Geyi

Geyi ("categorizing concepts") originated as a 3rd-century Chinese Buddhist method for explaining lists of Sanskrit terms from the Buddhist canon with comparable lists from Chinese classics; but many 20th-century scholars of Buddhism misconstrued geyi "matching concepts" as a supposed method of translating Sanskrit technical terminology with Chinese Daoist vocabulary (such as rendering Śūnyatā "emptiness" with Wu 無 "without"). This reputed geyi "matching concepts" or "matching meanings" definition is ubiquitous in modern reference works, including academic articles, textbooks on Buddhism, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and Web-based resources.

Victor H. Mair, Professor of Chinese Language and Literature at the University of Pennsylvania, has investigated geyi and found no historical evidence to support the translation hypothesis. Mair has discovered that geyi was a "highly ephemeral and not-very-successful attempt on the part of a small number of Chinese teachers to cope with the flood of numbered lists of categories, ideas and so forth (of which Indian thinkers were so much enamoured) that came to China in the wake of Buddhism".^[1] Misunderstanding of geyi, which Mair calls "pseudo-geyi," has distorted the History of Buddhism and History of Taoism; has misled countless students through "erroneous definitions and specious accounts" in otherwise generally reliable reference books; and perhaps worst of all, "has spawned an entire industry of fake philosophizing about the intellectual history of China", particularly that of the Six Dynasties period (220–598). This kind of scholarship seems to be perpetuated in the latest publications on the topic,^[2] which is apparently completely ignorant of Mair's study.

La palabra china géyì es un compuesto de dos términos. Gé格—un carácter fonosemántico (形聲字) escrito con el radical "wood " que indica "celosía; patrón" y un indicador fonético gě各 —se define como: ^{[ 3 ]} " sustantivo ① celosía; cuadrícula; cuadrados ② [lingüística] caso; morfema ligado estándar; patrón; estilo; verbo resistir; obstruir". Yì義—escrito con yáng 𦍌 "oveja" sobre wǒ我"yo; mi" fonético—se define como: ^{[ 4 ]} morfema ligado "① justicia; rectitud ② caballerosidad; sentido del honor ③ significado; importancia ④ lazos humanos; relación ⑤ adoptado; adoptivo ⑥ artificial; falso ⑦ voluntario".

La traducción común pero inexacta al inglés de géyì es "coincidencia de conceptos" o a veces "coincidencia de significados" en el escenario imaginario del antiguo "lenguaje de traducción" sánscrito-chino. ^{[ 5 ]} Además de la ausencia de prueba histórica (que se analiza más adelante), hay una falta de evidencia lingüística. Mientras que el chino yì義 se traduce comúnmente como "significado; concepto" (por ejemplo, yìyì意義"significado; sentido; importancia"), gé格 nunca significa "coincidencia".

Este carácter chino格 tiene múltiples pronunciaciones y muchos significados. La entrada 格 del diccionario de palabras Hanyu Da Cidian ^{[ 6 ]} enumera cuatro pronunciaciones diferentes del chino estándar moderno ( gé , luò , gē , hè ), además de dos pronunciaciones especiales ( lù , hé ), con un total de 42 definiciones. La entrada 格 del diccionario de caracteres Hanyu Da Zidian enumera las mismas seis pronunciaciones, con un total de 33 definiciones. ^{[ 7 ]} Mair dice: "A pesar de la plétora de definiciones para este único grafema, ninguna de estas obras autorizadas ofrece una justificación para traducirlo como 'coincidencia' (lo más cercano que ofrecen es 'oponerse [a un enemigo]', pero eso es demasiado remoto para justificar traducir geyi como 'coincidencia de significados')". ^{[ 8 ]}

Mair recopiló definiciones de ge格 de los principales diccionarios de chino moderno y las reagruparon semánticamente de la siguiente manera:

cuadrado/compartimento/cuadrado/marcador (formado por líneas cruzadas); celosía, cuadrícula; división; estándar, patrón, regla; carácter, manera, estilo; impedir, obstruir, resistir, bloquear (designado por algunos diccionarios como uso literario); golpear, pegar, pelear; investigar, examinar; caso (gramatical). ^{[ 8 ]}

Tomando el gé en géyì para significar "clasificación; categorización", Mair explica que la mayoría de estos significados se derivan de la idea básica de un marco de madera compartimentado en el que las secciones están bloqueadas. ^{[ 8 ]} Dado que ningún diccionario chino define gé como "coincidencia" o "emparejamiento", no hay "justificación lexicográfica para la traducción actualmente omnipresente de geyi como "coincidencia de significados". Mair concluye que "'coincidencia' es simplemente una representación ad hoc, sin fundamento, del gráfico ideado por académicos modernos perplejos por su aparición en la expresión ambigua geyi ".

Geyi es un término poco común en los clásicos chinos. Aparece principalmente 23 veces en el canon budista ( edición Taishō Tripiṭaka ), y muchas de estas son repeticiones. Geyi no se encuentra en el Canon Daoísta Daozang , las Veinticuatro Historias oficiales , la obra de referencia Zizhi Tongjian sobre historiografía china , la enciclopedia imperial Gujin Tushu Jicheng , la colección Siku Quanshu (con unos 888 millones de caracteres) ni en bases de datos digitales exhaustivas de clásicos. Mair explica: «Parece que, tras algunas menciones fugaces durante el período Wei-Jin (finales del siglo III al IV), el término geyi fue prácticamente borrado del discurso y la conciencia intelectual chinos hasta el siglo XX». ^{[ 9 ]}

La fuente más antigua que menciona a geyi es la biografía del budista de la dinastía Jin Zhu Faya竺法雅 o Faya (f. finales del siglo III y principios del siglo IV), que se encuentra en Memorias de monjes eminentes de Huijiao 慧皎 (497–554). Zhu Faya vivió en Hejian y Hebei y fue un contemporáneo mayor de Dao An (312–385) y Zhu Fatai (320–387).

(Zhu) Faya was a man of Hejian. He was of a staid, tolerant disposition. As a youth, he excelled at non-Buddhist studies, and when he grew up he became proficient in Buddhist doctrine. The sons of gentry families all attached themselves to him and requested that he teach them. At that time, the adherents who followed him were uniformly well-versed in secular works, but did not yet excel in Buddhist principles. Consequently, (Zhu Fa)ya, with Kang Falang and others, correlated the numerations of items (shishu 事數) in the sutras with non-Buddhist writings as instances of lively explication; this was called "categorizing concepts" (geyi). Thereupon, Vibhu (?), Tanxiang, and others also debated over the categorised concepts in order to instruct their disciples. (Zhu Fa)ya's manner was unrestrained and he excelled (in getting at) the crux (of the matter). He alternately lectured on secular works and Buddhist sutras. With Dao’an and Fatai, he often explained the doubtful points they had assembled, and together they exhausted the essentials of the sutras.^[10]

Huijiao authoritatively explains the original meaning of geyi as correlating Indian Buddhist shishu 事數 "enumerative categories (or categorized enumeration) of things/items, i.e., (technical) terms" with comparable material from Chinese sources. Shishu has two synonyms of fashu 法數 "categories of Buddhist concepts" and mingshu 名數 "numbered groups of Buddhist terms".

The Shishuo Xinyu, "New Account of Tales of the World", which contains historical anecdotes about the Eastern Jin period (when the geyi method began and ended), mentions shishu "enumerated items" in connection with the politician Yin Hao (d. 356).

When Yin Hao was dismissed and transferred to Tung-yang [in 353] he read a large number of Buddhist sutras, gaining a detailed understanding of them all. It was only when he came to places where items were enumerated that he did not understand. Whenever he chanced to see a monk, he would ask about the items he had noted down, end then they would become clear.^[11]

The Shishuo Xinyu commentary of Liu Jun 劉孝標 (462–521) gives examples of shishu categories such as the Four Noble Truths, Five Aggregates, Five Strengths, Seven Factors of Enlightenment, and Twelve Nidānas. Zhu Faya helped to develop geyi in an attempt to teach their Chinese students shishu-type sets of Buddhist technical terms, employing comparable lists from non-Buddhist texts.

The 4th-century Eastern Jin monastic Dao'an – mentioned above in Zhu Faya's biography about using geyi to teach Chinese Buddhists numerical lists of Sanskrit terms – was renowned as an early translator of and commentator on Buddhist scriptures. As a leader of the next generation of Chinese Buddhist teachers after Zhu Faya, Dao'an was the first recorded critic of the geyi method. His biography records that around 349, when Dao’an was living together with Sengxian 僧先 on Feilong Shan (Flying-Dragon Mountain, in modern Hebei),

(Dao)'an said, "The old 'categorized concepts' (geyi) of the past was often at odds with Buddhist principles." "We ought to analyze [the texts] carefreely [sic] [逍遙]," said Sengxian. "How are we permitted to dispute our predecessors?" (Dao)'an said, "In spreading and praising the [Buddhist] principles and doctrines, we should make them fitting and proper. When dharma-drums compete to resound, what [does it matter who comes] first [and who comes] later?"^[12]

Following Dao'an's repudiation, the experimental geyi technique became a short-lived phenomenon that lasted for no more than a generation. Thus, Mair notes, geyi "did not have time to develop into something more elaborate or important, as is often imagined by modern interpreters."^[13]

The Eastern Jin monk Sengrui (352–436) was a student of Dao'an, and became a principle translator working with Kumarajiva. Sengui's commentary to the Vimalakirti Sutra criticizes translators who tried using geyi to explain the Mahayana Buddhist Prajnaparamita "Perfection of Wisdom" sutras:

Puesto que el Viento de la Sabiduría soplaba hacia el este y la Palabra del Dharma fluía en canto, aunque se puede decir que había lugares [establecidos] para impartir lecciones, la categorización de los conceptos [empleados en ellos] era pedante y contraria al sentido original [de los textos indios que se discutían]; las Seis Escuelas [de Prajñāpāramitā] eran parciales y no tocaban [la verdad]. ^{[ 14 ]}

El monje Sengyou (445–518), de la dinastía Liang , quien escribió una biografía de Kumarajiva, censuró a los traductores Yuezhi Zhi Qian (activo entre 220 y 252) y Dharmarakṣa o Zhu Fahu (c. 233–310) por usar geyi .

Dado que la Gran Ley abarcaba el este, comenzando en la época del emperador Ming [58–75] de la dinastía Han Posterior y pasando por la dinastía Wei [220–265] y la dinastía Jin [266–420], los sutras (escrituras) y śāstras (tratados) [traducidos] que se produjeron gradualmente se volvieron numerosos. Sin embargo, las [traducciones] producidas por Zhi (Qian) y Zhu (Fahu) en su mayoría [estaban plagadas de] una redacción estancada y conceptos categorizados. ^{[ 15 ]}

Dado que el método geyi se originó para la exégesis de listas numeradas y no para la traducción, la crítica de Sengyou al geyi implica que solo lo comprendía vagamente.

Los textos budistas de la dinastía Tang (618-907) hicieron algunas críticas repetitivas al geyi . Daoxuan (596-667) mencionó el geyi dos veces en contextos sobre la ofuscación textual, y una vez afirmando que Dao'an "se esforzó por extirpar el geyi del pasado y abrir los principios espirituales ( shenli神理) para el futuro". ^{[ 16 ]} Jizang (549-623), fundador de la Escuela de los Tres Tratados , repite la misma crítica cuatro veces: "Los conceptos categorizados eran pedantes y iban en contra del fundamento; las Seis [Prajñā] Escuelas eran parciales y estaban equivocadas". ^{[ 17 ]}

Un último ejemplo de la dinastía Song (960-1279) muestra cómo el geyi cayó en el olvido y fue malinterpretado. El léxico budista escrito por Daocheng (fl. 1019) distorsiona lo que Daoxuan escribió sobre el geyi . La entrada sobre nishu (擬書), "escritos coincidentes", dice:

El eminente monje Faya sobresalió en estudios budistas y no budistas. Muchos eruditos laicos le pidieron que les impartiera clases. Dado que los significados de los sutras eran difíciles de explicar, Faya los relacionó con los de la literatura no budista para ofrecer ejemplos de explicaciones claras y concisas. Esto se denominó «conceptos impactantes». ^{[ 18 ]}

This passage not only has a typographical error of ge 挌 "strike; hit" for the ge 格 "categorize" in geyi, but also omits shishu 事數.

After analyzing all the occurrences of the "much vexed term" geyi in the entire Buddhist canon, Mair concludes that geyi was an exegetical method to cope with the Indian proclivity for numerical lists of ideas and concepts.

From its few occurrences in the Buddhist canon, it is evident that geyi was an abortive exegetical method, not a vital translation technique or essential philosophical principle. The main reason we know about geyi at all is because the celebrated Eastern Jin monk Dao'an, rightly so, criticized it as ineffective. After the meager series of texts cited earlier, there is no significant mention of geyi until the twentieth century, when it is miraculously revived by modern historians and made to play a key role in the early development of Buddhism in China.^[19]

Many contemporary sources repeat the fiction that geyi "matching meanings" was an early method for translating Buddhist Sanskrit terms with comparable Chinese (especially Daoist) words. Victor H. Mair traced modern developments of the pseudo-geyi notion from a Chinese historian's hypothesis in the 1930s, to a Japanese scholar's "geyi Buddhism" proposal in the 1940s, through Buddhist dictionary entries in the 1970s, into general-purpose dictionaries and encyclopedias in the 1980s and 1990s, and to the present-day article of faith in Chinese Buddhist historiography that geyi "matching meanings" was a Buddho-Daoist tradition.

Chen Yinke (1890–1969), a prominent Chinese historian and sinologist, first hypothesized, in his 1933 study of the Jin dynasty Buddhist scholar Zhi Mindu 支愍度, that geyi was an early method for translating Buddhist scriptures, which later became an essential component throughout the history of Chinese philosophy.^[20]

During the Jin era, the scholars who engaged in Pure Conversation (qingtan 清談) mostly favored strained comparisons (bifu 比附) between Buddhist texts and non-Buddhist writings. What is more, among the monks there was a concrete method called geyi. Although the term geyi is seldom seen in written records, it was prevalent for a period, and its influence on contemporary thought was profound.^[21]

Admitting the lack of historical evidence, Chen putatively connected the name zhulin 竹林 "bamboo forest/grove" referring to both the Zhulin qi qianSeven Sages of the Bamboo Grove (the famous 3rd-century nonconformist geniuses) and the Zhulin Chinese translation of Sanskrit Venuvana "bamboo forest" (the sacred Buddhist building constructed by King Samaratungga in the 9th century BCE). Chen further claimed that geyi was a powerful intellectual force through the Six Dynasties and produced Northern Song dynasty Neo-Confucianism. "Given Chen Yinke’s enormous prestige," Mair says, "it is not surprising that his uncharacteristically poorly substantiated article and lectures on geyi set the tone for all discussions of this topic for the next seven decades."^[22]

Tang Yongtong 湯用彤 (1893–1964), a scholar of Chinese Buddhist history, wrote an influential article about geyi, translated into English by M.C. Rogers; it made the semantically contradictory claim that:^[23] "Ko, in this context, has the meaning of 'to match' or 'to measure'; yi means 'name', 'term' or 'concept'; Ko-yi is (the method or scheme of) matching ideas (or terms), or 'the equation of ideas'." Tang's 1936 history of early Chinese Buddhism repeated this geyi misconstruction:^[24] "What is geyi? Ge means 'to measure, estimate, evaluate' (liang 量). It is a method of comparing and matching with Chinese thought to cause people to understand Buddhist writings easily."

The next bizarre development in geyi-ism was a Buddho-Daoist construct that Japanese scholars of Buddhism called kakugi Bukkyō 格義仏教 "geyi Buddhism". Mair describes this as "reification of a hypothetical construct that never existed in historical reality, but one that—once born—takes on a life of its own and becomes a cornerstone in studies of the history and thought of Chinese Buddhism".^[25]

Tsukamoto Zenryū 塚本善隆 (1898–1980) mentioned "geyi Buddhism" in his 1942 history of Chinese Buddhism in relation to the Eastern Jin Qingtan Pure Conversation group. Tsukamoto's history describes Zhu Faya and geyi.

[W]hether accurately or not, Fa-ya is credited with the invention of ko i, a method of interpreting the Buddhist scriptures by appeal to alleged analogues in Chinese secular literature, specifically the I-Lao-Chuang circuit. As indicated above, there was nothing revolutionary in this, for the Taoistically inclined Chinese who found himself receptive to Buddhism automatically assumed that the two gospels were identical. Reading only Chinese, he had no way of knowing what underlay the scriptures familiar to him, and in all likelihood he did not care anyway. Ko i is significant in that it is an explicit statement to the effect that textual and doctrinal difficulties are properly solved by scrutinizing Taoist analogues. It is also worthy of anticipation that Tao-an, fellow-disciple to Fa-ya, rejected ko i out of hand—or so he thought. For the Chinese Buddhist monks who read no Sanskrit—hence for the majority of the Chinese saṃgha—ko i was in China to stay.^[26]

Tsukamoto and other scholars hypothesized that geyi was a vital factor in the early development of Chinese Buddhism, connecting Wei-Jin period Xuanxue with early prajna studies.

Fung Yu-Lan's widely-read history of Chinese philosophy introduced geyi to English readers:^[27] "Such use of Taoist terminology to explain Buddhist concepts was known at the time as ko yi or the 'method of analogy' (lit., 'extending the idea')." Mair notes these "two incompatible renderings of geyi in the same sentence."^[28]

Relying on Fung Yu-lan, the Chinese historian K. C. Hsiao claimed that: "At the time there were many who discussed Buddhism in terms drawn from the Chuang Tzu; that process was called ko-yi [格義, or 'matching of terms'],"^[29] and defined geyi as "'invoking the meaning', a method of matching terms used in translating Buddhist writings into Chinese."^[30]

Arthur Link wrote several articles concerning geyi, which he defined as "'matching meanings', a method whereby Chinese terms and concepts (chiefly Taoist) were paired with analogous Indian terms and ideas".^[31]

Arthur F. Wright's book on Buddhism in Chinese history translates geyi as "matching concepts" and claims the method, "which was prevalent in the second and third centuries, was probably favored in the oral exposition of Buddhist teachings."^[32]

The scholar of Chinese religions Wing-tsit Chan defined geyi as "the practice of 'matching concepts' of Buddhism and Taoism, in which a Buddhist concept is matched with one in Chinese thought. Thus tathatā (thusness, ultimate reality) was translated by the Taoist term 'original non-being' (pen-wu, pure being)."^[33]

Kenneth Ch'en relied upon Tang Yongtong's article, and described geyi as "the method of matching the meaning.^[34] This method was used especially by the translators of the Prajñā sutras for the purpose of making Buddhist thought more easily understood by the Chinese." Mair calls Ch'en's explanation "particularly damaging because his book has been, and still is, so widely used in introductory courses concerning Chinese Buddhism".^[35]

Beginning in the 1970s, Japanese dictionaries of Buddhism included kakugi (geyi) definitions. For example, Hajime Nakamura's (1975) Bukkyōgo daijiten 佛教語大辞典: "Matching non-Buddhist religious concepts to Buddhist technical terms in order to understand Buddhism. When Buddhism was first transmitted to China, it was the scholarly fashion to explain the emptiness of prajñā by analogy to Lao-Zhuang thought."^[36]

The religious studies scholar Whalen Lai wrote an article about geyi based upon correspondence between a Confucian scholar and Buddhist monks, recorded in Sengyou's (517) Hongmingji 弘明集 collection. Lai claims that^[37]Geyi Fojiao "Concept-Matching Buddhism" developed when 4th-century Chinese Xuanxue "neo-Taoist intellectuals were drawn to the emptiness philosophy of the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras" and "attempted to match Buddhist and Taoist concepts". Lai admits that geyi is more than the pairing of concepts.^[38] "It assumes structural parallels. The latter has natural limitations. There might not be, in the recipient culture, idea complexes comparable to the alien system being introduced." For instance, in the absence of a comparable Chinese counterpart for the Trikaya "Three Bodies/Personalities [of the Buddha]" doctrine, it was simply translated Sanshen 三身 "three bodies". Lai expands geyi from a minor teaching technique into a universal principle.^[38] "It is perhaps not necessary to insist that in any initial cultural encounter, epistemic translations of things foreign into things familiar are the norm. Indeed, perhaps all human understanding is ko-i, that is, an endless appropiation [sic] of new ideas by relying on the flexibility of the old."

In a study of Prajñāpāramitā prefaces written by Tao'an, Leon Hurvitz and Arthur Link describe geyi with an elaborate scenario.

Prior to Tao-an’s time it had been popular to explain Buddhist works by a method of exegesis called ko yi 格義, "matching meanings". This meant that the Indian terms and concepts in a systematic fashion were explained via Chinese terms and concepts. In general, the texts used for this purpose were the Lao tzu 老子, the Yi ching 易經, and the Chuang tzu 莊子. Though this was a definite step forward in the earlier period, when it was devised as a technique of analysis and exegesis of the foreign texts, it later became a crutch and a hindrance to a correct understanding of the Buddhist concepts. Tao-an came to understand that this method of "matching meanings" frequently did injustice to the Indian texts, and it is characteristic of his great originality that, despite its traditional and almost universal acceptance by his contemporaries, he nevertheless abandoned it.^[39]

Pseudo-geyi theorizing reached a wider audience through Tsukamoto's book translation, A History of Early Chinese Buddhism. It claims that when Buddhism was first introduced to China, it was received as a sort of "Taoistic" religion, and then passed to the stage of geyi interpretation of Buddhist doctrine resorting to the ideas of Laozi and Zhuangzi.^[40] "Geyi Buddhism"^[41] later became "a device resorted to by all of [Dao’an’s] contemporaries, that of interpreting the Buddhist scriptures in terms of the Chinese classics and of traditional Chinese ideas". Tsukamoto repeatedly postulates geyi connections with Xuanxue "dark learning" Neo-Daoism: "the propagation of Buddhism in keeping with 'dark learning' is just another name for ko yi Buddhism",^[42]geyi is "the method that consisted of understanding, or of expounding, the Prajñāpāramitā by resort to 'dark learning', i.e., to a set of ideas claiming descent from Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu".^[43] Tsukamoto gives examples of geyi "style of learning" lists, such as equating the Buddhist "Five Precepts [wujie 五戒, pañca-śīlāni] with the Five Norms [wuchang 五常] for the purpose of propagating the scriptures among Chinese intellectuals."^[44] However, this correlation is insubstantial. Compare the wujie "Five Precepts" (to abstain from harming living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and intoxication) and the Confucian wuchang 五常 "Five Constants" (humanity, justice, propriety, wisdom, and faith).

By the 1980s and 1990s, misinformation about geyi had spread from specialized articles and books about Chinese Buddhism into reputable general-purpose references. The Encyclopædia Britannica includes a full Geyi entry.

Chinese "matching the meanings" Wade-Giles romanization ke-yi. In Chinese Buddhism, the practice of borrowing from Daoist and other philosophical texts phrases with which to explain their own ideas. According to tradition, geyi was first used by Zhu Faya, a student of many religions of the 4th century CE, as he came to understand Buddhism. The technique reached its height of development among translators of the Prajna sutras, who sought to make Buddhist thought more accessible to Chinese readers. After Kumarajiva began his missionary work in China about 401, geyi was no longer needed; the ideas could be explained directly by an Indian authority.^[45][46][47]

The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Chinese Buddhist philosophy mentions geyi.

Dao’an (AD 312–85) criticized the Prajñā schools, challenging their faithfulness to authentic Buddhist positions as well as the translation methodologies behind the texts they and other Chinese Buddhists had come to rely on. In particular, he criticized the practice of ‘matching the meanings’ (geyi), by which translators seeking Chinese equivalents for Indian Buddhist technical terms and concepts borrowed heavily from Daoist literature. This ‘matching of meanings’ was a mixed blessing. Packaging Buddhist ideas in familiar terms made them amenable and understandable, but the ‘matches’ were often less than perfect, distorting or misrepresenting Buddhism. For instance, early translators chose a well-known Daoist and Confucian term, wuwei (nondeliberative activity), to translate nirvāṇa. Arguably, wuwei and nirvāṇa represent the teloi of Daoism and Buddhism, respectively, but it is not obvious that they denote the same telos.^[48]

Not only English reference works, but also Chinese and Japanese ones give similarly erroneous geyi definitions. For instance, the popular Chinese dictionaryCihai:^[49]

A method for explaining Buddhist sutras during the Wei-Jin period. At that time, when Buddhist sutras had only recently been transmitted to China, in order to make it easier to propagate them, some Buddhist scholars invariably used indigenous concepts and vocabulary from Chinese philosophy (chiefly Lao-Zhuang philosophy) to carry out strained comparisons and explanations. They believed that they could thereby ‘measure’ the texts of the sutras and clarify the principles in them, hence the name [geyi].^[50]

A pesar de todos estos ejemplos empíricamente falsos de explicación del geyi , existen algunos contraejemplos notables. El sinólogo neerlandés Erik Zürcher define el geyi como «la dilucidación de términos budistas, especialmente categorías numéricas ( shu ), con la ayuda de nociones extraídas de la filosofía tradicional china». ^{[ 51 ]} Robert Sharf, profesor de estudios budistas , expresa escepticismo sobre si el geyi fue un fenómeno significativo en la historia del budismo chino.

Las deficiencias de estos primeros escritos budistas chinos se consideran resultado del ko-i (格義), o «coincidencia de conceptos», una práctica espuria que supuestamente implicaba el uso de terminología china nativa, extraída principalmente de los clásicos taoístas, para expresar conceptos budistas. … Para el estudioso interesado en la cuestión más amplia de la sinización, el ko-i es una distracción. La práctica de dilucidar conceptos budistas indios estableciendo paralelismos con sistemas de pensamiento nativos fue omnipresente a lo largo de la historia del budismo en China; de hecho, ¿cómo se podía comprender el budismo sin recurrir a lo familiar? ^{[ 52 ]}

La Enciclopedia Macmillan del Budismo , ^{[ 53 ]} que no incluye un artículo sobre geyi , lo describe en el artículo sobre "China": "Un ejemplo es el supuesto método de 'coincidencia de significado' ( geyi ), que implicaba emparejar términos budistas clave con expresiones chinas derivadas principalmente de fuentes taoístas". La entrada de Charles Muller en el Diccionario Digital del Budismo sobre geyi cita el artículo de Mair "¿Qué es Geyi , después de todo?". ^{[ 54 ]}

Las obras de referencia modernas suelen definir este término como algo así como "coincidencia de significados", para describir una estrategia de traducción que se supone se utilizó durante el período más temprano de la traducción de textos budistas indios al chino, donde términos indios como śūnyatā se tradujeron al chino con conceptos comparables como wu 無, con resultados mixtos en términos de precisión. Victor Mair, al investigar los fundamentos de esta teoría, la ha encontrado completamente sin apoyo, explicando que "podemos concluir que geyi ... no era una técnica de traducción en absoluto, sino un método exegético, y que de ninguna manera se limitaba exclusivamente a recurrir a textos taoístas para sus comparaciones no budistas (es decir, no indias, no índicas).

Los estudiosos interpretan versiones débiles y fuertes (o yinshen引伸, "extendidas") del geyi -ismo. Las interpretaciones más débiles (por ejemplo, Arthur F. Wright) tratan históricamente el geyi, "la correspondencia de conceptos", como un método budista efímero de traducción china que se abandonó en el siglo IV. Las interpretaciones más fuertes (por ejemplo, " el budismo geyi ") tratan ahistóricamente el pseudo- geyi como un método universal de filosofía intercultural . Por ejemplo, Chin Yinke afirma que el geyi era un componente histórico esencial de la filosofía china, y Whalen Lai sugiere que "toda comprensión humana es geyi ". El erudito japonés Takatoshi Itō confunde la erudición del pseudo- geyi con el daoli道理filosófico, "principio, verdad, razón".

Por mi parte, básicamente deseo adoptar la interpretación de geyi propuesta por Chen Yinke y otros investigadores chinos. Además, caracterizo el pensamiento autóctono de China que desempeñó un papel tan decisivo, especialmente en el budismo basado en geyi , a saber, el pensamiento Lao-Zhuang, como la "filosofía del dao-li ", y defino geyi como la comprensión e interpretación del budismo sobre la base de esta filosofía del dao-li . Me refiero a todas las formas de budismo basadas en esta comprensión condicionada por geyi como budismo basado en geyi . ^{[ 55 ]}

Dos ejemplos finales son el método fanxiang geyi反向格義 "interpretación analógica inversa" que emplea ideas filosóficas occidentales para interpretar la filosofía china antigua, ^{[ 56 ]} y el " geyi nestoriano " que provocó que los misioneros de la Iglesia del Oriente en China fracasaran en su intento de convertir a los chinos al cristianismo. ^{[ 57 ]}

Las diversas ideas erróneas del siglo XX sobre la supuesta correspondencia de significados o conceptos mediante el método geyi se basan en ignorar la evidencia histórica y lingüística china. Solo unos pocos eruditos de la dinastía Jin oriental experimentaron sin éxito con el método geyi para explicar listas terminológicas budistas antes de que fuera abandonado; el componente ge no significa "correspondencia".

Pseudo-geyi speculations have resulted in widespread misunderstanding about the histories of Daoism and Chinese Buddhism. Geyi did not originate from Wei-Jin Xuanxue "Mysterious Study" Neo-Daoism studies of Prajnaparamita "Perfection of Wisdom" sutras, and it was not a basic principle of early Buddho-Daoist interactions.

Mair explains that while many "geyi enthusiasts" assert that when Buddhism arrived in China during the Eastern Han period, "it turned to Daoism for its technical terminology and other religious attributes, what actually transpired is more nearly just the opposite."^[58] When Buddhist missionaries came to China via the Silk Road (circa the 1st and 2nd century CE), they introduced a mature religion with a sophisticated system of thought, numerous scriptures, and complex institutions. At that very same time, religious Daoism was beginning to take shape with Way of the Five Pecks of Rice (starting in 142) and Tianshi "Celestial Masters" (late 2nd century). In other words, "Daoism as a formal, organised religion with a body of texts, monastic rules and institutions, nascent iconography and set of ritualised practice was to a large extent a response to the advent of Buddhism."^[59]

It is important to recognize that the geyi method compared numerical lists of Buddhist and non-Buddhist terms for purposes of explanation, and not Buddhist and Daoist terms for purposes of translation. Mair concludes that geyi "lasted for but a brief moment in the history of Buddhism, and was almost totally unknown outside of the handful of its practitioners. In a comprehensive, detailed history of the development of early Chinese Buddhism, geyi deserves to be mentioned, but not as the centerpiece that modern scholarship has made of it."^[60]

Variations among English translations of Chinese geyi reveal the scholarly difficulties in understanding it. Compare:

• "the method (or scheme of) matching ideas (or terms)" or "the equation of ideas"^[23]
• "method of analogy" (lit., 'extending the idea')"^[61]
• "matching meanings"^[62][63]
• "match meanings"^[64]
• "matching of terms" or "invoking the meaning"^[65]
• "matching concepts"^[66][67]
• "method of matching the meaning"^[68]
• "concept-matching" or "match Buddhist and Taoist concepts"^[69]
• "investigating the Doctrine", "investigating the meaning", or "matching the categories"^[70]
• "matching the meaning"^[71]
• "matching the meanings"^[45][48]

• Chan, Wing-tsit, ed. (1963). A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy. Translated by Chan Wing-tsit. Princeton University Press.
• Ch'en, Kenneth K.S. (1964). Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey. Princeton University Press.
• DeFrancis, John, ed. (2003). ABC Chinese-English Comprehensive Dictionary. University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 9780824827663.
• Fung, Yu-lan (1953). A History of Chinese Philosophy, vol. II: The Period of Classical Learning (from the Second Century B.C. to the Twentieth Century AD). Translated by Derk Bodde. Princeton University Press.
• Hsiao, Kung-chuan (1979). A History of Chinese Political Thought, Vol. I: From the Beginnings to the Sixth Century AD. Translated by F.W. Mote. Princeton University Press.
• Hurvitz, Leon N.; Link, Arthur E. (1974). "Three Prajñāpāramitā Prefaces of Tao-an". Mélanges de Sinologie offerts à Monsieur Paul Demiéville II. Bibliothèque de l’Institut des Hautes Études Chinoises, vol. XX. Presses Universitaires de France. pp. 403–70.
• Lai, Whalen (1979). "Limits and Failure of ko-i (Concept-Matching) Buddhism". History of Religions. 18 (3): 238–257. doi:10.1086/462818. S2CID 170134013.
• Link, Arthur E. (1957). "Shyh Daw-an's Preface to Sangharaksa's Yogacarabhumi-sutra and the Problem of Buddho-Taoist Terminology in Early Chinese Buddhism". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 77: 1–14. doi:10.2307/594870. JSTOR 594870.
• Mair, Victor H. (2010). "What is Geyi, After All?". In Alan K.L. Chan; Yuet-Keung Lo (eds.). Philosophy and Religion in Early Medieval China. SUNY Press. pp. 227–264. ISBN 9781438431895. Also available in M., V.H. (2012). "What is Geyi, After All?". China Report. 48 (1–2): 29–59. doi:10.1177/000944551104800203. S2CID 143043142.
• Tsukamoto Zenryū 塚本善隆 (1942), Shina Bukkyō shi kenkyū 支那佛教史研究, 3 vols., Kyobundō.
• Tsukamoto, Zenryu (1985). A History of Early Chinese Buddhism: From its Introduction to the Death of Hui-yüan. (2 vols.). Translated by Leon Hurvitz. Tokyo - New York City - San Francisco: Kodansha International. Originally published in Japanese as Chū goku Bukkyō tsūshi, Shunjusha, 1979.
• Wright, Arthur F. (1959). Buddhism in Chinese History. Stanford University Press.

Footnotes