The phrase “geyi,” first found in The Memoirs of Eminent Monks of the Liang Dynasty, is literally referred to as “categorizing concepts”. The quotation reads “(Zhu Fa) ya, with Kang Falang and others, correlated the enumerations of items (shishu事數) in the sutras with non-Buddhist writings as instances of lively explication; this was called “categorizing concepts” (geyi).” (Mair, 2011, p. 231) However, as a method of translating Buddhist sutras, geyi is ever evolving. It is not as it is understood by most scholars, that is, “translators use Taoist terms to translate Buddhist scriptures during Wei-Jin and the Northern and Southern Dynasties.” Moreover, such translation norms did not even died out after the death of Kumarajiva. In the history of Chinese Buddhist translation, the evolution of the geyi translation method is found to function in almost the same way as Toury’s and Chesterman’s theory of translation norms. Toury’s translation norms are comprised of three categories, namely, initial norms, preliminary norms, and operational norms. Initial norms have much to do with the cultural background of a particular period. Preliminary norms are macro factors that constrain the choice of texts and the directness of translation even before the work of translation begun. Operational norms are micro factors that include matrix norms and textual-linguistic norms. Chesterman felt Toury’s theory to be incomplete, and therefore, added a fourth category: professional norms, as well as the expectancy norms that may trigger a change in the norm. Both Toury and Chesterman believed that norms are ever changing and constantly competing with each other. Therefore, with the help of the theory of translation norms, this paper aims to explore how the geyi translation approach evolved in the four stages, and to clarify other misconceptions regarding geyi translation norms.