倘若韋伯《新教倫理》在理解上所引發的爭議，至今餘波盪漾，吾人或許可以說他的《儒教與道教》從一開始就形成一種更為誘人的陷阱，容易使人認為作者具有西方中心主義的心態。這尤其顯現在韋伯對於中國佛教的詮釋問題上：他通常被視為不重視或者對佛教在中國的情況一無所知――更何況吾人以往相信韋伯對於中國佛教的實質討論，僅限於《儒教與道教》一書極為有限的篇幅。如同本研究將要顯示的，韋伯處理佛教的手法，其實比過去吾人所認為的還要細膩許多。特別是在他從「非專家」的角度來看，分辨大乘與中國佛教之間差別有其必要――這卻是韋伯研究者很少察覺到的一點。他的佛教觀將有助於提醒我們在中國佛教史研究裡，一個過去較為隱晦的面向。另一方面，某些批評為何對韋伯這樣的詮釋視而不見呢？本研究試圖從他的方法論、作品脈絡以及他的讀者的文化認同三個角度，來闡明西方中心主義這個標籤在評價韋伯作品時所帶來可觀的負面影響。

If the controversy sparked by Weber’s Protestant Ethics is still lingering, we may say that his Confucianism and Taoism formed a more enticing trap from the beginning, and it is easy to make us think that the author has a Eurocentric mentality. This is especially evident in Weber’s interpretation of Chinese Buddhism: he is often seen as not paying attention to or knowing anything about Buddhism in China, not to mention that most people used to believe that Weber’s substantial discussion about Chinese Buddhism was extremely limited to Confucianism and Taoism. As this study will show, Weber’s approach to Buddhism is in fact much more delicate than what we thought in the past. Especially in his “non-expert” perspective, it is necessary to distinguish the difference between Mahayana and Chinese Buddhism. This is something that those who study Weber’s work rarely notice. His view of Buddhism will help remind us of a more obscure aspect in the past in the study of Chinese Buddhist history. On the other hand, why are some criticisms blind to Weber’s interpretation? this study attempts to illuminate the considerable negative impact of the label of Eurocentrism in evaluating Weber’s work from three perspectives: Weber’s methodology, context of his work, and cultural identity of his readers.