The purpose of this study is twofold: First, to demonstrate how the Chinese Buddhist community utilized periodical publications to fend off external aggression and to foster internal consensus over Buddhist modernization, an effort that often resulted in division rather than unity.
Second, it aims to present the thematic arguments made in periodicals. The articles in the periodicals, I argue, allow us to delineate interactions between the two camps in a way that illustrates the sophisticated mentality behind them for adapting to modern society. The reform camp shared common interests with the conservative camp, (i.e., restoration camp). when Buddhism as a religion was facing external threats, like the Campaign of Confiscating Temple for
Education; yet they diverged when it came to internal issues, including the institutional reshuffle and dealing with issues of Buddhism and state, as well as with science.
Chapter Two sets the stage by providing detailed accounts of the seven Buddhist periodicals of study. As mentioned above, these seven periodicals come from both camps. The first part of this dissertation focuses on the four belonging to the reform camp, while the second part discusses the remaining three from the conservative camp. For each periodical, I detail its founder, main editorial staff, format and style, contributors and authors, potential readership, and area of influence. The four periodicals of the reform camp generally had larger national influence as they were scattered across China, with national distributors, while the three conservative camp’s periodicals were more closely connected with the Buddhist community in the lower Yangtze area, where the Buddhist establishment was prominent. Through comparison among these seven periodicals, I argue that the reform camp periodicals enjoyed greater influence due to their founders’ acumen and adroit use of the print industry, as well as their eagerness to propagate their vision of Buddhism, which resulted in their successful employment and operation of the press. The conservative camp’s periodicals were less ambitious and geared toward a more targeted audience:
the clerical class and practicing lay Buddhists. These differences serve as a prelude to the respective attitudes, mentalities, and responses to specific themes of these two camps, which will be detailed in the following chapters.
For both camps, the most important reason for engaging in periodical publication was a sense of crisis. Hence Chapter Three investigates the two camps’ response toward the crisis-consciousness of Buddhism. By presenting periodical articles written by prominent figures as well as less-known authors, I found that the reform camp closely interacted with the social crisis-consciousness prevailing in China around the 1910s and 1920s; by borrowing social crisis rhetoric
and applying it to Buddhism, the reform camp fostered a sense of urgency for Buddhism. The conservative camp showed less interest in responding to the social sentiment, and chose to urge action on more specific social issues. When the conservative camp used periodicals to discuss the issue of new vs. old, it was inclined to value the latter.
The crisis-consciousness of the time largely resulted from the remodeling of Chinese culture through the criteria of science, an essential component for the discourse of modernity. Thus Chapter Four investigates both camps’ response to science as seen in the writing in their respective periodicals. Studies on the relationship between Buddhism and science in the modern era have depicted the sophisticated exchange and appropriation between the two, yet I choose to present a muddled picture at the time when Buddhist writers fervently discussed science. Having examined these discussions through the lenses of the reform and conservative camps, I contend that the Buddhist community was much more divided on the issue than previously suggested. Though elite Buddhist intellectuals and leaders, like Taixu and Wang Jitong, proposed innovative ideas, the voices from other Buddhist writers indicated there was still much left to debate. The conservative camp writers, who generally possessed less familiarity with modern scientific knowledge, came up with their own perspective criticizing science as the dominant social ethos.
The subsequent two chapters examine the relationship between Buddhism and the state, focusing on the rhetorical perception manifested by Buddhist periodical writers, and delving into the specific case of the Temple Confiscation Campaign to illustrate the diverse response and counter-proposals made by Buddhists from both camps. The discussion of the religion and state relationship by these Buddhist writers testifies to the divergent visions among the two camps in terms of positioning Buddhism in the modern state. The case of the temple appropriation movement also denotes the commonality, despite their differences, when faced with specific
external threats. In general, the reform camp Buddhists, who advocated for a constructive role for Buddhism, were more involved in the modern state-building process, while the conservative camp refrained from explicitly engaging in political ideological debates.
The final two chapters focus on how these two camps presented and propagated traditional Buddhist concerns and practices through periodicals. Chapter Six explores the body of discourse manifested from these periodicals, including issues of self-immolation, bodily mutilation, and blood writings. Chapter Seven concentrates on the propagation of vegetarianism by both camps. I argue that both camps shared a common interest in asserting traditional concerns within a modern form of Chinese Buddhism. The reform camp did not represent a total breakaway from traditional concerns while the conservative camp was well aware of the necessity to situate traditional practices in a modern context.