Venerable Yinshun stated that his Buddhist thought was deeply infl uenced by Venerable Taixu, and details of this infl uence are found in many of his books. However, Yinshun and Taixu had quite diff erent views on the understanding of Buddhist history, on the evaluation of Buddhist thoughts, and on the choice of Dharma practices, which can be seen in the philosophical debates arisen from the book Buddhism in India. The focus of this paper is to study their divergent demarcation regarding the Indian Buddhism’s fi rst period. In contrast to “Śrāvaka as the core of Common Liberation" in the fi rst period, Taixu revised Yin Shun’s identification to “Buddha-based Śrāvaka Liberation.” Apparently, “Buddha-based” and “Śrāvaka-based” were greatly at odds. Analysis of the diff erent thoughts between these two masters is the main purpose of this study. I will start by comparing the respective claims of the notion of “Buddha-based” and of “Śrāvaka-based.” Then, I will analyze the meaning of “Śrāvaka-based,” suggesting that it would include “predominantly Śrāvaka,” “Āgama-based,” and “Pratītyasamutpāda-based” in Yinshun’s usage. This implies their diff erent criteria and approaches toward Buddhist thought evaluation, including their distinct views on “insights of the Buddha,” on the core of Buddhist philosophy (e.g. the Theory of Buddha Nature versus the Theory of Emptiness), and on the ways of reasoning and evaluating the Buddha-Dharma (e.g. evidence-based inference vs. idealization-based inference; coalescence of vs. discernment of the diff erent thoughts). I conclude by pointing out that though their Buddhist thoughts seemed quite divided, their Buddhist ideals and bodhisattva spirits were quite the same; hence bearing witness to the diversity and broadness of Mahayana Buddhism.
