DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1674-9391.2024.07.013

Abstract：

The advancement of adapting Tibetan Buddhism to the Chinese context aims to direct Tibetan Buddhism into compliance with the evolving contemporary Chinese society and integrate it into the country’s fine traditional culture. Buddhist precepts， which have been serving as the foundation of the Dharma and" spiritual practice，" reflecting a documented and dynamic adaptation of Buddhism to the Chinese context through processes of translation and localization." In fact， since its introduction" to Xizang， Tibetan Buddhism has continually explored ways and methods to" align with" regional cultures" and customs while adhering to its" Four Fundamental Precepts. This effort has resulted in the formation of a distinct disciplinary" system with local characteristics." Drawing" on the historical transmission of Buddhist precepts in Tibetan regions， this" study" analyzes the process of their adaptation to the local realities and" the broader Chinese context. To illustrate，" during the Tubo period，" the translation of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya exemplified this dual commitment" to local adaptation and strict adherence to the South Asian tradition." An example during the early transmission period would be the evolution of the single Khenpo" system （to guide a monastic community） into the monk prime minister structure and monk supportive system， reflecting a localization of early Tubo Buddhism. Additionally，" results also argue that the influence of Zen monks from the Central Plains on Tubo had a profound impact on the practice of precepts in Tibetan Buddhism，" shaping the" thoughts and practices of some branches during the later dissemination period.

Furthermore， this article examines the later phases of Tibetan Buddhism’s dissemination， revealing that" the Vinaya traditions" not only maintained the Mūlasarvāstivāda lineage from the early" period" but — due to the influence of fragmented political regimes — also diversified into" three different Vinaya" traditions — Upper Barawa， Lower Lakshina， and Middle Karchen Vinaya—each interrelated yet marked by conflicts over lineage recognition and precept observance. Their contradictions were due to the lack of consensus in the Vinaya lineage， resulting mutual accusations of improper conduct in the practice and transmission of precepts. During the Sakya period，" the relative unification" of religious and political power in Xizang prompted" figures like Sakya Pandita to" critique lax adherence to precepts" within Tibetan Buddhism， leading" to localized interpretations of Vinaya texts" that emphasized the significance of precepts in practice. What is more， after Tsongkhapa established the Gelugpa" tradition" he stressed the importance of" “taking the precepts as a teacher” and “governing the monastic order by the Vinaya，” calling for monks to uphold pure conduct in behavior and to promote" a localized interpretation of Vinaya studies in both study and practice. Detailed monastic regulations were also formulated， leading to the formation of a unique Tibetan Buddhist disciplinary system. The localized interpretation of Tibetan Buddhist Vinaya not only provided theoretical support for the further adaptation of Buddhism on the Qinghai-Xizang Plateau to the Chinese context but also has" had" a great significance in forging of a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation.

Key Words：

adaptation of Buddhism to the Chinese context; Tibetan Buddhism; Vinaya; localization