01-佛教现代主义

从外部：西方学者（尤以英国的东方学家为著）发现并翻译了大量佛教文献，构建出一个"原始佛教"或"纯粹佛教"的形象。这个形象往往是高度理性化的、去神话化的，被说成是与迷信分离的"真正佛教"。巴利文学会（Pali Text Society，1881年成立）、麦克斯·米勒（Max Müller）的《东方圣典》（Sacred Books of the East）系列都是这种学术建构的产物。

- Ronald E. Purser. McMindfulness: How Mindfulness Became the New Capitalist Spirituality. London: Repeater Books, 2019.（正念产业的政治经济批评；佛教现代主义的晚近形态）

David L. McMahan. The Making of Buddhist Modernism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 5–24, 42–55.（佛教现代主义的标准学术分析；去神话化、心理学化、普世化等核心概念）

Philip C. Almond. The British Discovery of Buddhism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.（西方学者如何建构"佛教"这个概念；东方学的作用）

Richard Gombrich and Gananath Obeyesekere. Buddhism Transformed: Religious Change in Sri Lanka. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988, pp. 202–216, esp. pp. 215–216.（"新教化佛教"概念的来源；斯里兰卡佛教现代化的案例研究）

Donald S. Lopez Jr. Buddhism and Science: A Guide for the Perplexed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.（"佛教是科学的"这个说法的历史批判性分析）该书自述所研究者为佛教与科学相合之说一百五十余年来经久不衰的历史（书内 xi–xii 页）；亚洲佛教徒倡言二者相合，是"to validate their Buddhism"（书内 xi 页），而此类说法于十九世纪末初起时，科学已带有"authority, validation, and truth"的意涵（书内 32 页）。同一论题的历史部分，另见 David L. McMahan. The Making of Buddhist Modernism. Oxford University Press, 2008，第四章题即作"Modernity and the Discourse of Scientific Buddhism"（书内 89–116 页），逐一论奥尔科特、卡鲁斯与达摩波罗如何把佛教说成合于科学者。正文所说的合法性预设，麦克马汉于书内 11 页有一句相当："Part of the appeal of Buddhism to the West, as well as its renewed prestige in Asia, has been the prospect that Buddhism could be understood as a 'rational religion' uniquely compatible with modern science. This has been an important aspect of the construction of Buddhist modernism historically and remains an essential part of its claims to legitimacy today."惟他并不认为现代主义者就此全盘让位于科学，须记两处：其一，书内 86 页谓"Buddhist modernists, therefore, while eager to ally Buddhism with science, have also critiqued scientific materialism by adopting some of Romanticism's assessments of Enlightenment rationalism"；其二，书内 75 页举太虚为例，谓其"establish the compatibility of Buddhism and science while also insisting on Buddhism's capacity to surpass science"。是则以科学为准与欲驾科学而上，在同一批人身上并存。

Don A. Pittman. Toward a Modern Chinese Buddhism: Taixu's Reforms. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2001.（太虚的改革纲领及其历史背景的权威研究）

Charles B. Jones. Buddhism in Taiwan: Religion and the State, 1660—1990. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1999.（印顺的历史批判方法与"天化"一语的出处。该书径用汉语拼音记此词："Yinshun thought the problem had roots in the history of early Indian Buddhism. During that time, Buddhism became progressively more theistic (tianhua or shenhua)"，引印顺 1985:18；又记印顺改太虚的"人生佛教"为"人间佛教"，并引其所据《增壹阿含》"诸佛世尊皆出人间，非由天而得也"一语。其《净土新论》以历史方法考弥陀信仰之源，书中谓此说"must have proven very offensive to the average Pure Land devotee who conceived Amitābha as an existent Buddha and not a constructed deity whose derivation could be elucidated historically"，其后印顺遭公开批判而退避，"To this day, Yinshun maintains an ambiguous position within Taiwan Buddhist circles"。C. Julia Huang 前引书所记更直：印顺"was silenced in the 1950s, when they suggested that his position constituted Communist agitation"。该书断限在 1990 年，四大道场中佛光山、慈济、法鼓山三家均有述，中台山不在其范围，另见下注。）

Robert H. Sharf. "The Zen of Japanese Nationalism." In Curators of the Buddha: The Study of Buddhism under Colonialism, ed. Donald S. Lopez Jr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.（铃木大拙禅的现代主义建构及其日本民族主义背景的批评性分析）

Stephen Batchelor. Buddhism Without Beliefs. New York: Riverhead Books, 1997；Confession of a Buddhist Atheist. New York: Spiegel & Grau, 2010；After Buddhism: Rethinking the Dharma for a Secular Age. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015.（世俗佛教立场的三部核心著作）；关于世俗佛教社群的成形，参 Noah Rasheta 的播客"Secular Buddhism"（2014年起）及 Ted Meissner 主持的 Secular Buddhist Association 相关材料.

世俗佛教与正念去宗教化的批评，参 Bhikkhu Bodhi, "Facing the Great Divide," Inquiring Mind 31.2 (Spring 2015)；idem, "The Transformations of Mindfulness," in Handbook of Mindfulness: Culture, Context, and Social Engagement, ed. Ronald E. Purser, David Forbes, and Adam Burke (Springer, 2016), 3–14（页码据 Springer 目录，本书所据为作者自存稿）。世俗佛教一方的回应，参 Stephen Batchelor, "The Secularisation of Buddhism," Bodhi College 网站，2016 年 3 月 1 日（经编辑之本刊 The Times (London), 6 February 2016）。这一论争在美国佛教中的脉络，参 Ann Gleig. American Dharma: Buddhism Beyond Modernity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019, 57–59、269。

四大道场的制度史，1990 年以前见 Charles B. Jones 前引书；四家并观见 Elise Anne DeVido. Taiwan's Buddhist Nuns. Albany: SUNY Press, 2010（该书正文全用汉语拼音，作 Ciji、Zhengyan、Foguangshan、Fagushan、Zhongtai；书末索引径立"Tzu Chi. See Ciji"一条，可见是编辑上的定例。惟 Tzu Chi 一式仍见于版权声明、他人著作题名與《Tzu Chi Monthly》等专名共十五处，Cheng Yen 则全书零见，检索须留意）。DeVido 指出一件本表未及的事（书内第 27 页）：四家之中"the Foguangshan, Fagushan, and Zhongtai Chan organizations are led by monks born in China"，惟慈济由证严主持，是唯一以比丘尼领众的一家。中台山一节另可参该书所记 1996 年剃度事件：该寺大专佛学夏令营结束时有 129 名女学生未告知家人即请求剃度，家长赶至寺中强行带回（该书作 "leading to frantic parents rushing to the temple and physically forcing their daughters home, some trussed up with rope"，书内第 128 页注一一一），台湾教内外多批评其"irregular and non-transparent recruitment process"，并同时指中台山與学生双方违于孝道之责。慈济一家的专门研究见 C. Julia Huang 前引书。