The Treatise on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana (here after AFM) is a very important Śāstra which had far-reaching influence in Chinese and even in East Asian Buddhism. In the late 19th to early 20th century, it was translated into English by D. T. Suzuki and Timothy Richard respectively as a representation of East Asian Mahayana Buddhist classics. There are some studies on Suzuki’s and Richard’s translations and interpretations of AFM which focus on their hidden agenda, such as Suzuki tended to stress not only the distinctiveness of Mahayana Buddhism vis-à-vis other forms of Buddhism, but also that vis-à-vis the Western thought. Richard used a lot of Christian terms to translate the text in order to show that Buddhism and Christianity were basically two expressions of the same divine revelation. However, there are relatively few studies focusing on AFM’s role in the communication between Buddhism and western culture, especially Christianity. In recent years, there are many comparative studies of Buddhism and Christianity. Some of them used the model of “one-heart-with-two-gates” formulated in AFM to interpret the Christological formula articulated at the Council of Chalcedon in CE 451. These studies show that the Tathāgatagarbha thought is more helpful in compare to Madhyamika and Yogācāra schools in Chinese Christian theology. But these discussions on AFM is restricted to the model of “one-heart-with- two-gates” and do not cover many other issues or concepts in the treatise. As many other aspects or main themes of the treatise maybe relevant to the contemporary Buddhist-Christian dialogue, the significance of AFM for Buddhist-Christian studies has not been properly explored. This research starts with the texts of AFM themselves. A close reading of the treatise shows that the treatise covers many issues concerning ultimate reality, concepts of human nature, salvation, and practice. These issues are among the main themes in the prevalent comparative studies, but the existing explorations of AFM are far from adequate. Furthermore, the current dialogue between Buddhism and Christianity on relevant topics might have been dominated by the comparison with Protestantism and Catholicism. However, the Orthodox tradition, especially its doctrine of theosis and the related spiritual practice, is quite different from those two denominations, but it can also be relevant to the dialogue with MahayanaBuddhism. This research shows that the treatise’s view of the relevant themes can enrich the existing dialogue and point out some of the untrodden areas for the dialogue.
