[
    {
        "id": 205131,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1966",
        "page_number": 87,
        "title": "RAS-1966",
        "content_text": "82\n\nHOLMES WELCH\n\nThe earliest manifestation of the Tantric revival was perhaps a school of Tibetan studies that operated in Peking 1924-1925. Founded by T'ai-hsü and headed by his disciple Ta-yung, its purpose was to prepare people for further study in Tibet. Only a single class was graduated, most members of which got no further than the Tibetan borderlands, but at least three reached Lhasa: Fa-tsun, Neng-hai, and Ch'ao-i. They returned to China in the early 1930's.25\n\nFa-tsun became the principal of the Sino-Tibetan Institute outside Chungking. This had also been established by T'ai-hsü (in 1931) and had the same goal as his school in Peking — to prepare people for study in Tibetan monasteries but unlike the earlier school it received a government subsidy. It was perhaps the only Buddhist institution to enjoy this privilege during the Republican period.\n\nThe government displayed an even more open concern when in December 1936 the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission inaugurated a program for the exchange of Chinese and Tibetan monks. Two of the former were to be selected annually by the Chinese Buddhist Association and sent to Lhasa for five years' study, while two Tibetan monks were to be chosen by \"the local government of Tibet\" for study in China. Tibetans were brought not only to study, but to teach. Early in 1937 the Nationalists invited Shirob Jaltso, an eminent Tibetan scholar who was persona non grata in Lhasa, to deliver a series of lectures at five Chinese universities. \"This was the first time a Tibetan instructor had been provided for Chinese university students.\"26 Shirob, the Panchen Lama (also persona non grata in Lhasa), and several other Tibetan monks who resided in China at this period were accorded every courtesy (and presumably ample subsidies) by the Chinese Government. Some received official posts.27\n\nLhasa did not reciprocate. Rather naturally, it gave no political role to the Chinese who had been sent to strengthen its ties with the \"motherland.\" Nonetheless they were able to pursue their religious studies and to carry on other activities agreeable to all concerned. One of my informants, for example, had become interested in Buddhism as a young man. Although he came from a poor family in Nanking, he got to know Lü Ch'eng at the Metaphysical Institute (Nei-hsü Yuan). Lü urged him to go to",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205144,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1966",
        "page_number": 100,
        "title": "RAS-1966",
        "content_text": "FOREIGN RELATIONS OF BUDDHISM\n\n11 Yin-shun, T'ai-hsü, p. 213.\n\n12 Eastern Buddhist 3.2 (July-September, 1924), 190.\n\n95\n\n13 Chinese lay devotees went to Japan to learn Tantric Buddhism from Shingon masters. Chinese monks went for academic study (two in 1936 and two more in early 1937; see Chinese Year Book 1937, Shanghai, 1937, p. 73.\n\n14 That is, the Chung-jih fo-chiao hui. At about the same time the Sino-Japanese Tantric Association (Ching-jih mi-chiao hui) was established. See Chinese Year Book 1937, p. 73.\n\n15 Takada, p. 14.\n\n16 Takada, p. 24-36, lists a total of eleven temples established between 1876 and 1937, but on p. 14 he speaks of ten temples having been set up before 1937 and of forty-nine (not forty-six) being in operation as of December, 1942. It seems clear that he does not include temples that have gone out of operation, like those in Nanking and Changsha (see note 2), and possibly those in Fukien. The only temple outside Shanghai that survived from the era before 1937 was the Honganji temple in Hankow, established 1906, which in 1942 had 1,200 Japanese and 150 Chinese parishioners.\n\n17 For example, in 1942 at the original Honganji temple in Shanghai the number of Japanese parishioners was 4,930 and the number of Chinese was zero. This temple was obviously not engaged in missionary work, but exclusively in serving the Japanese community.\n\n18 Two officers of the Ching-an Ssu in Shanghai are said to have been arrested and in Canton the abbot of the Liu-jung Ssu, T'ieh-ch'an, was executed.\n\n19 H. G. Quaritch Wales, \"Buddhism As an Instrument of Japanese Propaganda\" Free World 5.5 (May 1943), 428.\n\n20 Takada, p. 1, states that the alliance was set up in April 1937 in accordance with the policy formulated in October 1938. Perhaps the first date is a misprint.\n\n21 Takada, pp. 1, 4, 5. The changes in the bureaucratic status of the Great Harmony Religious Alliance appear to have been as follows. After being set up under the military authorities, it was transferred to the liaison office of the Central China Liaison Office of the Office for the Resurgence of Asia (Koain), which had been set up in December 1938 directly under the Cabinet in order to formulate policy on and handle relations with China. In April 1942 the Alliance was placed under the supervision of the Foreign Ministry through its representatives in Shanghai. In November 1942 it seems to have been returned to the Office for the Resurgence of Asia, when the latter was integrated into the Ministry for Great East Asian Co-Prosperity.\n\n22 Takada, pp. 24-36.\n\n23 The most significant absentee was Yüan-ying, the national head of the Chinese Buddhist Association (Shanghai, 1929).\n\n24 H. Hackmann, A German Scholar in the East, pp. 118-119. John Blofeld, who visited Wu-t'ai Shan in 1937, describes a monastery with several hundred monks where \"the main pavilion... was arranged in the Chinese way, but many services were held in a smaller building where purely Tibetan rites were performed\" (Jewel in the Lotus, London, 1948, p. 97).\n\n25 Fa-p'u, a disciple of Ta-yung, is stated to have reached Lhasa and earned a ko-hsi degree. Yin-shun, T'ai-hsü, p. 17.\n\n26 Chinese Year Book 1937 (Shanghai, 1937), p. 73.\n\n27 Shirob Jaltso, for example, was a member of the People's Political Council (1938-1949); an alternate member of the Kuomintang Sixth Super-",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811",
        "rank": 0
    }
]