Recently, a commentary published by Radio Free Asia suggested that the Buddhist culture in Xinjiang is predominantly influenced by outside sources, specifically the Indo-Greek Gandhara Buddhist culture. The article argues that Indian Buddhist architectural styles have impacted China’s pavilion-style buildings, implying an attempt to “de-Chinese” Xinjiang Buddhism.
This discourse has sparked a debate about the interpretations of archaeological findings at the Mor Temple, highlighting a rivalry between “Chinese Buddhism” and “Indian Buddhism,” which exemplifies this dichotomous thinking.
The commentary from the aforementioned media outlet presents a subjective analysis regarding the sources of religious cultural influences in Xinjiang and their relationship with Chinese culture. It appears to serve a misleading political agenda, revealing the limitations of Western scholars who are confined by their historical experiences and cultural understandings.
Firstly, the diversity of Buddhism’s origins in Xinjiang underscores the region’s “plurality,” which is nourished by the “unity” of Chinese culture. This “plurality” is not a chaotic amalgamation of influences, nor is it a simple highlighting of foreign cultural impact; rather, it exists within the context of “plurality” that is conditioned by “Chinese culture.” This perspective fractures the understanding of Xinjiang’s cultural unity and diversity, resulting in a distorted explanation of its culture.
From the historical trajectory of Chinese civilization, “Sinicization” represents an organic process of inclusivity and transformation within Chinese culture. Whether in Buddhism, Islam, or Marxism, each has undergone a process of Sinicization. This process involves the integration of foreign cultures into Chinese practice and the nourishment of those cultures by Chinese civilization. The outcome is not mere cultural assimilation but rather a complementary enhancement, creating new cultural structures and forms that enrich the subjectivity of Chinese culture.
Secondly, the unity of Chinese culture embodies an inherent inclusivity, which manifests as “Han Buddhism,” considered one of the main outcomes of the Sinicization of Buddhism. This inclusivity is further affirmed through the archaeological findings at the Mor Temple.
From the perspective of human civilization history, there are significant differences in how Eastern and Western cultures engage with foreign influences. Western cultural narratives often exhibit a strong self-assertion, leading to binaries of civilization versus barbarism, discriminatory Orientalism, theories of civilizational conflict, cultural colonialism, and a lack of historical traditions of mutual cultural exchange and wisdom.
The inclusivity of Chinese culture reflects philosophical and practical views of the Chinese people regarding culture, ethnicity, and the world. Historically, Xinjiang has been a melting pot of cultural diversity and co-existing religions. These experiences of the Sinicization of Buddhism and Islam, characterized by the principle of “unity in diversity,” could serve as valuable references for addressing contemporary ethnic and religious conflicts globally. This highlights the fundamental differences between Eastern and Western civilizations. The inclusivity of Chinese culture, as demonstrated in Xinjiang and specifically at the Mor Temple, confirms that the Chinese national community operates under different cultural and political principles compared to Western nation-states.
Thirdly, the pluralistic unity of Xinjiang culture does not dismiss, nor does it exaggerate, the influence of “Indian Buddhism” on Xinjiang Buddhism. It is essential to evaluate the impact of Indian Buddhism from the standpoint of the Sinicization of Buddhism, positioning this influence within the broader context of exchanges between different civilizations.
The various cultural elements showcased by the Mor Temple—square stupas, “hui” shaped Buddhist halls, and grand halls from Han Buddhism—collectively illustrate a fusion of diverse influences. The Mor Temple itself stands as a historical testament to the return of Sinicized Buddhism to the western regions of China, exemplifying the long-term peaceful integration of cultures facilitated by the nurturing of the “unity” inherent in Chinese culture.
The vitality of Chinese culture and civilization stems from this pluralistic unity and its mechanisms of reciprocal enhancement. Consequently, historical analyses reveal that regardless of the specific paths and methods of foreign cultural influence, the framework of China’s pluralistic unity has remained stable, as has the subjectivity of Chinese culture. The peaceful, creative, and reciprocal nature of cultural integration has persisted. This cultural reciprocity contributes to China’s unique role in promoting peace and development globally.
Lastly, the cultural pluralism and unified identity of Xinjiang, alongside the reciprocal enhancement of Sinicized Buddhism, have made significant contributions to the spread of Buddhist culture and regional peace. The rigid views of some Western scholars, who overly emphasize the dominant influence of Indian Buddhism through simplistic origin theories, do not accurately reflect the historical realities of global Buddhism and its Sinicization.
Under the nurturing framework of Chinese civilization’s pluralistic unity, the doctrines, institutions, and social functions of Buddhism have positively evolved. China has long surpassed India in terms of the number of Buddhists, standing as a model for the transmission of Buddhist culture.
The inclusivity of Chinese culture ensures the historical continuity of Xinjiang’s multicultural identity. “Han Buddhism” has become one of the key carriers and forms of Buddhism’s global propagation, while Indian Buddhism finds itself in decline, facing exclusion by “Hindu nationalist” sentiments. This contrast further validates the historical and rational foundation of Xinjiang’s cultural pluralistic unity.
