This edited volume examines the relationship between the Buddhist saṃgha and the Chinese state from the early Tang dynasty up to the Qing dynasty. Chapters provide detailed examination of texts – considering issues of genre, audience and underlying motives – and statistics to challenge previous assumptions or discuss unexplored dimensions of the saṃgha–state relationship. The strength of the volume is the rigour and detail with which contributors approach their particular subjects, and readers will find ample discussion of issues surrounding the dating of texts, historical veracity of accounts, reliability of data, etc.

Thomas Jülch's examination of the Buddhist apologetic writing of Falin 法琳 (572–640) provides a useful taxonomy of the apologetic claims that appear in his two juan Poxie lun 破邪論 (T 2109) and eight juan Bianzheng lun 辨正論 (T. 2110), whose length far exceeds earlier treatises that were rarely more than one juan. Jülch identifies three objectives of Falin's apologetic strategy: presenting Buddhism as complementary to Confucianism as a means of stabilizing and religiously legitimizing one's rule; claiming superiority of Buddhism over Confucianism in its sanctity; and claiming superiority of Buddhism over Daoism in its honesty and uprightness.

Max Deeg discusses how Xuanzang 玄奘 (600 or 602–664) seeks to exert political and moral influence over the emperor Taizong through royal stories about rulers and their behaviour in the Xiyu ji 西域記 (“Record of the Western Regions”; T 2087). Arguing that such stories should be read and interpreted in their Chinese historical context, he argues that Xuanzang's depiction of the king Harsavardhana Śīlāditya as an ideal Buddhist ruler who reluctantly ascended to the throne seeks to remind Taizong of the morally upright behaviour of an ideal ruler and the appropriate stance towards imperial succession, rather than solely viewing the story as an inaccurate representation of the Indian king. In this way Deeg urges scholars to attend to the different layers and interpretive possibilities of the Xiyu ji.

Chen Jinhua sheds light on the Buddhist monk Huifan's 惠範 (?–713) role in political and economic activities between 704 and 713. Guiding the reader through sources that often raise more questions than answers, and noting the discrepancy between his scant depiction in Buddhist sources as compared to his ample documentation in secular sources, Chen discusses how the secular and monastic sources may have used each other. He also provides a preliminary reconstruction of Huifan's life, including his power and influence under the reigns of Zhongzong and Ruizong, his appointment as concurrent abbot of three major cosmopolitan monasteries, and his political manoeuvring that eventually led to his impeachment.

Albert Welter considers the politics of Buddhist accommodation at the Song court, challenging the tendency to reduce debate to pro- and anti-Buddhist polemics and instead proposing a typology that encompasses a broad range of intellectual positions. He explores Buddhist literati-monk Zanning's (919–1001) Topical Compendium of the Buddhist Clergy Compiled in the Great Song Dynasty (Da Song seng shi l üe 大宋僧史略) written at the request of emperor Taizong (r. 976–997), where Zanning argues that Buddhism enhances rather than conflicts with Chinese values, specifically instrumental Buddhist participation in the essential ritual memorial functions of the Chinese state. He argues that Zanning's rationale enables Buddhism to become successfully embedded in Chinese bureaucratic structures and thereby prevent future conflict.

Christopher Atwood argues that Buddhist institutional behaviour adapted according to different Chinese dynastic or geographic contexts. Drawing on Fredrik Barth's idea of ethnic ecology and Rodney Stark's notion of religious marketplace, Atwood notes that during the Mongol Yuan dynasty, Buddhists were understood as one of four clerical bodies – alongside Christian, Daoist and Muslim clergies – expected to offer prayers to Heaven for the khan's longevity. He examines legal texts that show how Mongol religious policy was a topic of debate rather than settled policy.

Zhang Dewei presents a study of Miaofeng Fudeng 妙峰福登 (1540–1612) that challenges the view of late Ming patronage resulting in negative or debilitating effects on the saṃgha. He shows how Fudeng was not only a Buddhist master but an architect. In addition to rebuilding and renovating more than ten Buddhist monasteries, he also designed bridges and fundraised to enable their construction, which benefitted a great number of ordinary people in Shanxi and Shaanxi struggling in the wake of the Jiajing earthquake (1556/1/23). Zhang suggests that Fudeng's involvement in local civilian and military architectural projects allowed him to maintain independence from the imperial court and ultimately be granted the title “the Genuine Son of Buddha” by the emperor before his death.

Barend ter Haar argues that the Qing state had more limited institutional control than previously assumed. Acknowledging uncertainty surrounding the size and geographical distribution of the Buddhist saṃgha in the late Ming and Qing periods and the speculative nature of such quantitative analysis, ter Haar suggests that figures from 1667 and the 1730s severely undercount the population of Buddhist monks and nuns. He maintains that a large part of the Buddhist saṃgha remained out of state control, and were not in contact with the state unless they were involved in legal disputes or rebellions. He demonstrates how the supervisory bureaucracy had limited efficacy in enforcing the rules imposed on the saṃgha by the Qing state, as Buddhist monks infringed age requirements and marriage restrictions.

The main drawback is the lack of a conclusion that puts the chapters into conversation with each other and provides the reader with a sense of how, together, the papers contribute to a broader understanding of the relationship between the saṃgha and the state, although admittedly such a synthesis would be challenging given its complexity and variability. However, contributors do put themselves in dialogue with other scholars of Buddhism and politics, challenging previous paradigms or connecting their studies with larger projects, thereby making useful contributions to this field of scholarship.