For decades, the study of medieval Chinese intellectual and religious history has been enriched by exploring the dynamic and often contentious relationships between Buddhism and Daoism. Yet the specific mechanisms of their interaction within the highest echelons of political power have seldom received the focused, book-length treatment they deserve. Friederike Assandri’s Inter-Religious Court Debates in the Early Tang Dynasty represents the most recent major endeavour to fill this gap, providing the first in-depth study and English translation of nine formal debates held at the Tang court between 625 and 663 ce, as recorded by Daoxuan 道宣 in his Ji Gujin Fo Dao Lunheng 集古今佛道論衡 (T. 2104). By deftly combining close textual analysis of the translated debates with rigorous examination of historical records, this book joins a critical scholarship of meticulous textual reading of the debates between Buddhism and Daoism exemplified by works such as Livia Kohn’s Laughing at the Dao (1995), a foundational study of the Xiaodao Lun 笑道論 (T. 2103). As Buddhist apologetic literature, these reports are valuable not only for their content but also for what they reveal about how debates were framed and memorialized for polemical purposes, a subjective dimension that Assandri handles with careful scholarly nuance.

As an intellectual historian with deep knowledge of both Buddhism and Daoism, Assandri presents a holistic perspective on the intellectual culture that encompassed both traditions. Her central thesis is that these court debates were far more than simple theological exercises. On the one hand, they could be highly formal affairs with the potential to affect not only the fate of the religious communities involved but also the religious policy of the entire reign. Given these high stakes, they often carried serious consequences for the loser, including forced conversion or fatal punishment (pp. 46–50). On the other hand, they could also be casual, serving as a performative tool of celebration for the emperor’s birthday (pp. 50–54). While the book’s focus is the debates themselves, Assandri skilfully contextualizes them within a broader tradition of public debate. Particularly noteworthy is her exploration of debate practices across different Buddhist traditions (in China, Japan, Korea, and India), which opens a valuable new path for comparative analysis.

The book is structured to guide readers from the broad historical and political context to the fine rhetorical and conceptual details of the debates themselves. The first chapter sets the scene by describing the basic set-up, proceedings, and the roles of discussants and the emperor, as well as the scope of court debates. Chapter 2 zooms in on Ji Gujin Fo Dao Lunheng as the key source text, introducing its nature and basic content. Chapter 3, which is particularly insightful, traces the practices and cultures of debate in ancient and medieval China. By associating the Tang court debates with their predecessors (jiangjing 講經) in the Han Dynasty and the Pure Talk (qingtan 清談) of the Northern and Southern Dynasties, Assandri demonstrates that the court debate was not a product of Buddhist or Daoist influence alone, but belonged to a long indigenous tradition of public disputation. Furthermore, the chapter adopts a transregional perspective, showing how the Tang debates drew on earlier Indian traditions and, in turn, offer a compelling comparison with similar practices in Japan and Korea. Chapter 4 provides a detailed overview of the development and interaction between Buddhism and Daoism from the Han to the Tang, laying the groundwork for the court debates and explaining why certain matters became subjects of dispute. Chapters 5 and 6 turn the focus to the historical actors engaged in the court debates. Chapter 5 offers essential background on the emperors during whose reigns the nine debates took place, concentrating on their religious policies, legitimation strategies, and their triangulated relations with both Buddhists and Daoists. Chapter 6 provides a biographical account of each debater involved. By tracing their intellectual genealogies, institutional affiliations, and years of activity, Assandri successfully presents a vivid map of interactions between these Daoists and Buddhists, revealing an intellectual community that formed around the Tang capital and its neighbouring regions. This prosopographical foundation proves equally helpful when consulting the annotated translations of the debates themselves, which Assandri provides in the final chapter.

If the book has a limitation, it is one inherent in its subject matter: the focus remains, by necessity, on the intellectual exchange at court level. As Assandri notes on multiple occasions, what the debaters represented or defended was never simply their own personal fame or rhetorical skill, but their respective religious community as a whole (p. 50). This observation invites further inquiry: to what extent did these debates influence the teachings of the monasteries to which these Buddhists and Daoists returned? Selected to participate, these figures were not only representatives on whom their monasteries placed high hopes, but upon returning, they may also have carried with them a renewed understanding forged in the crucible of court disputation. For example, Jingtai 靜泰, who successfully defeated the Daoist Li Rong in a court debate and was subsequently invited by the emperor to serve as an official, presents a compelling case. His dual identity as a Buddhist scholar and his residence at the Jingai Monastery 敬愛寺, one of the largest and most influential monasteries in Luoyang, spark curiosity about the wider circulation of debate culture and its impact. Exploring such networks could further illuminate the broader intellectual community of the Chang’an and Luoyang regions.

This minor point, however, does not detract from the book’s considerable achievement. Inter-Religious Court Debates in the Early Tang Dynasty will undoubtedly take its place among the critical works on the debates between Buddhism and Daoism in medieval China, while also contributing to the growing academic interest in the intellectual communities and connections within the capital cities. The book provides a solid basis for renewed scholarly conversation and opens an untrodden path for the comparative study of debate practices across China, Japan, Korea, and India.