If the controversy sparked by Weber's Protestant Ethics is still lingering, we may say that his Confucianism and Taoism formed a more enticing trap from the beginning, and it is easy to make us think that the author has a Eurocentric mentality. This is especially evident in Weber's interpretation of Chinese Buddhism: he is often seen as not paying attention to or knowing anything about Buddhism in China, not to mention that most people used to believe that Weber's substantial discussion about Chinese Buddhism was extremely limited to Confucianism and Taoism. As this study will show, Weber's approach to Buddhism is in fact much more delicate than what we thought in the past. Especially in his ＂non-expert＂ perspective, it is necessary to distinguish the difference between Mahayana and Chinese Buddhism. This is something that those who study Weber's work rarely notice. His view of Buddhism will help remind us of a more obscure aspect in the past in the study of Chinese Buddhist history. On the other hand, why are some criticisms blind to Weber's interpretation? this study attempts to illuminate the considerable negative impact of the label of Eurocentrism in evaluating Weber's work from three perspectives: Weber's methodology, context of his work, and cultural identity of his readers.
