社會學的演進一開始曾與歷史學這門學科有所關連。不論是馬克思、涂爾幹還是韋伯，他們的研究全都與一種歷史旨趣分不開來。隨著社會學開始帶有一種實證主義色彩之後，它力求表達出一種客觀性，類似於自然科學的客觀性；這種科學與一種特殊性――而非普遍性――理解從此毫無關連。這樣的情形自一九七○年代末期起有了顯著的變化――當一些受到古典教誨的學者，著重強調社會學研究的歷史面向之時。在臺灣的例子裡，在眾多思想家當中，韋伯的作品毫無疑問在這點上具有一種巨大的影響力，並且使社會學界得以發展出一種歷史社會學。不過，要如何妥善地調解社會學與歷史學，這將構成一項不可忽視的挑戰。理由是，此種新的社會學並不滿足於將某些關鍵概念填入更多的歷史材料而已。另一方面，韋伯處理（特別是中國的）佛教的方式，吸引了一位歷史學家――他同時是《印度教與佛教》的譯者之一――的注意力。正是在這個問題的解答上，他暗示了一種可能性，即史家的關懷可以形塑出一種社會學問題――只要存在著一種共同
的、易於被社會學家暨歷史學家所理解的提問。

Developments known by sociology relates in his debut discipline history. Whatever Marx, Durkheim and Weber, their works are all inseparable from an historical interest. As and when it has a tinge of positivism, the sociology strives to be translated into objectivity, compared to that of natural sciences which have nothing from now on to do with an understanding of character singular but general. The situation has changed
considerably since the late ’70s, when some of the scholars begin to
emphasize the historical dimension of sociological research, by drawing
ours inspiration on classical lessons. In the case of Taiwan, without doubt,among the master-thinkers, Weber’s work carries on this great influence and allows the sociologist community to develop a historical sociology. But how to reconcile appropriately the sociology with the history will be a significant challenge. For this new sociology is not content to complement the key concepts by more historical materials. On the other hand, how Weber deals the Buddhism in particular in China attracted the attention of a historian who is also one of the translators of Hinduismus und Buddhismus. It is on the solution of this question that this historian suggests a possibility that the concern historian is able to bring up a sociological problematic, provided there is a problem common and accessible both to the sociologist than historian.