Has Chinese Chan Buddhism been "Daoized" (i.e. has it taken on certaincharacteristics of Daoism), as has been asserted by Japanese scholar Takatoshi Ito in his critical work on the thought of Chinese Chan? Taking the standpoint of Buddhism and approaching this topic from a philosophical perspective, in this article I evaluate Takatoshi Ito assertions and put forth a rather different point of view. I first survey various prominent views about the sinicization of Buddhism. I then examine the main works on which Takatoshi Ito based his assertions Farong Jueguan lun (Treatise on Renouncing All Thoughts), Shenxiu's Guanxin lun (Treatise on Contemplating the Mind), and the Shenhui yulu (Discourses of Master Shenhui) and conclude that the Way spoken of by Farong is, after all, still the Way of Buddhism, rather than the Way of Daoism; that the mind spoken of by Shenxiu in the context of contemplating the mind is not an objectively true existence that can give rise to all things in the universe; and that the Chan thought of Shenhui is definitely not a naturalism advocating the unconditional renunciation of all effort and spiritual discipline. Takatoshi Ito main assertion is that the Chan thought of Farong, Shenxiu, and Shenhui is a synthesis of Daoism and the ideas on wisdom and emptiness current in China since the time Kumarjiva; he also contends that the Chinese understanding of wisdom and emptiness differs from that of Indian Buddhist thought, contending that it is in essence a hybrid product of the Chinese matched-meaning approach to the interpretation of fundamental Buddhist concepts. Thus he asserts that the Jueguan lun, Guanxin lun, and Shenhui yulu actually reflect the "philosophy of the Way / Principle" of Daoism, or the dhatu-vada (essentialist) theory that Matsumoto Shiro speaks of. I go on to show how such a view does not accord with the actual facts. I conclude by pointing out that Chan itself transcends all boundaries of time and space, including those relating to China and India; and that it does not have a fixed, unchanging essence, but rather is constantly adapted and re-created to suit the various needs of different people, situations, eras, and regions. To be sure, as Chan developed within the field of traditional Chinese culture, it was influenced by the Chinese language and way of thinking; but one cannot therefore say that Chan is a wholly new form of Indian Buddhism or a peculiar product of Chinese thought, philosophy, and religion. Moreover, unlike Daoism, Chinese Chan doesn't take "spontaneity" or being natural as its ideal or ultimate goal. Rather, the central emphasis of Chinese Chan has always been on non-abiding, non-attainment, and the practice of no-abiding from one thought to another, as expounded in the perfection of wisdom sutras. In the process of adopting and transplanting the Indian Buddhist world view and approach to spiritual practice, it was only natural that Chan made various adaptations to suit its new context, but from a strict philosophical perspective, such developments cannot be said to amount to the sinicization of the dhyana tradition of Indian Buddhism; nor can it be said that Chinese
