Review article demonstrates the scope of Buddhist historiography in China, suggesting that broadening recognized genres reveals perspectives beyond state and monastic elites.
This review article argues that John Kieschnick’s Buddhist Historiography in China (2022) constitutes a landmark in the field. The book covers a large swath of original sources, analyzes authorial strategies, and assesses the place of writing about the Buddhist past within the Sinocentric tradition of court-focused historiography. I point up the strengths of the book, identify its most significant chapters, and probe its interpretation of Buddhist historiography. I also suggest that, by including a broader range of genres within the ambit of Buddhist historiography, future scholarship might add perspectives that diverge from those of the centralized state and the Saṃgha.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stephen F. Teiser (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: