關於創意理念的產生，有一種觀點是，原本就富有創意的思想者，發想出明顯富有創意的理念。與此相反，社會學家蘭德爾．科林斯提出，創新思維是在特定的社會狀況中，在有利於產生創意的智識網絡中被共同創造的。本文應用科林斯的智識創造理論，解釋為什麼太虛大師於一九六○年代被認為是無原創性的，但數十年之後卻被認為是最重要的佛教思想者之一。本文首先提出清末的政治危機，顛覆了包括佛教思想者在內的中國智識分子的組織基礎，重塑了知識網絡的聯繫，這種新的聯繫讓創造力更有可能生發。接著，本文演示太虛大師在中國二十世紀初期的多個交互聯繫的智識網絡中處於中心的位置，因此讓他在重組的動態智識網絡中能學習新知，參與辯論，成就了他的創意。通過與他同時代人的橫向網絡，以及與他的弟子及他們的弟子的垂直網絡，太虛大師的理念在這些網絡的智識辯論過程中被賦予了舉足輕重的意義。應用科林斯的小數法則，本文描繪了擁擠的關注空間和二十世紀初佛教思想者相對微弱的地位，產生了太虛大師融合的創意。本文接著展示太虛大師做為一位創造型思想者的定位，是如何由因為共產黨在內戰中獲勝而遷移到臺灣的佛教思想者所構建的。本文也探討了在臺灣重整而密集的佛教智識網絡中，由於聖嚴法師處於中心位置，成就了他的創意。而聖嚴法師思辨太虛大師及印順法師的理念所產生的智識關注空間，也是太虛大師在早期的評斷數十年後，被認可為富有創意的思想者的增上緣。最後，本文分析臺灣佛教思想界的網絡結構，探討聖嚴法師繼續被認可為富有創意的思想者的前景，以及體制條件要如何形塑，方能讓其思想在未來的智識網絡中能繼續流通。

Contrary to the belief that some thinkers are inherently creative who come up with self-evidently creative ideas, sociologist Randall Collins argues that creative ideas are co-created in intellectual networks that become more conducive to creativity under certain social conditions. Using Collins’s theory of intellectual creativity, I explain why Master Taixu was deemed unoriginal in the 1960s but is regarded as one of the most important Buddhist thinkers decades later. First, I explain how political crises in late Qing shook up the organizational bases of Chinese intellectuals including that of Buddhist thinkers, resulting in the realignment of intellectual networks conducive to higher degree of creativity. Then, I demonstrate how Master Taixu’s central position in overlapping intellectual networks in early 20th century China allowed him to be creative through exposure to and debates with thinkers in dynamic intellectual networks formed as organizational bases shifted. The horizontal ties with his contemporaries and vertical ties with his students and their students rendered his ideas significant through the process of intellectual debates among themselves. Using Collins’s law of small numbers, I illustrate how the crowded attention space and the weak position occupied by Buddhist thinkers in early 20th century China resulted in Master Taixu’s creativity of amalgamation. I then show how the social construction of Master Taixu as a creative thinker was facilitated by the communist takeover in China that brought Buddhist thinkers to Taiwan. I examine how the realigned and dense Buddhist intellectual networks in which Master Sheng Yen occupied a central location in turn made it possible for him to be creative. As Master Sheng Yen built his reputation in the emergent intellectual attention space by debating with Master Taixu and Master Yinshun, Master Taixu’s ideas also gained significance, contributing to the recognition of Master Taixu as a creative thinker decades after the initial assessment. Lastly, I assess the future of Master Sheng Yen as a creative thinker in light of the network structure of Buddhist thinkers in Taiwan and the institutional conditions that can be cultivated to facilitate the continued circulation of Master Sheng Yen’s ideas in future intellectual networks.