| 英文摘要 |
This article is a study on Hong Kong Buddhism’s evolution of political expression during 2000~2020, regarding Chinese nationalism. Several symbolic events with certain implication of political identity respectively from these two decades, are put under further analysis. For the 2000s, the cases of“Tong style”discourse of wooden monastic architecture, silenize a local Eurasian artist’s contribution on Buddha statue, Buddha’s birthday as a public holiday, and Buddhist group’s legislative lobbying for the criminal bill against folk religion are picked up to indicate that the local monks disregard they regularly attend the official occasion, they carefully avoid be associated with far radical nationalism, to maintain a visible distance from the political viewpoint rarely admitted by the mainstream Hong Kong population. Yet, for 2010s, due to Beijing’s“Belt and Road”Initiative, Buddhism in P.R. China has a new political role in the state’s Southeast Asia strategy. Due to“Hong Kong, China”has her unique locus in the geopolitics between China and Southeast Asia, Buddhism of the city also assigned her task of Buddhist diplomacy, to participate in the overseas development of so-called China’s“religion territories”. Under this new circumstance, Hong Kong Buddhism is expected to uphold a more affirmative nationalist standpoint than usual. This standpoint shifts from“give way”to“come out”is actualized by a new term of monastic leadership assignment in Hong Kong. The monastic elites with China background but received decades of academic training in different countries. From Beijing’s perspective, their political reliability, religious and academic profession are able to ensure that the Buddhist diplomacy affiliated with the“Belt and Road”Initiative can be counted on, rather than the poorly educated and religious misbehaving local monastic leaders. Under this ideological context, Buddhism, as a“mainstream”religion of local Chinese, had gone through years of discrimination during the British colonial period, is emphasized by the authority and Buddhist circle, especially among the pro-Beijing monastic community. The claim is said to be proved by several other“evidences”such as Chinese Temple Ordinance and etc, but sincere studies on those cases find it is groundless and not correspond with the history. |