In Taiwan, issues of provincial origin and ethnicity are often intentionally used to manipulate elections. During the March 2004 presidential election, ethnic sentiment was once again provoked to the extent that some people chanted slogans of “localization” and “de-sinicization.” This throws us into doubt. In this era of multiculturalism, when countries are making every effort to absorb other cultures, it is indeed perplexing—and even unfathomable—why some Taiwanese people are moving to “discard” a culture via “de-sinicization.”

The purposes of promoting Buddhist culture and education are to guide sentient beings towards purifying their body and mind, and awakening their wisdom. By relying on cultural and educational means, it is possible to avoid conflicts between different religious faiths and allow non-Buddhists to accept Buddhist culture. In the course of accepting Buddhist culture, they will be able to gradually understand and eventually accept Buddhism. It is a kind of “skillful and expedient means” of the Dharma. Through culture and education, we can teach according to the learners’ aptitude, bring benefits and joy to all sentient beings and allow them to gain wisdom.

The various Buddhist social reformation and liberation movements are broadly referred to as Engaged Buddhist movements. While addressing issues concerning their communities, they have also acquired global dimensions as evident from the transnational networking among Buddhists/Buddhist organizations in Asia, as well as in the West, and the multicultural following that has come to characterize these contemporary Buddhist social movements.

Humanistic Buddhism was initially proposed by Master Taixu in early modern times, then refined in theory and verified in practice by a number of eminent monks. It now is a major ideological trend and practical model for Chinese Buddhism in Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao. Fo Guang Shan in Taiwan, under the leadership of Venerable Master Hsing Yun, has brought the model of Humanistic Buddhism development worldwide. This has become an important channel for Chinese culture to the world. How is it that Humanistic Buddhism has become a major Buddhist ideological trend on the Chinese mainland? How has it become the way for Buddhism to modernize and to survive? Humanistic Buddhism not only responds to the practical needs of this era, but it is rooted in long-standing Buddhist spiritual traditions and the Buddha’s original intents.

The most prominent element in the success of Humanistic Buddhism is the modernization and internationalization of Chinese Buddhism. Under the premise of returning to the original intents of the Buddha, advocates and practitioners of Humanistic Buddhism look forward to spreading the Dharma in ways that are readily embraced by people of current times. For example, in the 1950s and 1960s, Fo Guang Shan’s Venerable Master Hsing Yun was already advocating for reform in Buddhism: its ranks, its organizations, its administrative systems, its precepts, its means of propagating the Dharma, its education, its culture, and its internationalization.

Ever since Buddhism began disseminating from India to other parts of the globe, it has had to find its way through a seemingly endless array of host cultures. As the world’s largest Buddhist order, Fo Guang Shan has successfully taken root in some 200 major cities across the five continents. How has Humanistic Buddhism as advocated by Fo Guang Shan’s founder Venerable Master Hsing Yun acculturated in a wide range of cultural locations across the world? This paper assesses the progress and acculturation of Fo Guang Shan, and discusses the factors of success and failures in terms of its acculturation strategies, changes in the approaches of Dharma propagation, and the acculturative stress experienced.

Localization is the primary reason that Buddhism flourished in China. Venerable Master Hsing Yun’s emphasis on adapting Buddhism to local cultural practices is crucial to Fo Guang Shan’s success in spreading the Dharma overseas. This paper discusses the process of localizing Buddhism in the West, focusing on the philosophy and methodology of localization, as well as the ways in which Fo Guang Shan has successfully localized in Western countries.

Venerable Master Hsing Yun has confidence in, awareness of, and a great aspiration to improve Buddhist teachings, and has for many years promoted the international spread of Humanistic Buddhism. With the establishment of more than three hundred temples worldwide, he has performed the first steps toward realizing his great vow of having “the Buddha’s light shining universally on the three thousand realms and the Dharma stream flowing across all five continents.” Among these worldwide temples, the construction works in Australia and the teaching of Buddhism in that country have been outstanding, drawing much praise for its speedy execution and extensive influence.

The journey of Venerable Master Hsing Yun’s Humanistic Buddhism back to India can generally be divided into two stages. The first stage spanned from 1963 to 2008, when the Venerable Master made eight pilgrimages to India and gradually affirmed his desire to bring Buddhism back there. He and some of his monastics began to develop a preliminary plan. The second stage began with the establishment of the New Delhi Educational and Cultural Centre (hereinafter referred to as the Centre). By building a temple, initiating educational programs, setting up charitable clinics, and engaging in cross-cultural exchanges, Buddhism was reestablished in India.

It is well-known that Japanese Buddhism came from China, and in the course of its acceptance and accommodation into Japanese society, it underwent many changes, whether planned or unintentional. Are these changes original innovations or complacent degeneration? The distinction may be subtle. It is certainly not our role here to resolve this question by passing value judgements, as there might be necessary reasons behind these changes. Rather than simply making a value judgement, the researcher prioritize the pursuit of truth. Having said that, when considering the nature of religion, we must necessarily be concerned with how changes affect the vitality of religion.

This article begins with a discussion of several common elements and similar phenomena found in the history of music in the Buddhism of the Dai people of China and in Japanese Buddhism during the late stages of the spread of Buddhism around the world. Then, using these clues, the relevant documentary materials available in Chinese are used to further describe the early localization of music in Japan. Finally, based on a comparison of field surveys and relevant documentary data, a comparative analysis of these two schools of Buddhist music is made, taking into account their status and respective conditions within the opposed courses of globalization and localization, and in relation to being either a transmitter or receiver of musical ideas.