ABSTRACT
Modern scholars wield a surprisingly short supply of conceptual tools when they come to study the relationships between early medieval Daoism and Buddhism. So far, the task has primarily been conceived to be the uncovering of ‘Buddhist borrowings’ or ‘Buddhist influence’ in Daoist scriptures. For such work, little more than a sharp spade is needed. I have elsewhere criticised our lack of interpretive imagination, suggesting that the term ‘influence’ itself can be held responsible for narrowing our view of what is in fact a rich and fascinating period of religious ferment and cross-fertilisation.1
I will not repeat any of that argument here. Instead, inspired by the scholarly courage Professor Liu Ts’un-yan has shown over his long scholarly career, I would like to offer for consideration a few additional tools, drawn promiscuously from the disciplines of anthropology and literary studies.
