Encyclopedia of India–China Cultural Contacts v2.c15.s2.t9.6

v2.c15.s2.t9.6

He knew many languages including English, Japanese, Sanskrit, Pali and Tibetan. He pursued his studies in Indian Buddhism, Southern Buddhism, Chinese Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism, and also in the collation of Sanskrit and Tibetan Buddhist *sutras* and the philology-like edition and catalogue. In terms of the argumentation of Buddhism, one of his greatest findings was that he fully demonstrated the fundamental differences between Indian Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism from the perspective of nature of mind, the core issue of Buddhism. He believed that the former stands for the quiet nature of mind that is the inner nirvana of our self nature, while the latter stands for awareness of nature of mind that is Buddhi of self nature. He argued that by only using ‘quiet nature’ to explain the quiet nature of mind is Indian Buddhism. This finding has provided a basis for determining the authenticity of some sutras. On the basis of textual research, he created the ‘criticism method based on evidences’ for studying Buddhist thoughts and authenticity and applied it to studying the origin of The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana Doctrine, which achieved important results. In terms of the collation of Buddhism sutras, he devoted himself to the edition of Zang Yao between 1928 and 1937, and the book includes over 400 volumes. During his editing, he found that the 85-98 volumes of *Yogacara-Bhumi Sastra* was the order of arrangement and interpretation of *Samyuktagama Sutra* and so he wrote *Modification for Samyuktagama Sutra* that provided a strong evidence for studying the origin of Yogacara and the relations of the three vehicles of Buddhism, namely Sravakayana, Prateka-Buddhayana and Bodhisattvayana.