monk Ven. Thích Nhất Hạnh (1926–2022). Since “le Bouddhisme engagé” was set into an English context at a very early stage and both languages are directly related to each other, I will call it “Engaged Buddhism” in the following (unless I talk about one of its “equivalents” in other languages).

When talking about these concepts and their interrelation, much has been taken for granted in the past decades; but do we always keep the history of these concepts in mind? Do we always differ between the various players who were talking about them, and how they were using them in different times and places, and in different languages? Additionally, how do we deal with the interrelation of these concepts?

According to my observation, there is an urgent need to carry out a more systematic analysis and a clearer distinction of what we are talking about. For each concept, many actors already participated in numerous discussions and meta-discussions. Surely, such discussions will never truly end. However, they can be enriched by not just looking at each concept in isolation, but by also analyzing primary sources. This article will contribute to this complex topic by focusing on the Chinese-speaking discourse of Buddhists and related scholars. It will start with some structural remarks (Section 2) regarding the conceptual history of the above-mentioned concepts. Secondly, it will give a brief overview of the conceptual history of “renjian fojiao” in the context of this comparative approach (Section 3). Finally, it traces how the relationship between the two concepts was negotiated in Chinese-speaking discourse (Section 4 and Section 5).5

2. Structural Remarks

2.1. Emergence of Conceptual History: Similarity of Structural Conditions

When we regard the two concepts in the light of “conceptual history”, many structural conditions seem to be comparable (see

Table 1. Emergence of Conceptual History.

Emergence of Conceptual History: Similarity of Structural Conditions

“Reform-oriented” monk who experienced Mahāyāna Buddhism in the monastic context of an East Asian country:     Taixu (1890–1947)         Thích Nhất Hạnh (1926–2022)

subject: “Buddhism”

attribute:   “renjian”                 “engaged”

newly created term with no terminological existence in earlier Buddhist history

conceptualization and propagation throughout the whole life

):

(1)

First of all, both of these concepts were based on terms that did not exist in this way before. They centered around “Buddhism” as a subject and added an attribute to describe how it should be viewed and practiced. In both cases, this attribute never appeared as a modifier of a terminological entity in the earlier history of Buddhism.

(2)

Furthermore, in both cases, this terminological creation could be traced back to the initiative of a specific individual who, due to their respective historical contexts, could be described as a “reform-oriented” monk who was searching for an adaptation of Buddhism to modern times, but also for a certain reconnection to its roots, and who was experiencing Mahāyāna Buddhism in the monastic context of an East Asian country of the 20th century.6

(3)

Finally, in both cases, the initiators did not use the terms as mere “neologisms” or “slogans”, but rather conceptualized them and propagated them, at least to a certain degree, throughout their lives.

All this may seem quite superficial due to a lack of differentiation between the differences of these concepts’ evolution with regard to their concrete historical context and each individual’s motivation. It does not tell us about the contents of their conceptualization, the degree of their conceptual maturity, the fluidity of their further conceptual development, or the extent of their institutional dissemination and subsequent reception.

However, as will be seen, both concepts have something more in common in this discursive field; in the sense of the definition by Gallie (1956), they can be regarded as “essentially contested concepts”. Based on these structural conditions mentioned above, I will proceed with a comparison of the reception of these concepts in their ongoing historical development.

2.2. Typology of Five Modes of the Reception of Buddhist Concepts

As mentioned at the beginning of this paper, it is very important to have a clear idea of who made what out of the relevant concept, when, where, and for what purpose. A cautionary example is the never-ending discussion about “Engaged Buddhism” due to completely different points of view.

In the beginning of the 1960s, Thích Nhất Hạnh coined “Engaged Buddhism” as his own concept, continuously developing further his personal understanding of it. At the end of the 1980s, Buddhists such as Sulak Sivaraksa (1933–), the 14th Dalai Lama (1935–) and others, also began to use the term (or alternatively “Socially Engaged Buddhism”) and co-founded the “International Network of Engaged Buddhists” (INEB). At the beginning of the 1990s, scholars such as Queen and King (1996) started to adapt “Engaged Buddhism” as an academic category and gave it their own new definition(s).7

While none of them regarded “renjian fojiao” as a part of “Engaged Buddhism” in the beginning, in recent decades, it became accepted to a certain degree, as we can see from INEB’s conferences in Taiwan (2007, 2017), and, in the field of academia, in King’s (2018) categorization of “Engaged Buddhists” into “prophetic”, “nondualistic”, and “humanistic” Buddhists (which stands for renjian-fojiao-proponents). In the course of this development, scholars such as Main and Lai (2013) championed the idea of using the concept of “Engaged Buddhism” anachronistically as a category for modernist Buddhist movements that emerged at a time before the terminology “Engaged Buddhism” was even in use. This approach already became en vogue earlier (albeit less consciously and less academically underpinned), and once more allowed Taixu’s “renjian fojiao” to be subsumed under the (academic) concept of “Engaged Buddhism”.

In contrast to that, Ip (2009) suggested to avoid the mixture of “Engaged Buddhism” as a religious and academic concept and suggested to replace and redefine the academic category of “Engaged Buddhism” with “Buddhist Activism”—once again bringing “Engaged Buddhism” and “renjian-fojiao”-related concepts closer together. A more critical assessment of the academization of “Engaged Buddhism” was expressed by Amond Lele (2019), who argued against orientalist constructions and one-sided considerations without taking into account a “disengaged” component. On the basis of such distancing from “Engaged Buddhist Scholarship” and in order to separate “Engaged Buddhist Studies”8 from others, Alexander Hsu (2022) attempted to clarify the field by labeling those academics who propagate various categories of “Engaged Buddhism” as “Academic Engaged Buddhism”.9

With regard to the concepts of “Engaged Buddhism” and “renjian fojiao”, whether in the field of Buddhist theory, Buddhist practice, or in academia, I would propose a typology of five modes of reception. This does not focus on the question “What is ‘renjian fojiao’/‘Engaged Buddhism’?”, nor does it pursue the question “Who is what kind of proponent (of what kind of ‘renjian fojiao’/‘Engaged Buddhism’)?” This is because all this can change in the course of the history of a concept, i.e., the discourse about it. The main aim, then, is to distinguish how the participants in the discourse positioned themselves in relation to the concept of “renjian fojiao” and “Engaged Buddhism”, focusing on Chinese-speaking Buddhists and scholars of Buddhist studies as the main participants.

First, in the field of Buddhist theory and practice, I would like to distinguish (as clearly as possible) between “concept-unaffected” and “concept-affected” (e.g., “renjian-fojiao-unaffected” and “renjian-fojiao”-affected) ways of positioning which are further subdivided into various types.

“Concept-Unaffected” Positioning

One should first be aware of discursive behavior that does not refer to the concept at all, whether for anachronistic reasons (because someone lived earlier than the first half of the 20th century before the concept in question came into being) or for other reasons. The most extreme case is the entire discourse that took place before the invention of “renjian fojiao” and “Engaged Buddhism”, including the many quotations from the historical Buddha and the Chinese patriarchs, which are nevertheless often easily identified by Buddhists or scholars as belonging to a “movement” associated with the concept of “renjian fojiao” or “Engaged Buddhism” because of the form or content of their relevant theory and practice.

“Concept-Affected” Positioning

With regard to the major positions affected by (that means directly or indirectly related to) the concepts of “renjian fojiao” or “Engaged Buddhism”, one may distinguish in a simplified manner between “concept-affirming”, “concept-negating”, and other “concept-corresponding” modes of positioning.

“Concept-Affirming” Positioning

In the sense of a “concept-affirming” positioning, I would consider those discursive strategies that lead to an explicit (personal or institutional) identification with the concept in question. This may include much of Taixu’s or Thích Nhất Hạnh’s behaviors, as well as the ways in which later Buddhists made use of the specific concepts on a terminological level, regardless of the form or content. Concept use could vary widely depending on their specific interpretation. Prominent examples are those explorations of Buddhist institutions such as the Fo Guang Shan 佛光山 or the Buddhist Association of China (BAC, Zhongguo fojiao xiehui 中國佛教協會) (“renjian fojiao”), the International Network of Engaged Buddhists (INEB) (“Engaged Buddhism”), or individuals (who partly headed such institutions), such as Hsing-yun, Zhao Puchu 趙樸初 (1907–2000), Yin Shun, etc. (“renjian fojiao”), who actively worked out one of these concepts as their own.10

“Concept-Negating” Positioning

In contrast to the affirmative approach, I would call “concept-negating” positionings discursive strategies that are explicitly directed against the concept of “renjian fojiao” or “Engaged Buddhism”. “Concept-negating” positionings can be understood as an extreme case of contestation, leading to a categorical rejection of the concept of “renjian fojiao” or “Engaged Buddhism” as a framework of Buddhist theory and practice, accompanied by an intention to abolish it as a frame of reference altogether. This may also include the discussion of counter-concepts. Examples of this kind must be discussed carefully, as in many cases there may be overlaps with the following category.

“Concept-Corresponding” Positioning

In the field between the two aforementioned positionings, space should be allocated to the various types of “concept-corresponding” positionings. In contrast to the complete negation of a specific concept, one can find here a broad field of discourse when participants do not explicitly refer to the concept, but rather indicate their responsiveness to it through indirect reference or by interacting extensively with those who loudly propagate “renjian fojiao” or “Engaged Buddhism”. It is these actors who are often carelessly categorized by many Buddhists or scholars as “renjian fojiao”, or “Engaged Buddhism”, proponents (in the same way as the “concept-affirming” proponents), or more carefully ascribed to a “movement” associated with this category. However, there is a big difference in their use—or non-use—of the concept of “renjian fojiao” or “Engaged Buddhism”, as will be discussed here briefly along two different ways of a “concept-avoiding” positioning related to the concept of “renjian fojiao”.

For example, the Buddhist theory and/or practice of major players in Taiwan, such as Dharma Drum Mountain 法鼓山, Tzu-Chi Foundation 慈濟功德會, and Chungtai Shan 中台山, is often subsumed under the category of “renjian fojiao” by both Buddhists and scholars. However, far from actively referring to “renjian fojiao”, comparable to Taixu, Yin Shun, or Ven. Hsing Yun’s 星雲 (1927–2023) conceptualizations of “renjian fojiao”, they usually emphasize their own labels instead. More cautious observers subsume their teachings under the “spirit” (jingshen 精神) of “renjian fojiao”, but this does not confirm an “intentional” claim of “renjian fojiao” teachings either. Rather, they seem to avoid “renjian fojiao” as their core concept, whether for reasons of form or content, and/or to avoid being perceived as mere subsidiaries of the aforementioned, more famous proponents of “renjian fojiao”.

In a similar manner, it should be questioned whether all mainland Chinese Buddhists became active proponents of “renjian fojiao” as a result of the top-down-policy of the BAC. On the contrary, it can be observed that this concept played a different role at different times, and its explicit use was dominated by the BAC (see below), as well as at (semi-) official conferences and in (semi-) scientific publications. Consequently, even those abbots who were actively working on concepts inspired by “renjian fojiao” formulated them differently. In a way, this strategy of creating their own label was no different from that of Buddhist masters based in Taiwan. To a certain extent, however, the avoidance strategy differed in that it was not (only) aimed at avoiding confusion with the “renjian fojiao” concepts of the aforementioned figures, but also at avoiding possible accusations of misuse of “renjian fojiao” in the context of the BAC’s ever changing socio-political circumstances.11

The main purpose of the above typology is to clarify the relationship of each proponent to “renjian fojiao” or “Engaged Buddhism” as a Buddhist concept. This should be distinguished from the academic category of a “renjian fojiao” or an “Engaged Buddhism”, insofar as it is defined by scholars to classify different types of Buddhist theory and practice, for which the same terms of such Buddhist concepts are used, but do not necessarily distinguish to what extent Buddhists themselves self-identify, semi-self-identify, or non-self-identify with them.

This leads to one more (structural) distinction, namely between “concept-distancing” and “concept-processing” positionings in the field of scholarship. This distinction seems all the more necessary insofar as scholars of Buddhist studies can play diverse roles (though of course not only) in the Chinese language discourse that is discussed here.

“Concept-Distancing” Scholarship

Scholars who work on Buddhist concepts usually keep their distance in order to observe, analyze, and explain the processes taking place among Buddhists. They use existing categories and methods or invent new ones without interfering with the Buddhist discourse.

“Concept-Processing” Scholarship

In contrast, I would like to speak of “concept-processing” scholarship when the same—or different—scholars take over Buddhist concepts, such as “renjian fojiao” or “Engaged Buddhism” as scientific categories. Elaborating these academicized concepts to refer to Buddhist (“concept-affirming”, “concept-negating”, “concept-corresponding”, and even “concept-unaffected”) practitioners may seem an ambiguous method and lead to confusion, especially in the case of additional interaction with Buddhist practitioners.

In some cases, (not only) “concept-processing” scholars might be susceptible to a certain bias, which of course is neither measurable nor necessarily visible, and need not even be of poor quality. What I mean here is at least two scenarios: One is relating to a confessional level and concerns those who are sometimes called “scholar-practitioners”.12 If they themselves are “concept-affirming” proponents of one of the concepts it may explain, for example, how a Buddhist concept becomes an academic category that includes more Buddhists than those who actually self-identify with it, and excludes others. The other case concerns those scholars who are invited to Buddhist conferences and serve “concept-affirming”, “concept-negating”, or “concept-corresponding” proponents by arguing for them in one way or another (or at least not arguing against them). All of this can be highly scientific, but integrated into a teleological framework.

None of this is mutually exclusive. A scholar may work on a “concept-distancing” level, as well as a “concept-processing” level. They might be active as an “unbiased scholar”, while also appearing on stage as “biased scholar”, even at different conferences of different Buddhist organizations, just not at the same time.

With these preliminary considerations in mind, I would now like to reflect on the brief conceptual history of “renjian fojiao” in the context of this comparative approach (Section 3) and then discuss its relationship to “Engaged Buddhism” in the Chinese-speaking world (Section 4).

3. A Brief Conceptual History of “Renjian Fojiao”

To begin with Taixu, much was written about his development and his legacy of the concept of “renjian fojiao” in Western languages, and even more so in Chinese. As far as his legacy is concerned, Taixu’s work could be characterized as ambiguous in several respects.

First, Taixu introduced—or at least successfully spread—not only the new term “renjian fojiao” but also that of “rensheng fojiao” (“Buddhism in/of/for a Human Life”). It is often said that Taixu preferred the latter, and his whole theoretical system left open questions in many respects.13 Second, he tried to propagate his ideas, but failed to institutionalize them in a sustainable manner into Buddhism. At this early stage, “renjian fojiao” as a concept was far from having a clear and stable definition, being unknown or rejected by much of the more conservative Buddhist community. Third, one of his most prominent followers, Ven. Yin Shun 印順 (1906–2005), became well-known during Taixu’s lifetime for his appreciative yet critical examination of Taixu’s understanding of “renjian fojiao”, overlaying it in the long term with his own lifelong strengthening and elaboration of the concept of “renjian fojiao”. What remained after Taixu`s death was an extensive body of articles and essays of all kinds discussing ideas about a “renjian fojiao”, written by himself, but also by many other contemporary like-minded people. However, followers of his idea(s) in mainland China, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), were restricted to elaborate on “renjian fojiao” due to the Communist Party’s (CPC) religious policy. In that sense, it was a very short-lived conceptual history and experienced a standstill in the PRC for more than 30 (!) years.

In the post-Taixu-era, most of the first “concept-affirming” proponents could be found in Taiwan (most of whom had fled from mainland China). To summarize the conceptual history of “renjian fojiao” in Taiwan, I would like to distinguish between three phases:

From the 1950s until the repeal of military law in 1989, Taiwan-based monks developed their understanding of the concept of “renjian fojiao” individually but were limited in developing independent structures to realize their visions on a large scale.

This changed in the late 1980s, leading to an upsurge in Buddhist involvement in education, charity, relief work, etc. At the same time, this was accompanied by heated debates with several monks and lay people raising doubts as to what “renjian fojiao” was about—a dispute which confronted its “concept-affirming” proponents with questions about the concept’s fundamental legitimacy. Many of these critiques were directed against its most intellectual and controversial representative, Yin Shun, especially because of his distance from Chinese Buddhist traditions, but also against Hsing Yun, founder of the Fo Guang Shan, because of his allegedly superficial teachings and commercial activities. From this time on, we could see an increasing involvement of Taiwan-based scholars, including “concept-distancing” and “concept-processing” (as well as “unbiased” and “biased”), in discussing the pros and cons.

It seems the most recent phase emerged at the end of the 2000s. It was a time when “concept-affirming” and “concept-corresponding” proponents of the concept of “renjian fojiao” demonstrated useful achievements (especially after their expansion of the 1990s) that were accepted by the Buddhist mainstream (I am careful to say that “renjian fojiao” itself became mainstream). Moreover, after a thorough exchange of many arguments, each proponent had enough territory to survive in the end, and an atmosphere of reconciliation emerged. In the wake of Yin Shun’s death, there was also less new controversy surrounding “renjian fojiao”. Nevertheless, proponents of the “renjian fojiao” concept began to establish their organizations as “schools” (zong 宗), leading to a new competitive rivalry among them. The “culture” of inviting scholars to conferences to demonstrate legitimacy entered a new phase. In the midst of this development, the Fo Guang Shan, which can be considered the most explicit “concept-affirming” proponent of “renjian fojiao”, established an umbrella organization in 2015 called the “United Association of Humanistic Buddhism, Chunghua” (中華人間佛教聯合總會).14 Similar to the INEB, it tries to bring “concept-affirming” proponents together. However, in contrast to the INEB, the Fo Guang Shan appears as “primus inter pares”, so that several big players avoid a formal membership and only appear as “concept-corresponding” proponents of this umbrella organization.

Buddhist proponents and scholars of all kinds, whom I described above, (although Western scholars are hardly included) emerged in Taiwan over the past three decades to grapple with their relationship to the concept of “renjian fojiao”.

Looking back to mainland China, it is all the more remarkable that the concept of “renjian fojiao”, which was suppressed for more than 30 years due to political circumstances, made a comeback in the early 1980s, sparked by the BAC and governmental support. However, unlike Taiwan’s bottom-up process (including the founding of the “United Association of Humanistic Buddhism, Chunghua”), this was a top-down-movement and led to a major difference in its conceptual development. Furthermore, as mentioned before, it should be questioned whether all mainland Chinese Buddhists became “concept-affirming” proponents of “renjian fojiao” as a result.15

For the sake of simplicity, we may say that there were three phases in the PRC:

From the 1980s until the death of the president of the BAC, Zhao Puchu, the concept of “renjian fojiao” was introduced by Zhao and served primarily to legitimize Buddhists reviving their religious activities and to guarantee that they would not revert to superstitious practices and would obey the guidelines for a “socialist (material/spiritual) civilization” (shehuizhuyi wuzhi/jingshen wenming 社會主義物質/精神文明).

Inspired (or also challenged) by the successful realization of “renjian-fojiao”-related visions in Taiwan during the 1990s, and enabled by their own resurgence, the BAC encouraged a post-Zhao-Puchu renewal of the understanding of the “renjian fojiao” concept. It allowed Buddhist actors in mainland China more and more entrepreneurial and social activities in the name of “renjian fojiao” during the 2000s. Scholars also participated in conferences in Buddhist monasteries more than ever before. However, in contrast to conferences in Taiwan, their bias always had to serve not only the invitation of the host, but also the expectations of the government. Although the concept of “renjian fojiao” was increasingly discussed in various ways, it did not go so far as to support Buddhism as a “social force” in the way that Ji (2012) defined it.

With the increasing popularization of Buddhism, which also brought commercialization, as well as with the growing influence of “renjian-fojiao”-related models from Taiwan, including controversial views of Yin Shun and others, criticisms emerged, the harshest of which became public in 2016. Much of this was based on arguments that were discussed in Taiwan twenty years ago, but were not only religiously sensitive in the PRC, but also politically sensitive, even affecting relations with Taiwan. As a result, a new top-down expectation, in line with the policy of “Sinicization of Religions” (zongjiao zhongguohua 宗教中國化) under Xi Jinping 習近平 (1953–), can be observed to reconfigure the concept of “renjian fojiao” according to the CCP’s sinocentric orientation. This intensifies competition on both sides of the Taiwan Strait for supremacy in the interpretation of the concept of “renjian fojiao”.16

4. A Hybrid Conceptual History of Interrelatedness Between “Renjian Fojiao” and “Engaged Buddhism”

The introduction of “Engaged Buddhism” as a new term, as well as a new concept, dates back to Thích Nhất Hạnh’s international peace initiative in the early 1960s. Much was written about its early stages and all subsequent development.

4.1. The Linguistic Dilemma of the Concept of “Engaged Buddhism”

What is important here in relation to the concept of “renjian fojiao” are mainly several facts: First, Thích Nhất Hạnh’s naming of the concept, and second, the slow spread of Thích Nhất Hạnh’s “Engaged Buddhism” and the low awareness in the Chinese-speaking parts of the world.

4.1.1. Thích Nhất Hạnh’s Naming of the Concept

As reported by many secondary sources, Thích Nhất Hạnh explicitly stated several times that his idea of an “Engaged Buddhism” was—more or less directly—inspired by the Vietnamese translations and reception of Taixu’s works, which also dealt with the concept of “renjian fojiao”, transcribed as “nhân gian Phât giáo”.17 At the same time, he was also aware of traditional Vietnamese Buddhism and of Vietnamese Buddhists, who already developed their own version of reformist Buddhism in the 1930s to 1950s.18 However, some interesting details should be kept in mind:

Thích Nhất Hạnh did not take over one of Taixu’s terms, such as “rensheng fojiao” or “renjian fojiao”, nor did he directly establish an English equivalent for it. Instead, according to his 2008 interview, the terminological development started with Thích Nhất Hạnh’s emphasis on the colloquial Vietnamese phrase of “Buddhism Entering the Life” (Đạo Phật [道佛] đi vào cuộc đời), which also served as the Vietnamese title of his 1964 book, to be contrasted and reconciled with “Buddhism as something outside of life” (Đạo Phật là một cái gì đang ở bên ngoài cuộc đời).19 According to my understanding, the dichotomy to which Thích Nhất Hạnh was referring here was clearly similar to the Sino-Vietnamese Buddhist terminology based on direct Chinese equivalents: nhập thế (Chin.: rushi 入世, “entering the world”) versus xuất thế (chushi 出世, “leaving the world”). It was only through the translation of his early works which chose the French “le Bouddhisme engagé”, presumably inspired by Sartre’s coining of this term (DeVido 2009, pp. 436–37), and then the English “engaged”, that a completely new term and a new agenda were introduced on an international stage.

In Chinese translations, however, Thích Nhất Hạnh and his Plum Village did not rely on the English term, but on the aforementioned Vietnamese colloquial expression, and associated it with the Chinese rushi, calling his concept “rushi fojiao” (*Phât giáo nhập thế).20 Nevertheless, Thích Nhất Hạnh’s communication was increasingly addressed towards a Western, English-speaking audience. Thus, over time, the English term “Engaged Buddhism” led to many other adjectives being used as equivalents for the word “engaged” in the concurrent Chinese reception history (see below). This may also be partly due to the fact that the major Chinese-speaking audience was neither aware of the relationship between Thích Nhất Hạnh’s Vietnamese terminology and Chinese concepts, nor was it provided with Thích Nhất Hạnh’s teachings in Chinese translations over a longer period of time. In addition, as time went on, the English term “engaged” received the most attention worldwide, thus making the same also true in the Chinese-speaking world.

4.1.2. The Slow Spread of Thích Nhất Hạnh’s “Engaged Buddhism” and the Lack of Awareness in Chinese Speaking Parts of the World

Another point that is of importance regarding the further reception of “Engaged Buddhism” in Chinese-speaking parts of the world is that Thích Nhất Hạnh’s concept of “Engaged Buddhism” did not receive much attention in the beginning. This may seem natural that it was initially unwelcome in mainland Maoist China. Outside concepts were of much less interest when “renjian fojiao” became the official “guiding thought” (zhidao sixiang 指导思想) there in the early 1980s, or when “renjian fojiao” experienced its enormous breakthrough in Taiwan in the 1990s.

Even with the founding of the International Network of Engaged Buddhists, INEB, by Sulak Sivaraksa from Thailand, together with Thích Nhất Hạnh, Ven. 14th Dalai Lama, and Ven. Buddhdadasa Bhikku (1906–1993) in 1989, the movement behind it seemed to be beyond the horizon of Chinese Buddhists. It seems that the two directions that the concept of “Engaged Buddhism” was taking at that time in the Southeast Asia and the Western world were too far removed from the development seen in both mainland China and Taiwan:

On one hand we can see a Buddhist formalization (or institutionalization) of “Engaged Buddhism” which brought together Buddhist activists from the East (particularly from the Southeast Asian Theravada countries) and the West (particularly based on the Japanese or Tibetan Buddhist tradition) and called for a socially engaged commitment with quite a political accent. For mainland Chinese Buddhists, this was absolutely unacceptable, since one of the “patrons” of INEB was and still is the 14th Dalai Lama. However, even Buddhists in Taiwan were much more concerned with expanding their own organizations (a work that was restricted before 1987) based on their own agenda, which was mostly centered around “renjian [fojiao]”-related concepts. Moreover, due to the incipient democratization of Taiwan, their approach was much more in cooperation with the government than out of socio-political protest.21

On the other hand, we can observe a scholarly formalization of the concept of “Engaged Buddhism” in the field of Buddhist studies. Scholars, some of whom were later interpreted as “scholar-practitioners” with a certain bias in the aforementioned sense, began with some “concept-processing” scholasticism about how to classify Buddhist groups or activities under the term “Engaged Buddhism”. Here, we clearly see a Westernized discussion that gave birth to a new scholarly concept of “Engaged Buddhism” which was not very aware of what was happening in Taiwan in the name of “renjian fojiao” (and if so, it somehow treated it as a separate development). At the same time, as noted above, Taiwanese scholars in the 1990s were themselves extremely busy discussing “renjian fojiao”, so that its relationship to the developing “Buddhist” or “scholarly” formalization of “Engaged Buddhism” was not their focus either.

4.2. Demarcation

While “separation” or even a certain “demarcation” between the two booming concepts was initially in the foreground among Buddhist actors, we see a mutual permeability due to the fact that “Engaged Buddhism” became an academic category that could be applied to nearly all kinds of Buddhist social and welfare activities (see the remarks above, with regard to the “Engaged Buddhism”-related point of view of Queen, King et al.), a development that could be seen in the Chinese speaking world with regard to “renjian fojiao” as well.

4.2.1. Case of Demarcation: Both Concepts at Eye Level?

An interesting case is presented by the Chinese publication of a 2006 conference volume entitled Chushi yu rushi 出世與入世 (Entering the World and Leaving the World). It focused on “renjian fojiao” on the occasion of the founding of the “Centre for the Study of Humanistic Buddhism” (Renjian fojiao yanjiu zhongxin 人間佛教研究中心) by the Fo Guang Shan at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. In his foreword to the volume, the new director Xue Yu 學愚 (1964–) reflected on why those working on “Engaged Buddhism” (which he interestingly dubbed “canyu fojiao” (“Participatory Buddhism”) rather than “rushi fojiao”) were not paying “renjian fojiao” the attention it deserved. He saw a problem in the fact that “renjian fojiao” was widely misunderstood in the predominantly English-speaking discourse as being too “individualistic” (and not sufficiently “transcendent”), because its English translation was “Humanistic Buddhism”22—a translation term whose widespread use was largely the responsibility of Fo Guang Shan itself. He wrote:

In terms of thought and practice, “renjian fojiao” has much in common with “canyu fojiao” [here: Engaged Buddhism] that is currently prevalent in Southeast Asia, Western Buddhist circles, and academia. But Buddhists and scholars in these areas generally do not use “renjian fojiao” (Humanistic Buddhism) to describe the relationship between Buddhism on the one hand and humans and society on the other. This may be because they have different understandings of the meaning of “renjian” or Humanistic. Humanism in English has the color of renwen zhuyi 人文主義 [human-oriented humanism], or renben zhuyi 人本主義 [humaneness] or rendao zhuyi 人道主義 [humanitarianism]. Renwen zhuyi [Humanism], rooted in ancient Greek philosophy, became one of the main features of the Western Renaissance in the 14th century. It has had a profound impact on the establishment of Western people’s outlook on the world and outlook on human life and constitutes the characteristics of Western society that are human-oriented and pursue individualism.

(Xue 2010, pp. 2–3)23

在思想和實踐方面, 人間佛教與當前流行於東南亞、西方佛教界和學術界的參與佛教之間, 有許多共同之處。但是, 這些地區的佛教徒和學者一般不用“人間佛教” (Humanistic Buddhism) 來表述佛教與人和社會的關係。這也許是因為他們對 “人間” 或 Humanistic 的含義有著不同的理解。英文的 Humanism 帶有以人為本的人文主義色彩, 或稱人本主義或人道主義。人文主義根源于古希臘哲學思想, 14世紀時成為西方文藝復興的主要特徵之一。它對西方人的世界觀和人生觀的建立, 產生了深遠的影響, 構成西方社會以人為本、追求個人主義的特徵。

As we can see from this statement, from a Chinese-speaking point of view, the theory and practice behind the concepts of “renjian fojiao” and “canyu fojiao” (as discussed among scholars) have much more in common than the predominantly English-speaking discourse made evident. In defending “renjian fojiao”, Xue Yu referred to some alleged Western prejudices, rather than offering a systematic analysis that would also have to include other mutual judgements of the time, namely that “renjian fojiao” is not political enough, while “Engaged Buddhism” is too political (see below).

In addition, Xue Yu took his case of a Western misunderstanding (based on the English translation of “renjian fojiao”) as an example to further explain something else. He demonstrated how the Westerners were wrong, since in their own religious context, Christians opened themselves up towards the (secular) concept of “Humanism” while preserving their view of “sanctity”. He used this example to encourage Chinese Buddhists to regard the concept of “renjian fojiao” (though it was not equally “secular”, but often disregarded as having a “secularizing” impact) as a view that permits all worldly (rushi) activities, while also preserving a more remote or transcendent (chushi) attitude.

To summarize, Xue Yu was not arguing here to identify “Engaged Buddhism”, alias “canyu fojiao”, with “renjian fojiao”, but to strengthen the international position of “renjian fojiao” (based on Fo Guang Shan values) and to raise the question of the extent to which “renjian fojiao”, alias “Humanistic Buddhism”, could be respected as something different but equally valuable.

4.2.2. Case of Demarcation: Both Concepts Not at Eye Level?

A completely different consideration was made in the same year, 2006, by Lawrence Y.K. Lau 劉宇光, who was then working at the Faculty of Philosophy of the Chinese University of Hong Kong (香港中文大學哲學系). His article on “Zuoyi fojiao 左翼佛教 [Left-Wing Buddhism] (Engaged Buddhism). Progressive Buddhist Studies, Secular Civil Society, and Political Reflection in Modern Buddhism” (左翼佛教 (Engaged Buddhism) 激進佛學、世俗公民社會與現代佛教的政治反省) was based on parts of his Ph.D. thesis of 2003, and later developed into a book on Le Bouddhisme engagé and Civil Society. A Study of Buddhist Public Engagement in Thailand and Malaysia (左翼佛教和公民社會泰國和馬來西亞的佛教公共介入之研究), which he published in Taiwan in 2019. Lau suggested to reinterpret “Engaged Buddhism” in the sense of the French “Le Bouddhisme engagé” and therefore give it the Chinese name of zuoyi fojiao 左翼佛教—“Left Wing Buddhism”.

Lau’s arguments were mainly concentrated on his studies of Buddhist movements in Thailand and Malaysia, which he regarded as highly political. In order to make their commitment understandable, Lau argued, it would lead to misunderstandings and even mean tabooing their political component if Chinese scholars were to use “rushi fojiao” or “canyu fojiao” for it, terms too closely associated with the, in Lau’s eyes, less politically engaged idea of “renjian fojiao”.

Although Lau used terms such as jieru 介入 (“intervene”) or ganyu 干預 (“interfere”) to describe the socially engaged activism under discussion, he justified zuoyi 左翼 (“Left Wing”) as an appropriate attribute for “Buddhism” on the grounds that it better represented the leftist orientation of the French word “engagé” (due to the influence of Sartre) as originally insinuated by Thích Nhất Hạnh.24

Lau was aware of the fact that he was introducing a new Chinese term here along with a new definition as an academic category to replace the English phrase “Engaged Buddhism” and all other previously used Chinese translations.25 While it sounds similar to a “concept-distancing” description of what he observed in Thailand and Malaysia by choosing words other than those used by local Buddhists themselves, it also almost appeared to be a “concept-processing” approach, by which he put a self-designation in the form of “Left-Wing Buddhism” into the mouths of those “concept-affirming” proponents that were operating with “Engaged Buddhism”. What seems to be important here, as he himself emphasized, Is that his terminology should refer mainly to “engaged” Buddhists in Thailand and Malaysia and not necessarily to all other “engaged” Buddhists elsewhere (as other Chinese scholars later did with his term).26

What can be seen in the course of Lau’s publication history (2003–2019) is a clear and continuous demarcation of “Engaged Buddhism”, alias “Le Bouddhisme engage” “zuoyi fojiao” [“Left-Wing Buddhism”], from “renjian fojiao”. He questioned those Taiwan-based Buddhist organizations and Chinese-speaking as well as Western scholars that used “renjian fojiao” as translation—or description—for “Engaged Buddhism”, or vice-versa. While charity activities in the name of “renjian fojiao”—or what others in the Chinese-speaking world would refer to as an (“Engaged-Buddhism”-like) “rushi fojiao”—may entail a certain “civil society” (公民社會), Lau considered this to be a mere “by-product” (副產品) that did not originally encompass these terms and concepts (Lau 2019, pp. 39–42). Rather, he viewed “Left-Wing Buddhism” as more proactive and progressive, since it emerges at “a stage when civil society is yet to take shape or is in its germination phase” (在公民社會尙未成形或在萌芽階段), while “rushi fojiao” (which he uses here in the sense of a “renjian-fojiao”-based, Chinese-speaking understanding of “Engaged Buddhism”) intended “to strengthen the institutionalization of the junior civil society” (初生公民社會) (ibid., pp. 55–56). Lau warned that those who mix up the terms must expect to be asked whether all the values that are negotiated by the proponents of “Le Bouddhisme engagé”/“zuoyi fojiao”, such as civil society, democracy, and human rights, are also being fought for in the name of “renjian fojiao” (ibid., pp. 39–42).

In this context, it is remarkable that Lau deleted a passage of the 2006 article (Lau 2006, p. 31, fn. 33) in his 2019 version in which he had more explicitly accused the Chinese-speaking community of scholars and Buddhists of preferring to speak of “renjian fojiao” or “rushi fojiao” in the “hope of softening the connotation of political progressiveness of what is [represented by] zuoyi fojiao” (希望淡化左翼佛教的政治激進色彩). Lau expressed indulgence with those scholars or practitioners who are still “within the communist Chinese system” (共産中國體制內), whereas overseas Chinese scholars “should not ignore the facts” (不應罔顧事實). In addition to that, Lau reported in footnote 31 (which he also deleted in 2019) about the feedback he received (between 2003 and 2006) from Chinese-speaking scholars in Hong Kong and Northern America:

All of them objected to the use of the term [“zuoyi fojiao”], but none of them did so on academic grounds; they focused instead entirely on the survival strategy of “this will bring political trouble to Buddhism in mainland China.” The author understands the Buddhist organizations that adopt such a viewpoint and reject the term [“zuoyi fojiao”], but he cannot agree at all with the scholars in academia (especially the Chinese scholars with foreign citizenship living outside of mainland China) who use this as a reason. Indeed, most of the assertions emphasizing that Buddhism has absolutely nothing to do with politics, without regard to the reasons and facts, are often, paradoxically, a political consideration in itself.

(Lau 2006, p. 13, fn. 33)

全部一律反對使用此詞, 但沒有一位是以學術觀點爲理由, 全部都只著眼於《這會爲中國大陸的佛教帶來政治麻煩》之生存策略。筆者對佛教團體採取這種觀點拒絕該詞表示體諒, 但對學院中的學人（尤其中國境外的外籍華人學者）以此爲埋由, 完全不能苟同, 事實上大部份不問情由與事實地強調佛教與政治是絕對無關之論斷, 其本身往往弔詭地也是一個政治考量。

In his 2019 book, Lau gave little indication of the extent to which his “zuoyi fojiao” has so far been adopted or challenged in the Chinese-speaking world.27 However, one of the best-known engaged nuns in Taiwan, Ven. Chao-hwei 昭慧 (1957–), who wrote a foreword to the 2019 book, praised Lau’s contribution to making the characteristics of socially committed Buddhists in Thailand and Malaysia understandable. Chao-hwei expressed the hope that this would also encourage Chinese-speaking audiences to tolerate political Buddhist engagement while breaking down prejudices against the “left” stance, in contrast to the nationalist “right”.28 Although she recognized a “difference from the characteristics and style of traditional Buddhism or the charitable ‘renjian fojiao’” (區別其不同於傳統佛教或慈善型「人間佛教」的特徵與風貌), Chao-hwei herself always used “rushi fojiao” in the INEB context, and further proposed her personal understanding of a “renjian fojiao” (see below). Thus, she practiced an alternative way of dealing with the terms, using them simultaneously but in different contexts.29

4.3. Approach

While the aforementioned discussions were led by scholars in the academic field, in the same first decade of the 21st century, Buddhists in Taiwan also intensified the discourse on the relationship between “renjian fojiao” and “Engaged Buddhism”. In 2007, as will be discussed in Section 4.3.1, Chao-hwei succeeded in hosting the first INEB conference in Taiwan at the “Buddhist Hongshi College” (佛教弘誓學院), which she had founded in the early 1990s. After that, it took only a year and a half until the Fo Guang Shan followed up with its own conference in 2009, as will be discussed in Section 4.3.2.

4.3.1. Approach: INEB 2007 in Taiwan

One of the most active players who contributed to the first INEB conference in Taiwan was the Taiwanese Buddhist activist and scholar, who for a long time was closely affiliated with the Fo Guang Shan—Yo Hsiang-chou 游祥洲 (1947–). He already started to participate in the biennial INEB conferences in 2003 (Yo 2007a). Obviously inspired by this, he wrote his first comprehensive article in 2004 “On the Development Process of Global Engaged Buddhism—Discussing its Political Orientation with Regard to Participation in Public Affairs” (論全球入世佛教之發展進路—兼論其涉及公共事務時之政治取向, Yo 2007b). This article, which appeared in the bimonthly magazine Hongshi (of the Buddhist Hongshi College), is remarkable in several respects and will be given more attention below.

On the Eve of INEB 2007

In contrast to the authors mentioned above, Yo used the term “rushi fojiao” when he spoke of “Engaged Buddhism”, which in this case likely deliberately demonstrated the proximity to the term as used in the official Chinese name of the INEB. Yo began the article in his very first sentence with the statement: “‘rushi fojiao’ [Engaged Buddhism] is the mainstream thought in contemporary global Buddhism” (「入世佛教」是當代全球佛教的主流思潮). This might have come as a surprise to some Chinese readers who believed conservative Buddhism would be more prevalent, or to those who expected the concept of “renjian fojiao” to be poised for international triumph.

In explaining “rushi fojiao” as the “Chinese translation of the English ‘Engaged Buddhism’ (英文 Engaged Buddhism 的中譯)”,30 Yo developed the narrative that Thích Nhất Hạnh was influenced by Taixu and “this term [Engaged Buddhism, alias rushi fojiao] echoed Master Taixu’s ideal of ‘rensheng fojiao’” (這個名詞來呼應太虛大師「人生佛教」的理念) in the sense that Thích Nhất Hạnh believed that “Buddhism could not be divorced from the real society, but should be carved into the needs of society” (佛教不能脫離現實社會, 而應該切入社會的需求). As Yo went on with his retrospective, Chinese-speaking Buddhists became “familiar” (熟悉) with the concepts of “rensheng fojiao” or “renjian fojiao”, while Westerners were “familiarized” with “Engaged Buddhism”. However, in principle, according to Yo’s narrative, Taixu’s concept of “rensheng fojiao” was the true blueprint for the entire development of “Engaged Buddhism”.31

In a broader historical perspective, Yo elaborated on the most prominent masters of “rushi fojiao”, and started anachronistically with a projection onto the historical Buddha himself. He jumped to Taixu and Ambedkar (1891–1956), certifying that both of them expressed the “spiritual contents of ‘rushi fojiao’” (「入世佛教」的精神內涵), thus, making all of these historically “concept-unaffected” actors into “concept-affected” proponents of “Engaged Buddhism”. Only after referring to the legacy of Yin Shun did he turn to Thích Nhất Hạnh and Sulak Sivaraksa (who actually were the only proponents that explicitly worked with the term “Engaged Buddhism”), and finally ended with Chao-hwei’s fight for gender equality in Taiwan, thus, making Yin Shun and her (“concept-affected”) proponents of “Engaged Buddhism”.

According to this narrative, Taixu was not only the mastermind of a “rensheng fojiao”, he could also be viewed as the successor to Buddha himself, whose actions were an expression of what Thích Nhất Hạnh and Sulak Sivaraksa later propagated as “rushi fojiao”. In the end, Yo enumerated several groups worldwide that “should not be ignored by researchers as species [of ‘Engaged Buddhism’]” (應為研究上不能忽略的範疇), and he subordinated here most of Taiwan’s major Buddhist actors, emphasizing that “under the influence of Master Taixu and Master Yin Shun’s thoughts on ‘renjian fojiao’, Taiwan has become one of the greatest forces of ‘rushi fojiao’ in the world” (台灣在太虛大師與印順法師「人間佛教」思想的催化下, 已成為全球「入世佛教」最大的力量之一).

Despite the highly praised similarities among the representatives of “rushi fojiao” mentioned by Yo, he also emphasized the differences, especially with regard to the relationship between religion and politics. Much would depend on whether the ideas of “rushi” (“engaged”, alias “entering the world”) are pursued in a democratic or authoritarian state, or which models for the separation of state and religion are predominant. According to Yo, the decisive factor for the future of “rushi fojiao” would not be how big and internationally successful Buddhist organizations are (which sounds akin to a warning to the Taiwan-based organizations), but “solely the discursive competence of Buddhists in regard to the question of ‘how they get involved in contemporary issues’” (唯有「切入當世議題」的主題論述能力). Regarding INEB’s overall policy position, Yo summarized from its supporting activities that its concern is “not so much an intentional ‘substantive intervention’ as it is more concerned with ‘procedural justice’” (與其說是有意「實質介入」, 不如說他更關心「程序正義」), which actually reflects the appreciation of democratic politics by “engaged Buddhists” (入世佛教人士).

In the end, Yo raised serious concerns regarding whether the “leading group(s) of ‘rushi fojiao’” (「入世佛教」的領導群) can maintain rushi (“engaged”, alias “entering the world”) without being secularized. So, he urged the balance between “rushi” and “chushi”, both of which he described as the two wings of Buddhism. As for the relationship with politics, he did not make it taboo, but warned them:

In a modern democratic society where Buddhism deals with political issues, [its proponents] should be brave enough to express its position and opinions on issues related to public interests, but must also strictly observe the separation of religion and state, and avoid getting involved in conflicts between political parties, in order not to harm themselves.

(Yo 2007b)

在現代的民主社會中, 佛教處理政治性問題時, 一方面對於與公眾利益有關的政治性議題, 應該勇於表達其立場與意見, 但另一方面則必須謹守政教分離分際, 避免介入政黨之間的衝突, 以免傷害到自己。

By addressing the Taiwanese audience with his genealogical narrative(s), his warning to large and influential Buddhist groups not to be seduced by their international and commercial success, and his appeal for political caution, Yo paved the way for hosting the first INEB conference in Taiwan.

In 2007, based on his experience at the previous conference in India in 2005, he formulated his expectations as follows:

This was the first time that [Ambedkar’s] Buddhist revival movement in Nagpur was officially affiliated with a global Buddhist organization. This is also one of the characteristics of the INEB. Wherever it goes, it will make the problems visible there, they share the solutions to the problems together with the people there, they work together, and they reach the goal together.

(Yo 2007a)

國際入世佛教協會在龍城召開全球大會, 這是印度佛教復興運動第一次與全球的佛教組織正式接軌。這也正是國際入世佛教協會的特色之一, 走到那裡, 就把那裡的問題呈現出來, 把解決問題的方案, 與那裡的人一起分享, 一起努力, 一起圓滿。

INEB 2007 in Taiwan

With the first INEB conference in Taiwan, Chao-hwei became the most prominent “concept-affirming” proponent of “Engaged Buddhism” in the Chinese-speaking world—without denying the fact that her intellectual background is more deeply influenced by the “renjian fojiao” teachings of Yin Shun than that of many other contemporaries.32 Although Chao-hwei in many ways represented only a minority position within the overall Taiwanese Buddhist community, she started to play a crucial role in the encounter between proponents of “renjian fojiao” and “Engaged Buddhism”, engaging in dialogue with the INEB in an increasingly institutionalized way.

In her address to the INEB of that year, she emphasized that all members of INEB are very “close” (近),

because even though we all come from different countries, we might be ordained or not, and we use different languages to address different Buddhism phenomenon [sic!] and social issues, but we all promote the same revolutionary [sic!] concepts and the same social movement that is based on Buddhist teachings.

是因為吾人長期以來, 雖以四眾弟子的不同身份, 用不同的文字, 關心不同的佛教現象或社會議題, 卻不約而同地依佛法觀點, 陳述著相同的改革理念, 推展調性相同的改革運動。

(Chao-hwei 2007a, transl. by D. Reid)

Although Chao-hwei surely wanted to express her like-mindedness with the members of INEB, it is somewhat questionable whether she was really aware that David Reid, who supported the event in the capacity as personal representative of Sulak Sivaraksa, officially translated her expression “gaige” (改革), which means “to reform, to change”, as “revolutionary”.33

Rather, as opposed to a “revolutionary” spirit, the Taiwan conference focused much more on state-conforming issues that characterized Buddhist practice in Taiwan, as reflected in the conference’s title and program. The title was “入世佛教：從社會福利到社會改革”, in its English version “Engaged Buddhism: From Social Welfare to Social Change”.34 In addition to the usual panel discussions, the program included a large number of presentations on all kinds of social welfare activities by Buddhist organizations in Taiwan, followed by an excursion to the sites of major Buddhist players such as the Hsuan chuang University 玄奘大學, Dharma Drum Mountain 法鼓山, and Fo Guang Shan.

Regardless of how revolutionary the political nature of “Engaged Buddhism” may be, Chao-hwei elaborated on the categories of “chushi” and “rushi”35 in a special issue of Hongshi related to this INEB conference (based on the keynote speech)36 and made the explicit statement that “rushi” as well as “chushi” are justified in order to reconcile both approaches in a peculiar way. Rather than viewing the two as two sides of the same coin (as Yo did), she spoke in favor of accepting “chushi” (from the point of view of a more Mahāyāna-based “rushi” practitioner of the Bodhisattva path) according to the abilities or preferences of the individual:

I personally do not think that one should one-sidedly advocate rushi fojiao. I think when a Buddhist organization, sangha group or individual advocates rushi fojiao, renjian fojiao, or ren pusa xing [“human bodhisattva practice”] and does not tolerate the idea of a person with a śrāvaka root [i.e., at “Hīnayāna”-level] to walk the path of [self-]liberation, and thus feels the need to severely criticize the other, it does not correspond to the Bodhisattva’s attitude of “adapting [oneself] to the sentient beings”.

(Chao-hwei 2007b)

個人並不認為, 要提倡單一的入世佛教。我覺得一個提倡入世佛教、人間佛教、人菩薩行的教團、僧團或個人, 如果竟然不能容忍聲聞根性的人邁向解脫道的想法，一定要給予對方嚴苛的指責, 這也不是「恒順眾生」的菩薩襟懷。

To defend the “rushi” approach with an ongoing demeanor of (Mahāyāna-Buddhist) superiority, Chao-hwei emphasized its functionality:

Regardless of the fulfillment of one’s individual bodhi vows, the achievement of the Buddhist path means, from the perspective of Buddhism as a whole, that we must stand up in society and be recognized with dignity in society. In this regard, rushi fojiao in fact occupies a non-replaceable position. I use this to condemn those hermits [i.e., proponents of chushi] who attack rushi fojiao. I think they live a very good life under the umbrella of rushi fojiao, so they are cared for and respected by society. But they never imagined what would happen if the bridge they crossed collapsed: what kind of discrimination and exclusion will they experience from society when that protective umbrella is pulled down?

(Chao-hwei 2007b)

姑不論個人菩提願的滿足，佛道的成就，就以整體佛教來看，要在社會上站得起來，要在社會上有尊嚴地受到認同，即此而言，入世佛教實已有其無可取代的地位。我以此而譴責那些攻擊入世佛教的隱遁派，我認為他們是在入世佛教的保護傘底下，過著非常優渥的生活，且受到了社會的照顧與尊敬，卻反倒過河拆橋，從來沒有思考：一旦這個保護傘撤掉以後，他們將受到社會何等歧視與排斥的待遇？

As it seems here, this argument was aimed primarily at the Taiwanese audience, where the “rushi”/“chushi” dichotomy had been discussed for years, albeit in the context of a debate on the concept of “renjian fojiao”. Although this twenty-year debate in Taiwan about “chushi” and “rushi” seemed similar here to what was discussed under “disengaged” and “engaged” in the more recent Western context (Lele 2019), there is a key difference in the sense that in the Chinese-speaking discourse of that time, “chushi” stood for more remote or transcendent orientations of Chan Buddhists and Amitābha devotees attacked by Yin Shun, while “rushi” specifically stood for the kind of “renjian fojiao” as understood by Yin Shun.37

However, embedded in this INEB context, Chao-hwei further insinuated through her dichotomy that especially those “chushi” representatives who are at home in Theravāda Buddhist cultures would deserve respect—and protection—from the Mahāyāna side. Interestingly, Liu Wen-Fang based her entire dissertation on the 2007/2017 INEB conferences (which according to the preface was specifically encouraged by Chao-hwei) on characterizing the existing INEB community as “Southern Engaged Buddhism” (nanchuan rushi fojiao 南傳入世佛教). Based on this generalization, she evoked a reconciliation through encountering and being enriched by the Taiwanese community, which she called “Northern Engaged Buddhism” (beichuan rushi fojiao 北傳入世佛教) facilitated by Chao-hwei.38

As a result, the 2007 INEB conference must be considered as a great success for all Buddhist communities in Taiwan, since they received high recognition for their kind of Buddhist “engagement”.39 First and foremost, of course, due to Chao-hwei’s efforts, for whom Sulak Sivaraksa took the initiative of awarding her the status of the first female “patron[ess]” (精神導師)40 at the closing ceremony.

4.3.2. Approach: Fo Guang Shan

Interestingly, none of the grandmasters from Taiwan’s four famous Buddhist organizations (Sheng-yen 聖嚴 (1931–2009), Wei Chueh 惟覺 (1928–2016), Hsing Yun 星雲 (1927–2023), and Cheng Yen 證嚴 (1937–))appeared on the stage in 2007. In the case of Fo Guang Shan, it was mentioned about Hsing Yun that he was just busy with other things. One might wonder whether his absence during the INEB delegation’s visit was due to diplomatic considerations so as not to provoke the Buddhists in the PRC, as the Fo Guang Shan (similar to many others) attached great importance to stable relations along the Taiwan Strait. However, a report by the “Life News Agency” (Renjian tongxunshe 人間通訊社) of Fo Guang Shan even made it as far as mainland China, carrying this confident message:

Sulak Sivaraksa, founder of the INEB, thanked Fo Guang Shan for the reception, and said that the purpose of the Network is to implement the core values of Buddhist Dharma and pursue social justice and social welfare. Regarding the flourishing development of Buddhism in Taiwan, the visitors always held a high degree of respect and interest, with the hope to go to Taiwan to receive the scriptures (qu jing 取經).

(Renjianshe 2007)

國際入世佛教協會創辦人泰國蕭素樂（Sulak Sivaraksa）感謝佛光山的接待，並表示該協會的宗旨以落實佛教正法核心價值，追求社會正義與社會福利為宗旨，對於臺灣佛教蓬勃發展的情形，與會人士一直懷著高度的敬意與興趣，希望能夠到臺灣取經。

The Chinese expression qu jing, which means to gain access to the authentic teachings of Buddhism (actually by Chinese pilgrims who traveled to India in search of Buddhist scriptures), demonstrated how the Fo Guang Shan felt superior to “Engaged Buddhists” from the non-Chinese sphere, based on its concept of “renjian fojiao”.

However, it seems a more active approach to “Engaged Buddhism” by the Fo Guang Shan was triggered by these events, as it organized an international conference in 2009 entitled “Models and Prospects of Humanistic Buddhism and Engaged Buddhism” (Renjian fojiao ji canyu fojiao de moshi yu zhanwang 人間佛教及參與佛教的模式與展望). This initiative seems remarkable in at least four respects: Firstly, Fo Guang Shan did not take over the term “rushi fojiao”, which became increasingly mainstream since the INEB conference in 2007. Perhaps to maintain a certain distance from possible associations with “rushi fojiao” in the narrower sense as part of the INEB agenda, Fo Guang Shan translated “Engaged Buddhism” as “canyu fojiao”, which was, and is, the other common expression.41 Secondly, to my knowledge, this conference was the first to address “Engaged Buddhism” in relation to “renjian fojiao”. As can be seen from the title, Fo Guang Shan’s clear message was to put “renjian fojiao” on an equal footing with “Engaged Buddhism” and to emphasize its model function. The third peculiarity was that it was designed as one of those Buddhist conferences that have an academic tinge but at the same time cast scholars into one of the varieties of bias mentioned in this paper. The fourth and perhaps most notable point here is that the conference included Western scholars, some affiliated with the INEB, as well as scholars from mainland China. However, only one contribution from Sallie B. King directly related “renjian fojiao”—translated as “Humanistic Buddhism”—and “Engaged Buddhism”. Her paper was entitled “Engaged Buddhism and Humanistic Buddhism: A Comparison of Principles and Practices” (King 2009).

It is unclear whether this conference had a major impact on the way Chinese-speaking Buddhists and scholars reflect on questions of the relationship and model functions of “renjian fojiao” and “Engaged Buddhism”.42 In the case of Sallie B. King, who is one of the most well-known Western scholars promoting the above-mentioned “concept-processing” systematization of “Engaged Buddhism” as an academic category, her contribution reinforced the Fo Guang Shan’s insinuation that the categories of “renjian fojiao”, alias “Humanistic Buddhism”, and “Engaged Buddhism” are to be considered on an equal footing. In contrast to her 2018 publication, she did not go so far as to subordinate “Humanistic Buddhism” as one of three variants under the category of “Engaged Buddhism” (see above).

Another development that could be observed in the following years was that Hsing Yun and his teachings became a relatively popular object of comparative research regarding the similarities and differences between “renjian fojiao”/“Humanistic Buddhism” and “Engaged Buddhism”.43 Several reasons could be at play here: First of all, the Fo Guang Shan fueled the discussions of a comparative view, partly due to the impact of the 2009 INEB conference. Second, Fo Guang Shan was the most prominent Buddhist player that explicitly presented “renjian fojiao”/“Humanistic Buddhism” as its fixed label. Especially in the non-Chinese-speaking context, those who became interested in the relationship between “Engaged Buddhism” and “renjian fojiao” were easily linked to the Fo Guang Shan by the fact that it was more than others present abroad under the English label of “Humanistic Buddhism”. Last but not least, the Fo Guang Shan was led by a charismatic master on the one hand, and, for example, more than Chao-hwei, a strong organization in terms of social welfare on the other hand.

4.4. Integration

In contrast to the comparative studies on Hsing Yun’s “renjian fojiao”, some Chinese-language academics examined Chao-hwei more directly as a representative of “rushi fojiao”: Chen Wenling, for example, followed a very similar narrative to Yo and discussed Chao-hwei as the best practical example of “rushi fojiao”. In her logic, “renjian fojiao” merely served as one of several (inappropriate) terms to describe the English term “Engaged Buddhism” (such as sheshi fojiao 涉世佛教, rushi fojiao 入世佛教, and renjian fojiao 人間佛教 (Chen 2010, p. 71).

Towards INEB 2017

Chao-hwei herself was very aware of the differences between the labels and also made them explicit. In one 2012 article for example, she discussed on a macro-level the overall question of her master’s (Yin Shun) legacy which at that time became discussed as “Yin-Shun-thought” (印順學) in the sense of an independent scholasticism.44 She agreed with that category but actually equated it with “‘renjian fojiao’ in its broadest sense” (廣義「人間佛教」), thereby writing a sophisticated treatise in order to bring to an end the internal “renjian-fojiao”-related Buddhist struggles of the past two decades in Taiwan. She tried not only to harmonize the entire system of Yin Shun and his disciples, but also to integrate everyone who participated in the relevant discourse, even if they were critics (with the exception of those who were disqualifying themselves).45

In this context, Chao-hwei referred to an article of 2008 where she demonstrated how “renjian fojiao” or “rushi fojiao” (i.e., “Engaged Buddhism”) were needed as a new categories:46 While building upon the bodhisattva ideal of Mahāyāna Buddhism, these neologisms could be used to convince those who are vehement opponents of Mahāyāna thought, such as in Southeast Asian traditions, by avoiding the label of it. However, even in the Chinese-speaking, Mahāyāna-oriented sphere, such concepts could be used to counter those who “propagate the Mahāyāna teachings, but act like practitioners of the Small Vehicle” (「言大乘教，行小乘行」).47 According to Chao-hwei’s logic, the two concepts of “renjian fojiao” or “rushi fojiao” were similar in function (duizhi 「對治」 = “deconstructing” and zhangxian 「彰顯」 = “constructing”). However, her 2012 article made it clear that Yin Shun’s “renjian fojiao” served as the superior teaching in her eyes. With its comprehensive theoretical framework, Yin Shun’s “renjian fojiao” offered the ideal fundament for a path, as she summarized in the title, “From ‘Arguing Without Controversy’ to ‘Seeking Unity while Preserving Diversity’”.48

Convinced of the compatibility of “rushi fojiao” with her framework of “renjian fojiao”, Chao-hwei hosted the INEB conference for the second time in 2017, welcoming three times as many people as the first conference.49

The program again included the presentation of many best practice reports from Taiwan and supplemented by excursions to Dharma Drum Mountain and Tzu Chi Foundation. Although these organizations were building on a legacy related to “renjian fojiao” (rather than “rushi fojiao”), this term was not mentioned in the program itself. The Taiwan-related issues focused again on welfare activities, but also opened up some more controversial areas.50 Although a visit to Fo Guang Shan’s headquarters was planned, it had to be cancelled, so another meeting with Hsing Yun could not be realized.51

The conference ended with some remarkable personal statements. Chao-hwei praised in her summary the experience with INEB as follows:

INEB is indeed an idealistic, action-oriented, grassroots organization that pays great attention to the future, education and training of young people. […] In recent years, I have also made some efforts on animal protection, human rights, and gender issues in Taiwan. For a long time, I seem to be fighting against the air, pushing a rolling stone uphill. Sometimes I feel quite powerless, but I still feel that I must continue to fight until the end and not compromise with evil forces. Since I got to know some Dharma friends from INEB, I have gained confidence again, and I feel everyone can unite into a righteous force, especially to use Buddhist Dharma to transform society.

(Chen and Chuan-Fa 2017, pp. 16–17)

INEB確實是一個有理想性、行動性、草根性，非常注重青年的未來與教育與培養的組織。 […] 近年來，我在台灣也做些動保、人權、性別議題的努力，長期以來好似在與空氣搏鬥，推著滾石上坡，有時也有相當大的無力感，但是仍覺得必需奮鬥下去，直到最後一口氣，不向惡勢力妥協。自從認識INEB法友之後，我又升起信心，覺得大家可以凝聚成一股正義的力量，特別是以佛法去改變社會。

While Chao-hwei honored Sulak Sivaraksa by presenting a new publication of one of his books in Chinese translation, he himself summarized his appreciation of “Taiwanese Buddhism” (Taiwan fojiao 台灣佛教, not calling it “renjian fojiao”) in his greetings this way (as published in Chinese):

According to the blueprint for the next ten years, I believe that in the future INEB will grow more and more in terms of both the number of people and the quality. Our Southern Buddhism (nanchuan fojiao 南傳佛教; Theravāda) must learn more about Mahāyāna Buddhism, especially the experience of Taiwanese Buddhism, such as end-of-life care, social justice, and especially the attitude towards women. I hope that Southern Buddhist countries will start to pay more respect to the female gender, and to bhikṣuṇīs. I hope that in my lifetime in the future, I can see a greater development of rushi fojiao [Engaged Buddhism], and better realizations in society, economy, politics (non-violent), and education.

(Chen and Chuan-Fa 2017, p. 16)

依於未來十年的藍圖，相信將來INEB在人數及品質方面，都會愈來愈成長。我們南傳佛教必需對大乘佛教學習更多，特別是台灣佛教的經驗，像是臨終照顧、社會正義，尤其是對待女性的態度上，希望南傳國家開始對女性、對比丘尼愈來愈注重與尊敬。希望未來在我有生之年，能看到入世佛教更大的發展，在社會、經濟、政治（非暴力）、教育各方面，都能有更美好的實現。

As can be seen here, Sulak Sivaraksa himself cultivated a certain North/South dichotomy, and made the “other”, his “Taiwan experience”, part of his “blueprint” (lantu 藍圖) for the next ten years.52 Among the wishes he expressed, however, was also the following:

I hope that in my lifetime, I will have the opportunity to go to China. I hope that the Chinese people in China can put the spirit of rushi fojiao [“Engaged Buddhism”] into practice and get more social justice and freedom of speech.

(Chen and Chuan-Fa 2017. p. 18)

希望在有生之年，能夠有機會去到中國，希望在中國的中國人，可以實踐入世佛教的精神，可以得到更多的社會正義與言論自由。

In the end, one might wonder here to what extent, in the eyes of INEB’s members, the “Taiwan experience” has become synonymous with “Engaged Buddhism” (or “rushi fojiao”), while “renjian fojiao”, which most of them call “Humanistic Buddhism”, has been subordinated or even marginalized—with the help of “concept-unaffected” or “concept-corresponding” Taiwanese Buddhists, who themselves are yet to express clearly enough how their heritage should be treated in this context. This could be further complicated if the INEB leadership expects to “liberate” mainland China from political oppression by spreading the “spirit of rushi fojiao [‘Engaged Buddhism’]”, unaware of (or tabooing?) the fact that mainland Chinese Buddhists, most notably the BAC, propagate their own ideas in the name of “renjian fojiao”.

5. Potential for Conflict

Since the two INEB conferences in Taiwan, it can be said that a certain consensus was reached on the compatibility of the general appearance of “renjian fojiao” in Taiwan, perceived by most of the non-Chinese INEB members as “Humanistic Buddhism” in its broadest sense, and “Engaged Buddhism” as it is represented by INEB and perceived by Taiwanese Buddhists as “rushi fojiao”. Chao-hwei played a leading role in this harmonious rapprochement process.

However, whether it is the system-loyal approach of “renjian fojiao” or the intellectual background, which, as in the individual case of Chao-hwei, owes much to Yin Shun’s tremendous lifework and includes further-reaching socio-critical positions, there remains a certain potential for conflict which can at least be observed outside of Taiwan.

5.1. Potential for Conflict: The Case of YBAM

The large Chinese-speaking Buddhist community in Malaysia, particularly the Young Buddhist Association of Malaysia (Mafoqing zonghui 馬佛青總會, YBAM) circles, might serve as an example of how different opinions can lead to serious controversies. Much has to do with the vicissitudinous history of how the concepts of “renjian fojiao” and “Engaged Buddhism”, alias “rushi fojiao”, came into more or less simultaneous existence there.53

A short essay on “Rushi fojiao and renjian fojiao” (入世佛教·人間佛教) by Goh Tay Hock 吳德福, former President of the YBAM (2002–2006), summarized a series of allegations against “renjian fojiao”, which only appears to be the tip of the iceberg. It also referred to a critical opinion that Sulak Sivaraksa had on “renjian fojiao”, which the latter did not make public in Taiwan:

“rushi fojiao” believes that the suffering in the world (Dukkha) is an institutionalized problem. According to this fundamental concept, to solve the suffering, we must start from the institutional system; for example, if the medical service collapses, we must find out the culprit, find out the root of the problem, and solve it fundamentally.

The theory of “renjian fojiao” is that the solution to suffering is to help the sufferer, such as donating some medical bills or donating some medical supplies.

“rushi fojiao” believes that “renjian fojiao” is to make up for the shortcomings of the system, it indirectly contributes to the continued decay of the system, and continues to cause suffering. To put it bluntly, it is an accomplice in creating difficulties (to borrow the words of Sulak Sivaraksa).54

“renjian fojiao” believes that “rushi fojiao” is too idealistic and not practical.

Therefore, Dato’ lr Ang Choo Hong, a Buddhist elder, made a point [liter.: beat the snake with a stick] and asked: Which route do you take? “rushi fojiao” or “renjian fojiao”?

(Goh 2021)55

入世佛教認為世間的苦難（Dukkha）乃建制的問題。

根據此根本理念乃要解決苦難必須從建制著手；比如醫療服務崩潰，就要找出禍首，找出問題源頭，在根本上解決它。

人間佛教的理念是，苦難的解決辦法是協助受難者，如捐點醫藥費或捐點醫藥物品什麼的。

入世佛教認為人間佛教是彌補建制的缺陷，間接助長建制的繼續腐爛，繼續衍生苦難。說不好聽一點就是製造困難的幫兇（借用 Sulak Sivaraksa 的話）。

人間佛教認為入世佛教太理想，不實際。是故，佛教長者拿督洪祖豐居士打蛇隨棍而有所詢問： 你走哪一條路線？入世佛教還是人間佛教？

The probable reference to Ang Choo Hong here recalled the latter’s critical position, who in his 2011 essay “What does ‘rushi fojiao’ Mean?” (何謂“入世佛教”？) even went so far as to claim that, “from a sociological point of view, ‘renjian fojiao’ belongs to the ‘Right-Wing’, it is just the exact opposite of the ‘left-wing’ ‘rushi fojiao’” (從社會學的觀點來看，“人間佛教“是屬於“左翼“型，與“左翼“的“入世佛教“剛好相反) (Ang 2011).

In addition to these accusations, Goh reflected on a no less fundamental conflict over the influence of Yin Shun’s legacy on the understanding of “renjian fojiao” in Malaysia. As his influence grew among representatives of the YBAM, and some proponents made the point that one has to make a distinct choice between (Yin Shun’s interpretation of) “renjian fojiao” and “rushi fojiao”, Goh tried to harmonize the positions by drawing attention to practice instead of theory:

Isn’t the [Malaysian] Buddhist Youth influenced by Yin Shun’s thought of “renjian fojiao”? The influence is there, but only functional. The Buddhist Youth is [concentrated on] social practice, not intellectual research (治學研究). Our manpower is limited, and resources cannot be wasted. In the most limited time and space, we promote the transformation of Buddhist society in Malaysia. To be honest, it is a waste of resources to satisfy some useless arrangements. If you have once attended the [Malaysian] Buddhist Youth Congress, you will have experienced what kind of “renjian fojiao” or “rushi fojiao” it is. Intellectual research [only] provides theory, whereas social practice should focus on achieving goals based on causes and conditions.

(Goh 2021)

佛青受不受到印老人間佛教思想的影響？影響是有，只取有功能性的。佛青是社會實踐，非治學研究。我們人力有限，不容浪費資源。在最有限的時空，達到推動大馬佛教社會的改變。老實說，為了滿足部份無用的安排做法，是資源浪費。若有出席當年的佛青代表大會，就能體會那是怎樣的人間佛教，抑或入世佛教。治學研究提供理論，社會實踐當依因緣達至目的為重心。

In addition to the concern that infiltrating the YBAM with the thoughts of Yin Shun could mean an over-“intellectualization”, Goh also warned against the misleading influence of scholarly over-“academization”. He regarded scholars of Buddhist studies as responsible for an unnecessary demarcation between “renjian fojiao” and “rushi fojiao”:

“renjian fojiao” and “rushi fojiao” are the self-definition of intellectual research, which is convenient for explaining the historical situation, so as to be able to write papers and make some trends visible. This is the difference between academic research and social practice. As far as those [academic] interpretation tools are concerned, there is no need to waste energy on the question to which master what can be traced back to. As for academic researchers, we should respect that they continue academic research to clarify the blind spots of social practice. When [our] social practice has access to analysis based on academic research, it should be able to sort out strategies. [In this sense,] my personal observations and readings focus on the continuous improvement of social practice, and part of this is due to academic research. To which master it can be traced back to is not the point!

(Goh 2021)

人間佛教，與入世佛教，乃學術研究的自我定義，方便解釋歷史現狀，以能寫成論文，整理方向。學術研究和社會實踐的差別在於此。對此詮釋之工具，無須費神追究出自那家。學術研究的，繼續容他們學術研究，也有好處，厘清社會實踐的盲點。社會實踐有學術研究分析，當能整理方策。我一向看看讀讀，比較在乎不斷改良的社會實踐，有部份當感謝學術研究。出自那家，不是重點！

These comments show how the coexistence of “renjian fojiao” and “rushi fojiao” could lead to conflicts among Chinese-speaking Buddhists when these concepts have been defined too restrictively by either Buddhist intellectuals (particularly “concept-affirming” proponents), or by scholars of Buddhist studies (either in the aforementioned “concept-distancing” sense or a “concept-processing” sense).

5.2. Potential for Conflict: The Case of BAC

Another potential for conflict is given in mainland China in cases where “Engaged Buddhism” is associated with scholarly definitions that emphasize a more radical political engagement or with politically sensitive activities of “concept-affirming” proponents of the INEB, such as Thích Nhất Hạnh, Sulak Sivaraksa and the Dalai Lama.56

In the official magazine of the BAC, Fayin 法音 (Voice of Dharma), there are only very few mentions of “Engaged Buddhism”, all of which are concentrated on non-Chinese-speaking areas such as Southern East Asia. However, from the perspective of the BAC, there is a linguistically indirect, yet quite clear position, documented on their official homepage for more than ten years, emphasizing that (their understanding of) “renjian fojiao” is the only way to practice Buddhist engagement in the sense of “rushi”—“entering the world”:

Then, how will Buddhism smoothly pass through the time tunnel of the 21st century, so that the Buddhist sun can shine in a wider time and space? The only way is to stick to the path of “renjian fojiao”. Now, there is no need, and there is no necessity to dispute about the issue of “whether or not” in the discussion of this topic, and there is no need to quote classics and excerpts from various works to make theoretical explanations, but we have to think about “how to do it”, in order to guide, promote, expand, and improve the practice of “renjian fojiao”. In short, this is [how] to explore the way of Buddhism entering the world [fojiao de rushi zhi dao].

(BAC Buddhist Association of China 2012)57

那麼，佛教又將如何順利地通過21世紀的時光隧道，讓佛日能夠閃耀在更廣闊的時空呢？ 只有堅持走“人間佛教”的道路。現在，關於這一話題的議論，已經不需要、也沒有必要再討論“要不要”的問題，也不需要再引經據典、尋章摘句去作理論的闡釋，而是要思考“要怎麼做”的方法問題，去引導、推動、光大、完善人間佛教的實踐。簡而言之，就是要探討佛教的入世之道。

While “Engaged Buddhism” as a term used by INEB members is not a choice in the PRC,58 “renjian fojiao” became established as a term with the predicate of a “guiding thought” since the end of the 1980s. Although its connotations changed over the decades and it is far from the (explicit) focus of recent internationalization efforts of the BAC, such as the initiative of a “World Buddhist Forum” (Shijie fojiao luntan 世界佛教論壇) since 2006, its importance is highly significant.59 In addition to its geopolitical function on an international level in inevitable (but not exclusive) competition with the concept of “Engaged Buddhism”, “renjian fojiao” is being (re)shaped by Buddhists and scholars on the mainland in order to gain interpretative sovereignty (sometimes spoken out as “zhanling huayuquan”占領話語權), first and foremost, over “renjian-fojiao” concepts “made in Taiwan”.60 As this implies a strong emphasis on the role of Taixu as the father of the concept “made in China”, it is not impossible that a narrative will be further developed to subordinate not only Yin Shun and Hsing Yun, who fled the mainland, and other Taiwanese proponents, but even the “father” of “Engaged Buddhism”, Thích Nhất Hạnh, to a concept of “renjian fojiao” defined by the BAC. However, the question may then be to what extent the “concept-corresponding” proponents of “renjian fojiao” in Taiwan and elsewhere, and even some of its “concept-affirming” proponents, such as Chao-hwei, have the better (historical) arguments for their “lineage”—or still feel the need at all to hold on to the term “renjian fojiao”.

6. Conclusions

As the analysis of various sources in recent decades has shown, the Chinese discourse on the international concept of “Engaged Buddhism” strongly depends on how the term “Engaged Buddhism” is rendered in Chinese, which Buddhist or academic conceptualization it refers to, and in what way it is related to what kind of “renjian fojiao” in the Chinese Buddhist field.

In summary, we can see how the most prominent Buddhist “concept-affirming” proponents of “renjian fojiao”, such as Chao-hwei, Fo Guang Shan, and the BAC, opted for different approaches. In contrast to the debate(s) about an interreligious “tripolar typology”, etc.,61 we should think here about a more intra-religious phenomenon of Buddhist positionings, with the categories of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism, complemented by a certain pragmatism:

The BAC avoided entering into a dialogue with “concept-affirming” proponents of “Engaged Buddhism” and regarded “renjian fojiao” as “guiding thought” in an exclusivist manner. “Renjian fojiao” appears here as a religious concept with changing functions according to socio-political circumstances, to reconcile mainland Buddhists with their CPC directives, and to serve dialogues (and/or the competition for interpretative sovereignty) along the Taiwan Strait.

In contrast, the Fo Guang Shan provided the platform for an academic dialogue involving both mainland Chinese scholars and Western “concept-processing” scholars in 2009, some of whom emerged as (at least) “concept-corresponding” proponents of “Engaged Buddhism”. However, Fo Guang Shan rendered “Engaged Buddhism” here as “canyu fojiao” and avoided the terminology of INEB (“rushi fojiao”) as well as an association with INEB on other occasions. Furthermore, it presented both concepts as possible role models in a pluralistic manner by maintaining a certain distance from “canyu fojiao” and putting “renjian fojiao” on an equal footing with it.62 However, as can be seen from the discursive development considering the aforementioned Fo Guang Shan background of the 2006 event (Xue Yu), the contributions of Yo Hsiang Chou with his Fo Guang Shan background (2007), the promotion of research on Hsing Yun in comparison to Thích Nhất Hạnh (2012/2013), and the exhibition-in-process on “Engaged Buddhism”/“renjian fojiao” (2022), that Fo Guang Shan seems to be indirectly leaning towards a more inclusivistic approach of subsuming other Buddhisms under its version of “renjian fojiao”.

The most direct and intensive exchange with “concept-affirming” proponents of “Engaged Buddhism” at eye level was cultivated by Chao-hwei, who invited the INEB to two conferences in Taiwan and received the honorary title of its “patron” (Chin. “spiritual supervisor”). Although she based her theoretical framework on her understanding of Yin Shun’s “renjian fojiao”, Chao-hwei was not afraid to present herself at the same time as a “concept-affirming” proponent of “Engaged Buddhism”, alias “rushi fojiao”. With this initiative, she seemed to pursue a semi-inclusivistic approach, but in particular, one that tended to be pragmatic: First, she integrated “concept-corresponding” proponents of “renjian fojiao” into her portrayal of Taiwanese (“concept-corresponding”) proponents of “rushi fojiao”. Second, she used the context of “rushi fojiao”, whether by Taiwanese or indirectly by non-Chinese proponents, to discuss issues of “rushi” versus “chushi”, connecting it with her Mahāyāna Buddhist-inspired blueprint of “renjian fojiao” in its broadest sense. Although Chao-hwei in many ways represents only a minority position within the overall Taiwanese Buddhist community, she played a crucial role in the encounter between proponents of “renjian fojiao” and “Engaged Buddhism”, engaging in dialogue with the INEB in an increasingly institutionalized way that also forces (or triggers) some other (major) actors to take a position on the two(!) concepts under discussion.

In a less intellectual way, Goh Tay Hock justified the coexistence of “renjian fojiao” and “rushi fojiao” in the Malaysian context by invoking pure pragmatism. This was in reaction to arguments by Ang Choo Hong and others, including Sulak Sivaraksa, who regarded “renjian fojiao” as inferior to “Engaged Buddhism”, alias “rushi fojiao”. Ang Choo Hong went so far as to blame “renjian fojiao” as a more conservative “youyi fojiao” (“Right-Wing Buddhism”). His exclusivistic approach from the “rushi fojiao” point of view emphasized the politically leftist, non-governmental strengths of “Engaged Buddhism”. As Ang complained:

In recent times, Western “rushi fojiao” [“Engaged Buddhism”] has become more moderate, and the scope of its concern has moved toward social practices such as gender equality and environmental protection (although these matters are still inevitably political, they are less direct). This new development is in the direction of “renjian fojiao”, although in name they still call themselves “rushi fojiao”. [….] Today’s “rushi fojiao” has been diluted.

(Ang 2011)

近代以来西方“入世佛教”已变得温和，其所关注的范围也朝向社会性实践，如性别平等、环保等 （虽然这些事务仍无可避免地要牵涉政治，但比较不直接）。這種新發展，倒是朝向了“人間佛教”，雖然在名堂上他們仍以“入世佛教”自居。[….] 現今的“入世佛教”已經淡化了。

Can we see proponents of “Engaged Buddhism” outside of Taiwan whose teachings are diluted—or inspired—by “renjian fojiao”? Can we see proponents of “renjian fojiao” whose teachings are influenced by “Engaged Buddhism” via “rushi fojiao”? As the INEB conferences in Taiwan and some pragmatic approaches in Malaysia showed, both concepts are currently being adapted to each other by “concept-affirming” and “concept-corresponding” proponents, depending on local circumstances.63

So were the terms and concepts used by Buddhist representatives, with their ambiguous and changing semantics, sufficient to be adopted literally by academics and transformed into scientific categories? Or would a scientific description of these Buddhists’ concepts as “Left Wing”/“Right Wing” or as “Buddhist Activism”, etc., more appropriate? Since the rendering of “Engaged Buddhism” with different terms in Chinese led to different degrees of Buddhist and academic demarcation, integration, and subordination, it also raises the opposite question of how “renjian fojiao” was interpreted in non-Chinese languages.

In Western countries, scholars increasingly questioned whether “Engaged Buddhism” became more and more a product of relatively biased (“concept-processing”) scholars.64 It is something that we can also observe in relation to “renjian fojiao”. More has to be accomplished by scholars in order to avoid further misunderstandings concerning the level at which they discuss existing Buddhist concepts or scholarly categories.65 If we look, for example, at the debate among Western critics who warn that, due to the overemphasis on “Engaged Buddhism”, a “Disengaged Buddhism” should also be discussed, we can see that a similar debate in Chinese-speaking countries is already decades old. Of course, while it makes a lot of sense to learn from those foregoing debates of Chinese Buddhists and scholars, one has also to be aware of different contexts that played a role there.

This comparative observation of Buddhist positions and academic categorizations in Chinese-speaking communities requires a much more systematic analysis. At what various levels do “concept-affected” (“concept-affirming”, “concept-negating”, and “concept-corresponding”) and “concept-unaffected” Buddhist proponents, as well as “concept-distancing” or “concept-processing” scholars in the discourse, embrace what kind of concept? Whether it is the journey of “renjian fojiao” or of “Engaged Buddhism”, it is about much more than only one conceptual history.