The ideal of “Buddhism for the human realm” was proposed by Master Tai-xu (1890-1947), and its system was completed by Master Yin-shun (1906-2005); it first begins from the Chinese world, then with the term, “Engaged Buddhism,” it transforms itself and spreads into the English-speaking countries. Diachronically speaking, while “Buddhism for the human realm” has been developing in Asia, “Religious Secularization” has done the same but in the west. From a macroscopic viewpoint in the history, “Buddhism for the human realm” essentially is a revival movement of “the character of humanness” in the fundamental Buddhism; meanwhile, it is also a self-awakening movement of Mahayana Buddhism returning to the primitive Buddhism. In other words, “Buddhism for the human realm” could be a cooperative movement to go back to “the character of humanness” of primitive Buddhism for the first time for both the north-bounding “Mahayana Buddhism” and south-bounding “Theravada Buddhism” (Dharmas for śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha). If we promote “Buddhism for the human realm,” but for some reason, we, with the Mahayana standpoint, still confined ourselves to the ideology of preferring Mahayana Buddhism when we make a judgment, or relatively, with the standpoint of the elder (sthavira) and confine ourselves to claiming that “Mahayana is not Buddha’s teaching,” then, the confrontations and oppositions between the north-bounding and south-bounding Buddhism would not be over. “Opposition among the three vehicles only deepens the rift and weakens in itself; only when we can “respect for the three vehicles” could the road to the “Buddhism for the human realm” become broader and much smoother. Master Yin-shun proposed eight main arguments for us to clarify the debate over the positioning problem of the “Three Vehicles.” First, no matter “Three Vehicles” or “One Vehicle,” they are based on the perspective of a practitioner’s mind and actions. Second, the angles of attaining the dharma nature are different for the Mahayana and the Two Vehicles, and which make their attitude towards the secular and nirvana different. Third, the design of the three vehicles could be properly understood through Buddha’s “four teaching methods” (Siddhānta), while the difference between “convenience” and “the ultimate” must be differentiated and grasped. Fourth, Buddhism for the human realm should be human-centered, so it should be taken in the early and middle periods of Buddhism in India. Fifth, that the concept of the three vehicles is ultimate is a convenient saying. When attaining into the equality of dharma nature, we will naturally understand that one vehicle is the ultimate. Sixth, the right action in the human world is the basis of the “Three Vehicles.” Seventh, admit that we are “commons.” Eighth, the difference between the path for human Bodhisattva and the deva-and-man vehicle. To step out of the
